AeroElectric-Archive.digest.vol-mp
November 23, 2014 - December 24, 2014
assuming the radio (normal current 500mA or less - only 3A on tx), txpdr
& smoke pump are switch separately. 600mA should be tolerable for just
about any switch, and even 8 or 10A occasionally for any reasonable
quality switch.
Wobble pumps seem popular, but to my mind are only useful for starting.
A friend with a Laser ended up in a field when his mech pump failed and
he couldn't wobble enough to keep airborne. An electric pump will at
least get you home.
Peter
On 23/11/2014 09:01, Ryan wrote:
> Thanks Bob,
>
> The whole system is reasonably low load although I do have an EFIS and
> engine sensors (approx. 600mA total), Trig radio (approx. 3.2A) and
> transponder (approx. 1.5A), these are the only things running
> continuously. Also have starter and smoke pump (approx. 3-4A
> for 8-10min max), no electric fuel pump (wobble only), 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, you COULD use a battery master relay that did not
> carry starter current while locating the external
> starter contactor adjacent to the battery too."
> This is how I was likely to do the wiring, I could just go for a
> reasonably low current relay as a master contactor in this situation
> given my relatively low overall requirement.
>
> No MOV's then but will use starter contactor with diode close to battery?
>
> Cheers,
>
> Ryan
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Date: Tue, 18 Nov 2014 14:31:58 -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.
> *
>
> *
>
> *
> 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 . . .
> *
>
> ==========
> _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
> ==========
>
> *
> *
>
>
> *
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: EMC lab look-see on HID lamps |
At 11:39 AM 11/22/2014, you wrote:
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.
Landing lights, in every era of aviation, have
significant influence on issues of POWER (breaker,
switch and wire sizing) but very little influence
on ENERGY (alternator, battery sizing).
They're an intermittent load really useful for
mere seconds of every flight cycle. Have you
done a load analysis on your project?
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.
MOST of the HID after-market targets were
focused on down-the-road visibility,
not much interest in seeing around corners,
therefore, tightly beamed. A further thought
suggesets that very little light is needed to avoid
taxiing onto the grass . . . but even if the
'scatter' from your landing light is sufficient
to the task, the thing could make you unpopular
on the airport. We were taught at Mid Continent
to minimize the use of any lights on the GA
ramps and taxiways . . . having a bond-fide
retina-burner for a landing/taxi light could
draw some unkindly words from others out and
about in their airplanes after dark.
Is the Sportsman a tail dragger? Is the Duckworths
installation dual . . . one on each wing? You may
find that it's quite sufficient to leave one
side fitted with HID and replace the other side's
lamp with an LED flood for taxi.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: EMC lab look-see on HID lamps |
| From: | DeWitt Whittington <dee.whittington(at)gmail.com> |
Thanks for the comments, Bob. We have a tri-gear Sportsman and dual
just-inside-the-wingtips Duckworks HID lights. We have discussed the
possibility of installing a basic 100w halogen light in the cowl to use for
taxiing, but we were going to defer that decision until we test our
installation when we move to the airport from the 3-car garage where we are
building.
I'm sure you are right about current draw problems since we'll not be using
the HID lights when we have the pitot heat on which is our heaviest single
draw. And yes, we have done a basic load analysis which is what showed us
we were indeed loading the system to at least within 20% of the full 75amp
output of the alternator at times. We have dual Odyssey 680 batteries to
support our 3.6L Subaru. And we have the Vertical Power VP-200 system to
control most of our electrical system except the direct powering of the ECU
to the Subaru to make sure even with a total VP-200 failure the engine
would continue to operate.
Dee
DeWitt (Dee) Whittington
Richmond, VA
804-677-4849 iPhone
804-358-4333 Home
On Sun, Nov 23, 2014 at 11:07 AM, Robert L. Nuckolls, III <
nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> wrote:
> nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com>
>
>
> At 11:39 AM 11/22/2014, you wrote:
> 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.
>
> Landing lights, in every era of aviation, have
> significant influence on issues of POWER (breaker,
> switch and wire sizing) but very little influence
> on ENERGY (alternator, battery sizing).
>
> They're an intermittent load really useful for
> mere seconds of every flight cycle. Have you
> done a load analysis on your project?
>
>
> 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.
>
> MOST of the HID after-market targets were
> focused on down-the-road visibility,
> not much interest in seeing around corners,
> therefore, tightly beamed. A further thought
> suggesets that very little light is needed to avoid
> taxiing onto the grass . . . but even if the
> 'scatter' from your landing light is sufficient
> to the task, the thing could make you unpopular
> on the airport. We were taught at Mid Continent
> to minimize the use of any lights on the GA
> ramps and taxiways . . . having a bond-fide
> retina-burner for a landing/taxi light could
> draw some unkindly words from others out and
> about in their airplanes after dark.
>
> Is the Sportsman a tail dragger? Is the Duckworths
> installation dual . . . one on each wing? You may
> find that it's quite sufficient to leave one
> side fitted with HID and replace the other side's
> lamp with an LED flood for taxi.
>
> Bob . . .
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Joe Dubner <jdubner(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | Voltage regulator recommendation? |
I'm in the market for a new "Ford-type VR166" voltage regulator. My existing
one produces occasional "switching noise" that's audible in my intercom.
Worse yet, with the onset of cooler weather the charging voltage has been
creeping upward (15.0 volts after start settling down to 14.7 in a few minutes).
There are no adjustments so I'd like to replace it with one of proven quality.
Can anyone give me a first-hand recommendation for a voltage regulator that
they're happy with and doesn't cost an arm-and-a-leg? Not a "just Google VR166
regulator" or look on eBay please.
Thanks,
Joe
Independence, OR
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Matt Dralle <dralle(at)matronics.com> |
| Subject: | Just A Few Days Left... |
Dear Listers,
There are just a few days left for this year's List Fund Raiser. If you've been
putting off making a Contribution until the last minute, well, this is it!
The last minute, that is... :-) There are some GREAT new gift selections to choose
from this year. I personally want at least three of them! There's probably
something you can't live without too! And, best of all it supports your
Lists!
Please remember that there isn't any sort of commercial advertising on the Lists
and the *only* means of keeping these Lists running is through your Contributions
during this Fund Raiser. Let's make this a "Black Friday" for the Lists!
Please make a Contribution today!
http://www.matronics.com/contribution
Or, drop a personal check in the mail to:
Matt Dralle / Matronics
581 Jeannie Way
Livermore CA 94550
Thank you!
Matt Dralle
Matronics Email List Administrator
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: EMC lab look-see on HID lamps |
| From: | "Eric M. Jones" <emjones(at)charter.net> |
I built medical lighting systems for decades. These included halogens, HIDs, xenon
arcs, flashing xenon gas tubes, even flashing short-arcs, HP Sodiums and some
other esoteric systems such as mercury arc UV systems.
I am also a giant proponent of LEDs.
But I could easily make the case for HIDs being the premier light source as far
as optics go, because they have the highest source luminance of any possible
(okay, non-nuclear) light source. This is to say, they are very small and very
brilliant, which makes possible the design of optics sending the most light down
range most effectively.
So why doesn't the whole world use HIDs? Two reasons:
1) It's because they require power supplies (ballasts + starters) that are specifically
designed for them. These power supplies used to be relatively expensive,
but not so now. Although HIDs have remarkably long lifetimes (5000 hours is
typical), the power supplies have shorter lifetimes than that, especially if
they are abused.
2) They are still relatively new. We have seen small HIDs only since 1990.
Even though LEDs will be everywhere, we will still see HIDs where long searchlight
beams are required. Xenons will be a player too, mostly where color rendition
is critical and cost isn't.
My experience has never been that HIDs are noisy. The trick is to keep the electrodes
in thermionic emission (hot). A cool electrode makes a noisy lamp.
Since I sell wig-wags where people want to use them with HIDs, I offer the following
abbreviated advice:
--everything I know says not to wig-wag HID lamps because they will have shorter
lamp lifetimes. Everything that is an advantage of HID lamps disappears quickly
if one abuses them by, oh let's say 2500 restarts per hour! ... Furthermore,
switched mode power supplies and starters are particularly failure-prone when
abused. I can promise you that the manufacturer of the lamp-supply and starter
DO NOT warranty their devices to be used in this fashion.
But here is what it takes if you want to do it. Here are the basic issues with
HID lamps used with Perihelion Designs Wig-Wags:
1: The high-voltage ignition can feed back through the wiring and destroy solid-state
electronics. Everything might be okay, then on some rainy nightka-pow!
To prevent this I have added a bidirectional Zener, near the ballast. DO NOT put
it between the HV ignitor and the lamp. These parts are P6KE18CA (for 14V systems)
which I also sell as SnapJacks.
2: The sudden negative resistance of the lamp induces a large current, which if
it comes from the Wig-Wag, will destroy the device. A CL-21 Inrush current limiter
will prevent this for HID lamps up to 50 W. For larger HID lamps use CL-11.
The current limiters will get hot, as they are supposed to, and should be
placed where they dont get air-cooled.
So I still love LEDs, but if you really need to see the deer at the other end of
the runway, HIDs will do the job. If you want to wig-wag them, expect shorter
lamp lifetimes, and shorter ballast lifetimes.
ps: Bob, my last (175W) xenon short arc system was so EMC/RFI quiet that the test
technician could not tell if it was on or off unless he opened the test chamber
door and LOOKED to see if it had light coming out.
--------
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=434465#434465
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: EMC lab look-see on HID lamps |
>I'm sure you are right about current draw problems since we'll not
>be using the HID lights when we have the pitot heat on which is our
>heaviest single draw. And yes, we have done a basic load analysis
>which is what showed us we were indeed loading the system to at
>least within 20% of the full 75amp output of the alternator at times.
I'd like to see that analysis . . . Did
an analysis on a full-up IFR outfitted RV
some years back and came up with a 27A
max continuous load . . . it would be
enlightening to see your list of loads.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Voltage regulator recommendation? |
At 11:10 2014-11-23, you wrote:
I'm in the market for a new "Ford-type VR166" voltage regulator. My
existing one produces occasional "switching noise" that's audible in
my intercom.
Worse yet, with the onset of cooler weather the charging voltage has
been creeping upward (15.0 volts after start settling down to 14.7 in
a few minutes). There are no adjustments so I'd like to replace it
with one of proven quality.
Can anyone give me a first-hand recommendation for a voltage
regulator that they're happy with and doesn't cost an
arm-and-a-leg? Not a "just Google VR166
regulator" or look on eBay please.
You sound 'cautious' as to your selection
of devices. The modern incarnation of that
product line is 40+ years old and it seems
that everyone still making them should
have figured out how to do it.
The best recommendation anyone can make
is "I got an XXX by YYY and it's not
given me any trouble for ZZZ hours."
But I'm pretty sure that 99% of what's
offered out there would deliver to the
same observation.
Regulators are not critical for comfortable
continuation of flight, therefore, sampling
from the range of offerings is a low risk
experiment and the odds are very much in
your favor.
Go to a local auto parts store and get
one of their VR166 (or clone) . . . with
$20 price point. Here's a few of many
possibilities.
http://tinyurl.com/puzalge
http://tinyurl.com/l9jvymv
http://tinyurl.com/l9jvymv
The Wells VR749 and Motorcraft GR540
are alternative numbers to cross
reference.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Voltage regulator recommendation? |
| From: | "racerjerry" <gki(at)suffolk.lib.ny.us> |
Bob, would you happen to have any part numbers for an ADJUSTABLE voltage regulator
for use with 12 volt 60 A Ford type alternators? Thanks.
--------
Jerry King
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=434484#434484
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Voltage regulator recommendation? |
At 07:47 2014-11-24, you wrote:
>
>Bob, would you happen to have any part numbers for an ADJUSTABLE
>voltage regulator for use with 12 volt 60 A Ford type alternators? Thanks.
No, I've never seen one in the wild. Some
years ago, I explored the idea of adding
a trim pot to the board of an existing
design. I bonded a ten-turn pot to the
top surface of a the ECB aligned with
an access hole in the lid. Then added
some jumper wires and one resistor to
the assembly so that I could 'tug' on
the regulator's voltage sampling node.
Worked just fine. Took about 40 minutes
labor and $3 parts to install . . . didn't
seem like a marketable idea so I didn't
pursue it.
These regulators are consistent and
well within the 'satisfactory' operations
range of the svla battery. The notion of
being able to control it seems like adding
an adjustment to the tension spring on
a windshield wiper . . . intellectually
satisfying perhaps . . . but AutoZone
probably couldn't sell it.
B&C has an adjustable 'stone simple'
regulator for their PM alternators . . .
but we're finding that contemporary
off-the-shelf PM rectifier/regulators
have achieved the no-hassles/no-worries
stature of their cousins in the wound
field regulator world . . . that adjustment
is probably going to go away.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Matt Dralle <dralle(at)matronics.com> |
| Subject: | Fund Raiser Behind By 20% - Please Contribute Today! |
Dear Listers,
The percentage of members making a Contribution to support the Lists this year
is currently behind last year by at this time by roughly 20%. Please take this
opportunity to show your support for the Matronics Lists and Forums!
Please remember that it is *solely* your direct Contributions that keep these Lists
and Forums up and running and most importantly - AD FREE! If the members
don't want to support the Lists directly, then I might have to add advertisements
to offset the costs of running the Lists. But I don't want to have to do
that. I really like the non-commercial atmosphere here and I think that a lot
of the members appreciate that too.
Please take a moment to make a Contribution today in support of the continued ad-free
operation of all 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 send out a word of appreciation to all of the members that have already
made their generous Contribution to support the Lists! Thank you!
Matt Dralle
Email List and Forums Administrator
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Joe Dubner <jdubner(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Voltage regulator recommendation? |
Thanks for the links and part numbers, Bob. Yes, the auto parts stores are full
of them but I was trying to prevent a repeat of what happened with my first one.
I suppose I'll just gamble another $20 since the odds are 99:1 in my favor
unless someone can give a recommendation for "XXX by YYY".
--
Joe
Robert L. Nuckolls, III wrote, On 11/23/2014 18:46:
>
>
> At 11:10 2014-11-23, you wrote:
>
> I'm in the market for a new "Ford-type VR166" voltage regulator. My
> existing one produces occasional "switching noise" that's audible in my
> intercom.
> Worse yet, with the onset of cooler weather the charging voltage has
> been creeping upward (15.0 volts after start settling down to 14.7 in a
> few minutes). There are no adjustments so I'd like to replace it with
> one of proven quality.
>
> Can anyone give me a first-hand recommendation for a voltage regulator
> that they're happy with and doesn't cost an arm-and-a-leg? Not a "just
> Google VR166
> regulator" or look on eBay please.
>
> You sound 'cautious' as to your selection
> of devices. The modern incarnation of that
> product line is 40+ years old and it seems
> that everyone still making them should
> have figured out how to do it.
>
> The best recommendation anyone can make
> is "I got an XXX by YYY and it's not
> given me any trouble for ZZZ hours."
> But I'm pretty sure that 99% of what's
> offered out there would deliver to the
> same observation.
>
> Regulators are not critical for comfortable
> continuation of flight, therefore, sampling
> from the range of offerings is a low risk
> experiment and the odds are very much in
> your favor.
>
> Go to a local auto parts store and get
> one of their VR166 (or clone) . . . with
> $20 price point. Here's a few of many
> possibilities.
>
> http://tinyurl.com/puzalge
>
> http://tinyurl.com/l9jvymv
>
> http://tinyurl.com/l9jvymv
>
> The Wells VR749 and Motorcraft GR540
> are alternative numbers to cross
> reference.
>
>
>
>
> Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Jeff Luckey <jluckey(at)pacbell.net> |
| Subject: | Re: EMC lab look-see on HID lamps |
wow, "thermionic emission" - I like that!=0A=0ADoes it have anything to do
with tachyon fields or photon torpedoes? ;)=0A=0A-Jeff=0A=0Ado not archiv
e=0A=0A=0A=0AOn Sunday, November 23, 2014 11:24 AM, Eric M. Jones =0A=0AI built medical lighting systems f
or decades. These included halogens, HIDs, xenon arcs, flashing xenon gas t
ubes, even flashing short-arcs, HP Sodiums and some other esoteric systems
such as mercury arc UV systems. =0A=0AI am also a giant proponent of LEDs.
=0A=0ABut I could easily make the case for HIDs being the premier light sou
rce as far as optics go, because they have the highest source luminance of
any possible (okay, non-nuclear) light source. This is to say, they are ver
y small and very brilliant, which makes possible the design of optics sendi
ng the most light down range most effectively. =0A=0ASo why doesn't the who
le world use HIDs? Two reasons: =0A=0A1) It's because they require power su
pplies (ballasts + starters) that are specifically designed for them. These
power supplies used to be relatively expensive, but not so now. Although H
IDs have remarkably long lifetimes (5000 hours is typical), the power suppl
ies have shorter lifetimes than that, especially if they are abused.=0A=0A
2) They are still relatively new. We have seen small HIDs only since 1990.
=0A=0AEven though LEDs will be everywhere, we will still see HIDs where lon
g searchlight beams are required. Xenons will be a player too, mostly where
color rendition is critical and cost isn't.=0A=0AMy experience has never b
een that HIDs are noisy. The trick is to keep the electrodes in thermionic
emission (hot). A cool electrode makes a noisy lamp.=0A=0ASince I sell wig-
wags where people want to use them with HIDs, I offer the following abbrevi
ated advice:=0A=0A--everything I know says not to wig-wag HID lamps because
they will have shorter lamp lifetimes. Everything that is an advantage of
HID lamps disappears quickly if one abuses them by, oh let's say=C3=A2
=82=AC=C2 2500 restarts per hour! ... Furthermore, switched mode power s
upplies and starters are particularly failure-prone when abused. I can prom
ise you that the manufacturer of the lamp-supply and starter DO NOT warrant
y their devices to be used in this fashion. =0A=0ABut here is what it takes
if you want to do it. Here are the basic issues with HID lamps used with P
erihelion Design=C3=A2=82=AC=84=A2s Wig-Wags:=0A=0A1: The high-voltag
e ignition can feed back through the wiring and destroy solid-state electro
nics. Everything might be okay, then on some rainy night=C3=A2=82=AC=C2
ka-pow=C3=A2=82=AC=C2! To prevent this I have added a bidirectiona
l Zener, near the ballast. DO NOT put it between the HV ignitor and the lam
p. These parts are P6KE18CA (for 14V systems) which I also sell as SnapJack
s.=0A=0A2: The sudden negative resistance of the lamp induces a large curre
nt, which if it comes from the Wig-Wag, will destroy the device. A CL-21 In
rush current limiter will prevent this for HID lamps up to 50 W. For larger
HID lamps use CL-11. The current limiters will get hot, as they are suppos
ed to, and should be placed where they don=C3=A2=82=AC=84=A2t get air
-cooled.=0A=0ASo I still love LEDs, but if you really need to see the deer
at the other end of the runway, HIDs will do the job. If you want to wig-wa
g them, expect shorter lamp lifetimes, and shorter ballast lifetimes.=0A=0A
ps: Bob, my last (175W) xenon short arc system was so EMC/RFI quiet that th
e test technician could not tell if it was on or off unless he opened the t
est chamber door and LOOKED to see if it had light coming out.=0A=0A-------
-=0AEric M. Jones=0Awww.PerihelionDesign.com=0A113 Brentwood Drive=0ASouthb
ridge, MA 01550=0A(508) 764-2072=0Aemjones(at)charter.net=0A=0A=0A=0A=0ARea
d this topic online here:=0A=0Ahttp://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p
=========================0A
===========
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Henador Titzoff <henador_titzoff(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | Re: EMC lab look-see on HID lamps |
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: alternator / generator |
| From: | Richard Girard <aslsa.rng(at)gmail.com> |
Ken, I've been off the forum for a few weeks and just saw your request for
info on the Rotax alternator (dynamo). Can you quote chapter and verse of
the manual you are referencing?
One of my custormers has a 912 in a JA Highlander that was down for months
fixing a long list of defects found during the annual conditional
inspection and the battery started the engine just fine when we were done.
The 582 on my Kolb has the same basic alternator. I did a major rebuild on
the airplane and it was down for over 18 months. The engine started right
up when I took it out and that was with a five year old 18 AH SLA battery.
Rick Girard
On Wed, Nov 12, 2014 at 12:47 PM, Ken Ryan wrote:
> 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 . . .
>>
>
>
--
Believe those who are seeking the truth, doubt those who find it.
-Andre Gide
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Ken Ryan <keninalaska(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: alternator / generator |
Rick, It's the wiring diagram from the Installation Manual for the 914.
On Mon, Nov 24, 2014 at 7:08 PM, Richard Girard wrote:
> Ken, I've been off the forum for a few weeks and just saw your request for
> info on the Rotax alternator (dynamo). Can you quote chapter and verse of
> the manual you are referencing?
> One of my custormers has a 912 in a JA Highlander that was down for months
> fixing a long list of defects found during the annual conditional
> inspection and the battery started the engine just fine when we were done.
> The 582 on my Kolb has the same basic alternator. I did a major rebuild on
> the airplane and it was down for over 18 months. The engine started right
> up when I took it out and that was with a five year old 18 AH SLA battery.
>
> Rick Girard
>
> On Wed, Nov 12, 2014 at 12:47 PM, Ken Ryan wrote:
>
>> 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 . . .
>>>
>>
>>
>
>
> --
>
>
> Believe those who are seeking the truth, doubt those who find it.
> -Andre Gide
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Matt Dralle <dralle(at)matronics.com> |
| Subject: | Make Sure You're Listed! List of Contributors Coming |
Soon!
Dear Listers,
There's just a few more days left in this year's List Fund Raiser and that means
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
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
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: alternator / generator |
| From: | Richard Girard <aslsa.rng(at)gmail.com> |
Ken, I don't know how far along you are in crafting your airplane's
electrical architecture, but may I suggest you use Bob's Figure Z-16 that
is designed for the 912/914. It is a more capable architecture than the
Z-17 that I have used twice with Rotax 582 powered airplanes and with which
I have been very satisfied. it is crafted to accomplish what you are asking
about by using a contactor to control the alternator. In addition, by
using an S700-2-10 On-On-On switch you get the effect of a master switch
and have a battery only mode for system testing (or to run on but locking
out the starter) and a run mode that actuates the starter. I also
appreciate that it does away with a bulky key switch to control the mags
and starter by using a push button for the starter and SPST toggle switches
to control the "mags". This is particularly handy when you wish to crank
the engine over with the ignition off and top plugs out to charge the oil
system before first engine start (Rotax ignition modules do not tolerate
being fired while the plugs are not grounded. All the current is forced
through one little diode that promptly burns up, cannot be replaced, and
the cost of two new ignition modules is about $2500 plus installation. Not
a mistake you want to make). Well, those are just a few of my reasons for
recommending the Z-16. There are others on here who have used it and can
chime in.
Rick
On Tue, Nov 25, 2014 at 12:20 AM, Ken Ryan wrote:
> Rick, It's the wiring diagram from the Installation Manual for the 914.
>
> On Mon, Nov 24, 2014 at 7:08 PM, Richard Girard
> wrote:
>
>> Ken, I've been off the forum for a few weeks and just saw your request
>> for info on the Rotax alternator (dynamo). Can you quote chapter and verse
>> of the manual you are referencing?
>> One of my custormers has a 912 in a JA Highlander that was down for
>> months fixing a long list of defects found during the annual conditional
>> inspection and the battery started the engine just fine when we were done.
>> The 582 on my Kolb has the same basic alternator. I did a major rebuild on
>> the airplane and it was down for over 18 months. The engine started right
>> up when I took it out and that was with a five year old 18 AH SLA battery.
>>
>> Rick Girard
>>
>> On Wed, Nov 12, 2014 at 12:47 PM, Ken Ryan wrote:
>>
>>> 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 . . .
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> --
>>
>>
>> Believe those who are seeking the truth, doubt those who find it.
>> -Andre Gide
>>
>>
>
--
Believe those who are seeking the truth, doubt those who find it.
-Andre Gide
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Voltage regulator recommendation? |
| From: | "user9253" <fransew(at)gmail.com> |
I think that it would be a worthwhile text to measure the voltage between the regulator
"S" terminal and the regulator case to see if it agrees with the electrical
system voltmeter. If the two voltages are different, then there could
be a high resistance connection in the regulator circuit.
Joe
--------
Joe Gores
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=434698#434698
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Aircraft flight instruments |
| From: | "Pable Mackenzie" <PableMackenzie(at)gmail.com> |
Hi,Dear Friend,
I like to share my knowlege with you and want to gain more if you are have same
interest related Aircraft's Spare Parts
Modern passenger jets not only have sophisticated Aircraft flight instruments systems,
they go a step further and transmit accumulated data (via satellite feed
) at regular intervals to ground stations that have been setup and monitored
by the engine manufacturers. This helps engine manufacturers make appropriate
notations and pay special attention to under-performing engine parts during
the next maintenance overhaul or, they may even recommend an early overhaul.
The Aircraft sensor systems in a modern jet also sends critical performance related
information to the aircraft flight recorder (black box). In the unfortunate
event of a crash, such information plays a big hand in helping determine the
cause of the crash.
BestRegards
Pable Mackenzie
--------
I am here for to know all about latest news about Auttomobile technology,spare
parts and to discuss and share with friend those are concious about automobile
related news.
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=434699#434699
Attachments:
http://forums.matronics.com//files/aircraft_sensor_systems8_123.jpg
http://forums.matronics.com//files/aircraft_sensor_systems8_146.jpg
http://forums.matronics.com//files/aircraft_sensor_systems1_375.gif
http://forums.matronics.com//files/aircraft_sensor_systems0_219.gif
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | dralle(at)matronics.com |
| Subject: | Giving Thanks - Your List Contribution... |
Dear Listers,
Here in the United States, Thursday is our National day of Thanksgiving. Many
of us will be traveling to be with our families and friends to share in generous
feasts of plenty and giving thanks for the many blessings that have been bestowed
upon us.
Many Listers have expressed over the last couple of weeks how thankful they are
for the Email Lists and Forums here on the Matronics servers and for all of the
assistance and comradery they have experienced being a part of the Lists.
One of my favorite comments is when someone writes to me and says something like,
"Its the first thing I do in the morning while I'm having my morning coffee!".
That's a wonderful tribute to the purpose and function of these Lists.
Its always great to hear I'm not the only one that jumps out of bed each morning
to check my List email!!
Won't you take a minute today and show your appreciation for these Lists and for
their continued operation and upgrade?
The List Contribution Site is:
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 in advance for your kind consideration,
Matt Dralle
Matronics Email List Administrator
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Matt Dralle <dralle(at)matronics.com> |
| Subject: | Giving Thanks - Your List Contribution... |
Dear Listers,
Here in the United States, Thursday is our National day of Thanksgiving. Many
of us will be traveling to be with our families and friends to share in generous
feasts of plenty and giving thanks for the many blessings that have been bestowed
upon us.
Many Listers have expressed over the last couple of weeks how thankful they are
for the Email Lists and Forums here on the Matronics servers and for all of the
assistance and comradery they have experienced being a part of the Lists.
One of my favorite comments is when someone writes to me and says something like,
"Its the first thing I do in the morning while I'm having my morning coffee!".
That's a wonderful tribute to the purpose and function of these Lists.
Its always great to hear I'm not the only one that jumps out of bed each morning
to check my List email!!
Won't you take a minute today and show your appreciation for these Lists and for
their continued operation and upgrade?
The List Contribution Site is:
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 in advance for your kind consideration,
Matt Dralle
Matronics Email List Administrator
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Ken Ryan <keninalaska(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: alternator / generator |
Rick,
I will be incorporating Robert Paisley's Bus Manager, along with two
lithium batteries, and am trying to figure out how the Rotax wiring diagram
relates to that. Info on Bus Manager can be found here if interested:
http://flyefii.com/bus_manager/Bus_Manager_Installation_Instructions.pdf
On Tue, Nov 25, 2014 at 5:49 PM, Richard Girard wrote:
> Ken, I don't know how far along you are in crafting your airplane's
> electrical architecture, but may I suggest you use Bob's Figure Z-16 that
> is designed for the 912/914. It is a more capable architecture than the
> Z-17 that I have used twice with Rotax 582 powered airplanes and with which
> I have been very satisfied. it is crafted to accomplish what you are asking
> about by using a contactor to control the alternator. In addition, by
> using an S700-2-10 On-On-On switch you get the effect of a master switch
> and have a battery only mode for system testing (or to run on but locking
> out the starter) and a run mode that actuates the starter. I also
> appreciate that it does away with a bulky key switch to control the mags
> and starter by using a push button for the starter and SPST toggle switches
> to control the "mags". This is particularly handy when you wish to crank
> the engine over with the ignition off and top plugs out to charge the oil
> system before first engine start (Rotax ignition modules do not tolerate
> being fired while the plugs are not grounded. All the current is forced
> through one little diode that promptly burns up, cannot be replaced, and
> the cost of two new ignition modules is about $2500 plus installation. Not
> a mistake you want to make). Well, those are just a few of my reasons for
> recommending the Z-16. There are others on here who have used it and can
> chime in.
>
> Rick
>
> On Tue, Nov 25, 2014 at 12:20 AM, Ken Ryan wrote:
>
>> Rick, It's the wiring diagram from the Installation Manual for the 914.
>>
>> On Mon, Nov 24, 2014 at 7:08 PM, Richard Girard
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Ken, I've been off the forum for a few weeks and just saw your request
>>> for info on the Rotax alternator (dynamo). Can you quote chapter and verse
>>> of the manual you are referencing?
>>> One of my custormers has a 912 in a JA Highlander that was down for
>>> months fixing a long list of defects found during the annual conditional
>>> inspection and the battery started the engine just fine when we were done.
>>> The 582 on my Kolb has the same basic alternator. I did a major rebuild on
>>> the airplane and it was down for over 18 months. The engine started right
>>> up when I took it out and that was with a five year old 18 AH SLA battery.
>>>
>>> Rick Girard
>>>
>>> On Wed, Nov 12, 2014 at 12:47 PM, Ken Ryan
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> 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 . . .
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>>
>>>
>>> Believe those who are seeking the truth, doubt those who find it.
>>> -Andre Gide
>>>
>>>
>>
>
>
> --
>
>
> Believe those who are seeking the truth, doubt those who find it.
> -Andre Gide
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Joe Dubner <jdubner(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Voltage regulator recommendation? |
That was a great reminder, Joe. Thanks. I don't know why I fixated on
replacing the voltage regulator; it was even easier to troubleshoot the wiring.
Long story short: I found a sizable drop along a 6-inch wire connecting the
alternator field circuit breaker and the alternator switch. Visually it looked
good and tested very close to 0 ohms but there was about 0.25V drop across that
short wire. Replaced it and the voltage on the "S" terminal came up almost 0.5V
I don't understand that arithmetic but there may have been intermittent issues.
Until I fly I won't know it's fixed for sure but if the charging voltage is
0.5V lower than the present (15.0 decreasing to 14.7 in a few minutes) I'll be
a
happy camper.
Thanks again,
Joe
user9253 wrote, On 11/25/2014 20:20:
>
> I think that it would be a worthwhile text to measure the voltage between the
regulator "S" terminal and the regulator case to see if it agrees with the electrical
system voltmeter. If the two voltages are different, then there could
be a high resistance connection in the regulator circuit.
> Joe
>
> --------
> Joe Gores
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: alternator / generator |
At 03:12 PM 11/26/2014, you wrote:
>Rick,
>
>I will be incorporating Robert Paisley's Bus
>Manager, along with two lithium batteries, and
>am trying to figure out how the Rotax wiring
>diagram relates to that. Info on Bus Manager can
>be found here if interested:=C2
><http://flyefii.com/bus_manager/Bus_Manager_Installation_Instructions.pdf>h
ttp://flyefii.com/bus_manager/Bus_Manager_Installation_Instructions.pdf
That's a LOT of hardware for what would otherwise be
a simple system.
What are your anticipated missions that would benefit
from dual batteries and the automation offered by
the Bus Manager? Your continuous loads are minimal.
Even the 3.2A value for the radio is probably more like
0.2A receive, 3.2A transmit . . . which pushes its
energy requirements down to insignificant . . . about
1/4th power it takes to keep one battery contactor
closed.
How, and under what circumstances, would dual batteries
mitigate perceived risks for the operation of your
system?
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "rv7a.builder" <rv7a.builder(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | Fw: Noise Cancelling headphones |
On Thursday, November 27, 2014 8:19 AM, rv7a.builder <rv7a.builder@ya
hoo.com> wrote:
Hi Bob,
=C2-=C2- I just got myself some Lightspeed Sierra ANR and plugged them
into my RV-7A this morning. Prior to this I just had a couple of sets of re
gular headphones. The headphones worked without the noise canceling turned
on (push button, 2AA batteries). When I push the button the noise level got
reduced and it sounded real good. When I key the transmitter there is a lo
ud squeal. With the nose cancelling off, there is no squeal when I keyed th
e transmitter. I think this only happened when the engine was running. I th
ink I checked the transmitter and headphones=C2-before I started the engi
ne this morning? I have my jacks wired through a Flightcom 403mc and my rad
io is a GNC300XL. I had to fly this morning with the noise cancelling off b
ut I should wanted it on! Any thoughts would be appreciated. John Robinson.
RV-7A Phase 1.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Ken Ryan <keninalaska(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: alternator / generator |
Being in Alaska, many landings are remote, off airport. The engine must
start. If it doesn't the only option is to trigger search and rescue. Two
batteries mitigates the risk of the engine not starting 150 miles from the
nearest civilization.
How, and under what circumstances, would dual batteries
mitigate perceived risks for the operation of your
system?
Bob . . .
On Thu, Nov 27, 2014 at 6:51 AM, Robert L. Nuckolls, III <
nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> wrote:
> At 03:12 PM 11/26/2014, you wrote:
>
> Rick,
>
> I will be incorporating Robert Paisley's Bus Manager, along with two
> lithium batteries, and am trying to figure out how the Rotax wiring diagr
am
> relates to that. Info on Bus Manager can be found here if interested:=C3
=82
> http://flyefii.com/bus_manager/Bus_Manager_Installation_Instructions.pdf
>
>
> That's a LOT of hardware for what would otherwise be
> a simple system.
>
> What are your anticipated missions that would benefit
> from dual batteries and the automation offered by
> the Bus Manager? Your continuous loads are minimal.
> Even the 3.2A value for the radio is probably more like
> 0.2A receive, 3.2A transmit . . . which pushes its
> energy requirements down to insignificant . . . about
> 1/4th power it takes to keep one battery contactor
> closed.
>
> How, and under what circumstances, would dual batteries
> mitigate perceived risks for the operation of your
> system?
>
> Bob . . .
>
> *
>
===========
m>
ldersbooks.com>
.com>
com>
om/contribution>
===========
www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List>
===========
===========
>
> *
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | John Tipton <jmtipton(at)btopenworld.com> |
Hi Guys
I have access to some 1.2mm (C101 grade) copper bar, is this what one can use for
a circuit breaker bus bar
Regards
John
Sent from my iPad
----x--O--x----
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: alternator / generator |
At 10:58 AM 11/27/2014, you wrote:
>Being in Alaska, many landings are remote, off airport. The engine
>must start. If it doesn't the only option is to trigger search and
>rescue. Two batteries mitigates the risk of the engine not starting
>150 miles from the nearest civilization.
Okay, how often has the 'unavailable battery' syndrome
presented itself . . . and what was root cause for the
failure?
A battery can and should be the single most reliable
source of energy on your airplane. This presumes, of
course, that you give it the same level of attention
to airworthiness that is bestowed upon fuel, oil, tires,
continuity of flight controls, fuel filters and sumps,
prop blade nicks, etc. etc.
Batteries tend to be the oft neglected step-child
of flight systems. The predominant public perception
of battery consumerism is to run it until it wont
crank the engine any more . . . Walmart sells
a gizillion batteries every year that are replaced
in response to that same symptom.
Some years ago I corresponded with a Cessna 206
floatplane owner in S. America who was wanting to add a
second battery to his ship. We pondered useful volume
to exploit for several exchanges of e-mails. We
finally decided that inside one of the floats was
the best location. The battery could be positioned
right on C.G. and it occupied volume that had
no other purpose.
After we had corresponded a few times, he agreed
that his REAL worry was for loss of a battery contactor.
He conceded that in the grand scheme of things,
battery maintenance was not a big adder to cost-of-
ownership, his big worry was for loss of battery
contactor that would make the battery unavailable.
I suggested then than he add a piece of welding cable
to run from downstream side of battery contactor to
the battery box (accessible while standing on a
float). Should preflight testing before tossing
the mooring lines showed that the battery contactor was
"iffy", he could make a manual connection to the
battery (+) terminal with the short jumper.
He decided that was a much less expensive, lighter
and lower cost plan-C for dealing with a failed
battery contactor. We also discussed simply carrying
a spare contactor and tools . . . but that didn't
cover the potential loss of wiring and/or battery
master switch. So he opted for the jumper-cable
and a pair of pliers.
The point to ponder is how best to accommodate or
modify a system that is a direct descendant from
systems common to garden tractors: PM alternator,
simple rectifier/regulator and a lead acid battery.
It seems that the elegant design goal is to craft
a combination of architecture, preventive maintenance\
and operating procedures that accommodates low risk failures
-OR- drives specific failure rates down to insignificance.
I believe this can be achieved without adding the
weight, cost or complexity of burdening a
garden-tractor-style electrical system with
concepts holy-watered by the FAA and embraced
by Boeing and Airbus.
This requires a simple but thorough thought
process that goes through the steps of considering
EVERY part of your electrical system from crimped
terminals to alternators and batteries.
How can this part fail?
Is failure pre-flight detectable?
If it fails in flight, how will I know about
it?
How would in-flight failure affect comfortable
termination of flight?
What are the lowest cost, lightest weight,
simplest mitigations for the failure?
Due diligence to Failure Mode Effects Analysis
(FMEA) offers the short-path to the simpler,
lightest weight, lowest cost, lowest risk
(elegant) design easily understood and managed by the
cognizant pilot.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Copper bus bar |
| From: | Justin Jones <jmjones2000(at)mindspring.com> |
Not sure if it was the best option, but I cut the bus bars from copper pipe purchased
at Home Depot.
Justin
> On Nov 27, 2014, at 9:39 AM, John Tipton wrote:
>
>
> Hi Guys
>
> I have access to some 1.2mm (C101 grade) copper bar, is this what one can use
for a circuit breaker bus bar
>
> Regards
>
> John
>
> Sent from my iPad
>
> ----x--O--x----
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: alternator / generator |
| From: | Ken Ryan <keninalaska(at)gmail.com> |
An argument can be made both for and against the second battery. I have
considered both and determined that in my case the extra battery is
justified. Your points are nevertheless well taken.
On Nov 27, 2014 10:54 AM, "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <
nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> wrote:
> At 10:58 AM 11/27/2014, you wrote:
>
> Being in Alaska, many landings are remote, off airport. The engine must
> start. If it doesn't the only option is to trigger search and rescue. Two
> batteries mitigates the risk of the engine not starting 150 miles from the
> nearest civilization.
>
>
> Okay, how often has the 'unavailable battery' syndrome
> presented itself . . . and what was root cause for the
> failure?
>
> A battery can and should be the single most reliable
> source of energy on your airplane. This presumes, of
> course, that you give it the same level of attention
> to airworthiness that is bestowed upon fuel, oil, tires,
> continuity of flight controls, fuel filters and sumps,
> prop blade nicks, etc. etc.
>
> Batteries tend to be the oft neglected step-child
> of flight systems. The predominant public perception
> of battery consumerism is to run it until it wont
> crank the engine any more . . . Walmart sells
> a gizillion batteries every year that are replaced
> in response to that same symptom.
>
> Some years ago I corresponded with a Cessna 206
> floatplane owner in S. America who was wanting to add a
> second battery to his ship. We pondered useful volume
> to exploit for several exchanges of e-mails. We
> finally decided that inside one of the floats was
> the best location. The battery could be positioned
> right on C.G. and it occupied volume that had
> no other purpose.
>
> After we had corresponded a few times, he agreed
> that his REAL worry was for loss of a battery contactor.
> He conceded that in the grand scheme of things,
> battery maintenance was not a big adder to cost-of-
> ownership, his big worry was for loss of battery
> contactor that would make the battery unavailable.
>
> I suggested then than he add a piece of welding cable
> to run from downstream side of battery contactor to
> the battery box (accessible while standing on a
> float). Should preflight testing before tossing
> the mooring lines showed that the battery contactor was
> "iffy", he could make a manual connection to the
> battery (+) terminal with the short jumper.
>
> He decided that was a much less expensive, lighter
> and lower cost plan-C for dealing with a failed
> battery contactor. We also discussed simply carrying
> a spare contactor and tools . . . but that didn't
> cover the potential loss of wiring and/or battery
> master switch. So he opted for the jumper-cable
> and a pair of pliers.
>
> The point to ponder is how best to accommodate or
> modify a system that is a direct descendant from
> systems common to garden tractors: PM alternator,
> simple rectifier/regulator and a lead acid battery.
>
> It seems that the elegant design goal is to craft
> a combination of architecture, preventive maintenance\
> and operating procedures that accommodates low risk failures
> -OR- drives specific failure rates down to insignificance.
>
> I believe this can be achieved without adding the
> weight, cost or complexity of burdening a
> garden-tractor-style electrical system with
> concepts holy-watered by the FAA and embraced
> by Boeing and Airbus.
>
> This requires a simple but thorough thought
> process that goes through the steps of considering
> EVERY part of your electrical system from crimped
> terminals to alternators and batteries.
>
> How can this part fail?
>
> Is failure pre-flight detectable?
>
> If it fails in flight, how will I know about
> it?
>
> How would in-flight failure affect comfortable
> termination of flight?
>
> What are the lowest cost, lightest weight,
> simplest mitigations for the failure?
>
> Due diligence to Failure Mode Effects Analysis
> (FMEA) offers the short-path to the simpler,
> lightest weight, lowest cost, lowest risk
> (elegant) design easily understood and managed by the
> cognizant pilot.
>
> Bob . . .
>
> *
>
>
> *
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Kelly McMullen <kellym(at)aviating.com> |
| Subject: | Re: alternator / generator |
Well, having flown for 20 yrs in Alaska, I would take starter motor
failure as a higher risk than battery failure. Adding electronic
ignition to a plane in that environment IMHO adds risk over a dead
simple pair of magnetos. Most of time there is a means to hand prop if
lack of battery presents itself. Needing electrons to fire the ignition
as well as crank the engine creates more potential risk.
On 11/27/2014 12:32 PM, Ken Ryan wrote:
>
> An argument can be made both for and against the second battery. I
> have considered both and determined that in my case the extra battery
> is justified. Your points are nevertheless well taken.
>
> On Nov 27, 2014 10:54 AM, "Robert L. Nuckolls, III"
> >
> wrote:
>
> At 10:58 AM 11/27/2014, you wrote:
>> Being in Alaska, many landings are remote, off airport. The
>> engine must start. If it doesn't the only option is to trigger
>> search and rescue. Two batteries mitigates the risk of the engine
>> not starting 150 miles from the nearest civilization.
>
>
> Okay, how often has the 'unavailable battery' syndrome
> presented itself . . . and what was root cause for the
> failure?
>
> A battery can and should be the single most reliable
> source of energy on your airplane. This presumes, of
> course, that you give it the same level of attention
> to airworthiness that is bestowed upon fuel, oil, tires,
> continuity of flight controls, fuel filters and sumps,
> prop blade nicks, etc. etc.
>
> Batteries tend to be the oft neglected step-child
> of flight systems. The predominant public perception
> of battery consumerism is to run it until it wont
> crank the engine any more . . . Walmart sells
> a gizillion batteries every year that are replaced
> in response to that same symptom.
>
> Some years ago I corresponded with a Cessna 206
> floatplane owner in S. America who was wanting to add a
> second battery to his ship. We pondered useful volume
> to exploit for several exchanges of e-mails. We
> finally decided that inside one of the floats was
> the best location. The battery could be positioned
> right on C.G. and it occupied volume that had
> no other purpose.
>
> After we had corresponded a few times, he agreed
> that his REAL worry was for loss of a battery contactor.
> He conceded that in the grand scheme of things,
> battery maintenance was not a big adder to cost-of-
> ownership, his big worry was for loss of battery
> contactor that would make the battery unavailable.
>
> I suggested then than he add a piece of welding cable
> to run from downstream side of battery contactor to
> the battery box (accessible while standing on a
> float). Should preflight testing before tossing
> the mooring lines showed that the battery contactor was
> "iffy", he could make a manual connection to the
> battery (+) terminal with the short jumper.
>
> He decided that was a much less expensive, lighter
> and lower cost plan-C for dealing with a failed
> battery contactor. We also discussed simply carrying
> a spare contactor and tools . . . but that didn't
> cover the potential loss of wiring and/or battery
> master switch. So he opted for the jumper-cable
> and a pair of pliers.
>
> The point to ponder is how best to accommodate or
> modify a system that is a direct descendant from
> systems common to garden tractors: PM alternator,
> simple rectifier/regulator and a lead acid battery.
>
> It seems that the elegant design goal is to craft
> a combination of architecture, preventive maintenance\
> and operating procedures that accommodates low risk failures
> -OR- drives specific failure rates down to insignificance.
>
> I believe this can be achieved without adding the
> weight, cost or complexity of burdening a
> garden-tractor-style electrical system with
> concepts holy-watered by the FAA and embraced
> by Boeing and Airbus.
>
> This requires a simple but thorough thought
> process that goes through the steps of considering
> EVERY part of your electrical system from crimped
> terminals to alternators and batteries.
>
> How can this part fail?
>
> Is failure pre-flight detectable?
>
> If it fails in flight, how will I know about
> it?
>
> How would in-flight failure affect comfortable
> termination of flight?
>
> What are the lowest cost, lightest weight,
> simplest mitigations for the failure?
>
> Due diligence to Failure Mode Effects Analysis
> (FMEA) offers the short-path to the simpler,
> lightest weight, lowest cost, lowest risk
> (elegant) design easily understood and managed by the
> cognizant pilot.
>
> Bob . . .
>
> *
>
> _blank">www.aeroelectric.com
> .com" target="_blank">www.buildersbooks.com
> ="_blank">www.homebuilthelp.com
> ="_blank">www.mypilotstore.com
> ank">www.mrrace.com
> _blank">http://www.matronics.com/contribution
> ist" target="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List
> tp://forums.matronics.com
>
> *
>
> *
>
>
> *
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Jeff Luckey <jluckey(at)pacbell.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Copper bus bar |
Have you considered this:
http://www.aircraftspruce.com/catalog/elpages/bussbars.php?clickkey=4696
On Thursday, November 27, 2014 11:45 AM, Justin Jones
wrote:
Not sure if it was the best option, but I cut the bus bars from copper pipe purchased
at Home Depot.
Justin
> On Nov 27, 2014, at 9:39 AM, John Tipton wrote:
>
>
> Hi Guys
>
> I have access to some 1.2mm (C101 grade) copper bar, is this what one can use
for a circuit breaker bus bar
>
> Regards
>
> John
>
> Sent from my iPad
>
> ----x--O--x----
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: alternator / generator |
| From: | Justin Jones <jmjones2000(at)mindspring.com> |
I also fly in Alaska. I agree that a battery failure isnt as likely as a starter
failure, but if having two batteries on the aircraft is an acceptable risk
mitigation step for him, then he is justified having the extra battery. I will
have two alternators. One gear driven and one belt driven. I will also carry
a battery jump starter pack and a solar cell that is capable of charging it
when I plan on spending any time in the bush. I understand the added weight of
the pack, however after using it just a single time, it will have been worth
it. If my starter does die and the battery still has at least 6 volts (EFII
system minimum), the ignition and injection systems will still operate, making
hand propping much easier than a healthy magneto. I will still need enough voltage
to excite the alternator for continued 12v operation. One pass of the flywheel
magnets past the crank trigger should start the engine.
I disagree with the statement that electronic ignition adds risk. There are many
reasons.
1st reason is the massive amount of time electric ignition has been in operation.
Nearly every vehicle manufactured since the mid 70s has electronic ignition,
meaning there are MANY MANY more hours of operation on electronic ignition
units than magnetos. They have been proven VERY reliable and need very little
maintenance.
2nd reason is there are solid state units that require no moving parts (crank trigger
systems). It is true that there are different electric systems out there,
however they all run on the same principal. There are also redundant systems
available that can keep the engine running in the extremely unlikely event
that one fails. Choose the one that is satisfactory to you and go with it.
3rd reason that electronic ignition doesnt add risk is the complexity and unreliability
of magnetos. They have moving parts that wear. They have TBOs on them
because they are known to wear and malfunction. They are heavy, expensive,
and do not provide the same amount of energy that an electronic ignition does.
I have personally had 3 magneto failures. Thankfully both have never quit
on me at once. A good friend in a Maule M4 just had one fail last week.
4th reason is the correct 12v system architecture that electronic ignition requires
is very reliable. The Z-diagrams that Bob has authored have the capability
to mitigate most risk involved with the 12v system. I have personally chosen
to go with a dual alternator system. I will carry small light solar panels
that can recharge a battery in a matter of days.
There is a good compromise out there. Look at the G3i ignition system. It adds
an MSD electronic ignition box and runs it through the magneto (if you feel
that you MUST have the unreliable mags). If the MSD box fails or if the battery
dies, the magnetos will still act like magnetos.
The thing to keep in mind regardless of how many batteries that you have on the
aircraft is watching your battery health. If your battery or batteries show any
sign of ill health, replace them. Dont push it. Batteries seldom fail overnight.
Some people even replace them every annual.
I feel that a properly installed and maintained redundant electronic ignition system
will actually REDUCE the risk that the legacy magneto systems offer.
Respectfully,
Justin
> On Nov 27, 2014, at 11:10 AM, Kelly McMullen wrote:
>
>
> Well, having flown for 20 yrs in Alaska, I would take starter motor failure as
a higher risk than battery failure. Adding electronic ignition to a plane in
that environment IMHO adds risk over a dead simple pair of magnetos. Most of
time there is a means to hand prop if lack of battery presents itself. Needing
electrons to fire the ignition as well as crank the engine creates more potential
risk.
>
> On 11/27/2014 12:32 PM, Ken Ryan wrote:
>>
>> An argument can be made both for and against the second battery. I have considered
both and determined that in my case the extra battery is justified. Your
points are nevertheless well taken.
>>
>> On Nov 27, 2014 10:54 AM, "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" > wrote:
>>
>> At 10:58 AM 11/27/2014, you wrote:
>>> Being in Alaska, many landings are remote, off airport. The
>>> engine must start. If it doesn't the only option is to trigger
>>> search and rescue. Two batteries mitigates the risk of the engine
>>> not starting 150 miles from the nearest civilization.
>>
>>
>> Okay, how often has the 'unavailable battery' syndrome
>> presented itself . . . and what was root cause for the
>> failure?
>>
>> A battery can and should be the single most reliable
>> source of energy on your airplane. This presumes, of
>> course, that you give it the same level of attention
>> to airworthiness that is bestowed upon fuel, oil, tires,
>> continuity of flight controls, fuel filters and sumps,
>> prop blade nicks, etc. etc.
>>
>> Batteries tend to be the oft neglected step-child
>> of flight systems. The predominant public perception
>> of battery consumerism is to run it until it wont
>> crank the engine any more . . . Walmart sells
>> a gizillion batteries every year that are replaced
>> in response to that same symptom.
>>
>> Some years ago I corresponded with a Cessna 206
>> floatplane owner in S. America who was wanting to add a
>> second battery to his ship. We pondered useful volume
>> to exploit for several exchanges of e-mails. We
>> finally decided that inside one of the floats was
>> the best location. The battery could be positioned
>> right on C.G. and it occupied volume that had
>> no other purpose.
>>
>> After we had corresponded a few times, he agreed
>> that his REAL worry was for loss of a battery contactor.
>> He conceded that in the grand scheme of things,
>> battery maintenance was not a big adder to cost-of-
>> ownership, his big worry was for loss of battery
>> contactor that would make the battery unavailable.
>>
>> I suggested then than he add a piece of welding cable
>> to run from downstream side of battery contactor to
>> the battery box (accessible while standing on a
>> float). Should preflight testing before tossing
>> the mooring lines showed that the battery contactor was
>> "iffy", he could make a manual connection to the
>> battery (+) terminal with the short jumper.
>>
>> He decided that was a much less expensive, lighter
>> and lower cost plan-C for dealing with a failed
>> battery contactor. We also discussed simply carrying
>> a spare contactor and tools . . . but that didn't
>> cover the potential loss of wiring and/or battery
>> master switch. So he opted for the jumper-cable
>> and a pair of pliers.
>>
>> The point to ponder is how best to accommodate or
>> modify a system that is a direct descendant from
>> systems common to garden tractors: PM alternator,
>> simple rectifier/regulator and a lead acid battery.
>>
>> It seems that the elegant design goal is to craft
>> a combination of architecture, preventive maintenance\
>> and operating procedures that accommodates low risk failures
>> -OR- drives specific failure rates down to insignificance.
>>
>> I believe this can be achieved without adding the
>> weight, cost or complexity of burdening a
>> garden-tractor-style electrical system with
>> concepts holy-watered by the FAA and embraced
>> by Boeing and Airbus.
>>
>> This requires a simple but thorough thought
>> process that goes through the steps of considering
>> EVERY part of your electrical system from crimped
>> terminals to alternators and batteries.
>>
>> How can this part fail?
>>
>> Is failure pre-flight detectable?
>>
>> If it fails in flight, how will I know about
>> it?
>>
>> How would in-flight failure affect comfortable
>> termination of flight?
>>
>> What are the lowest cost, lightest weight,
>> simplest mitigations for the failure?
>>
>> Due diligence to Failure Mode Effects Analysis
>> (FMEA) offers the short-path to the simpler,
>> lightest weight, lowest cost, lowest risk
>> (elegant) design easily understood and managed by the
>> cognizant pilot.
>>
>> Bob . . .
>>
>> *
>>
>> _blank">www.aeroelectric.com
>> .com" target="_blank">www.buildersbooks.com
>> ="_blank">www.homebuilthelp.com
>> ="_blank">www.mypilotstore.com
>> ank">www.mrrace.com
>> _blank">http://www.matronics.com/contribution
>> ist" target="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List
>> tp://forums.matronics.com
>>
>> *
>>
>> *
>>
>>
>> *
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Kelly McMullen <kellym(at)aviating.com> |
| Subject: | Re: alternator / generator |
Well, I had two electronic ignitions stone cold fail in Alaska. One at
40 below. The other in summer, but just as inconvenient. You don't hear
about the failures much because they just pull over to roadside and call
a tow truck. Typically when they fail it is a hard failure, not just
rough running like a mag on its way out. I may install electronic in
place of one mag, but definitely not two.
On 11/27/2014 2:04 PM, Justin Jones wrote:
>
> I also fly in Alaska. I agree that a battery failure isnt as likely as a starter
failure, but if having two batteries on the aircraft is an acceptable risk
mitigation step for him, then he is justified having the extra battery. I will
have two alternators. One gear driven and one belt driven. I will also carry
a battery jump starter pack and a solar cell that is capable of charging it
when I plan on spending any time in the bush. I understand the added weight
of the pack, however after using it just a single time, it will have been worth
it. If my starter does die and the battery still has at least 6 volts (EFII
system minimum), the ignition and injection systems will still operate, making
hand propping much easier than a healthy magneto. I will still need enough
voltage to excite the alternator for continued 12v operation. One pass of the
flywheel magnets past the crank trigger should start the engine.
>
> I disagree with the statement that electronic ignition adds risk. There are
many reasons.
>
> 1st reason is the massive amount of time electric ignition has been in operation.
Nearly every vehicle manufactured since the mid 70s has electronic ignition,
meaning there are MANY MANY more hours of operation on electronic ignition
units than magnetos. They have been proven VERY reliable and need very little
maintenance.
>
> 2nd reason is there are solid state units that require no moving parts (crank
trigger systems). It is true that there are different electric systems out there,
however they all run on the same principal. There are also redundant systems
available that can keep the engine running in the extremely unlikely event
that one fails. Choose the one that is satisfactory to you and go with it.
>
> 3rd reason that electronic ignition doesnt add risk is the complexity and unreliability
of magnetos. They have moving parts that wear. They have TBOs on
them because they are known to wear and malfunction. They are heavy, expensive,
and do not provide the same amount of energy that an electronic ignition does.
I have personally had 3 magneto failures. Thankfully both have never quit
on me at once. A good friend in a Maule M4 just had one fail last week.
>
> 4th reason is the correct 12v system architecture that electronic ignition requires
is very reliable. The Z-diagrams that Bob has authored have the capability
to mitigate most risk involved with the 12v system. I have personally chosen
to go with a dual alternator system. I will carry small light solar panels
that can recharge a battery in a matter of days.
>
> There is a good compromise out there. Look at the G3i ignition system. It adds
an MSD electronic ignition box and runs it through the magneto (if you feel
that you MUST have the unreliable mags). If the MSD box fails or if the battery
dies, the magnetos will still act like magnetos.
>
> The thing to keep in mind regardless of how many batteries that you have on the
aircraft is watching your battery health. If your battery or batteries show
any sign of ill health, replace them. Dont push it. Batteries seldom fail overnight.
Some people even replace them every annual.
>
> I feel that a properly installed and maintained redundant electronic ignition
system will actually REDUCE the risk that the legacy magneto systems offer.
>
> Respectfully,
>
> Justin
>
>
>> On Nov 27, 2014, at 11:10 AM, Kelly McMullen wrote:
>>
>>
>> Well, having flown for 20 yrs in Alaska, I would take starter motor failure
as a higher risk than battery failure. Adding electronic ignition to a plane
in that environment IMHO adds risk over a dead simple pair of magnetos. Most of
time there is a means to hand prop if lack of battery presents itself. Needing
electrons to fire the ignition as well as crank the engine creates more potential
risk.
>>
>> On 11/27/2014 12:32 PM, Ken Ryan wrote:
>>> An argument can be made both for and against the second battery. I have considered
both and determined that in my case the extra battery is justified. Your
points are nevertheless well taken.
>>>
>>> On Nov 27, 2014 10:54 AM, "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" > wrote:
>>>
>>> At 10:58 AM 11/27/2014, you wrote:
>>>> Being in Alaska, many landings are remote, off airport. The
>>>> engine must start. If it doesn't the only option is to trigger
>>>> search and rescue. Two batteries mitigates the risk of the engine
>>>> not starting 150 miles from the nearest civilization.
>>>
>>> Okay, how often has the 'unavailable battery' syndrome
>>> presented itself . . . and what was root cause for the
>>> failure?
>>>
>>> A battery can and should be the single most reliable
>>> source of energy on your airplane. This presumes, of
>>> course, that you give it the same level of attention
>>> to airworthiness that is bestowed upon fuel, oil, tires,
>>> continuity of flight controls, fuel filters and sumps,
>>> prop blade nicks, etc. etc.
>>>
>>> Batteries tend to be the oft neglected step-child
>>> of flight systems. The predominant public perception
>>> of battery consumerism is to run it until it wont
>>> crank the engine any more . . . Walmart sells
>>> a gizillion batteries every year that are replaced
>>> in response to that same symptom.
>>>
>>> Some years ago I corresponded with a Cessna 206
>>> floatplane owner in S. America who was wanting to add a
>>> second battery to his ship. We pondered useful volume
>>> to exploit for several exchanges of e-mails. We
>>> finally decided that inside one of the floats was
>>> the best location. The battery could be positioned
>>> right on C.G. and it occupied volume that had
>>> no other purpose.
>>>
>>> After we had corresponded a few times, he agreed
>>> that his REAL worry was for loss of a battery contactor.
>>> He conceded that in the grand scheme of things,
>>> battery maintenance was not a big adder to cost-of-
>>> ownership, his big worry was for loss of battery
>>> contactor that would make the battery unavailable.
>>>
>>> I suggested then than he add a piece of welding cable
>>> to run from downstream side of battery contactor to
>>> the battery box (accessible while standing on a
>>> float). Should preflight testing before tossing
>>> the mooring lines showed that the battery contactor was
>>> "iffy", he could make a manual connection to the
>>> battery (+) terminal with the short jumper.
>>>
>>> He decided that was a much less expensive, lighter
>>> and lower cost plan-C for dealing with a failed
>>> battery contactor. We also discussed simply carrying
>>> a spare contactor and tools . . . but that didn't
>>> cover the potential loss of wiring and/or battery
>>> master switch. So he opted for the jumper-cable
>>> and a pair of pliers.
>>>
>>> The point to ponder is how best to accommodate or
>>> modify a system that is a direct descendant from
>>> systems common to garden tractors: PM alternator,
>>> simple rectifier/regulator and a lead acid battery.
>>>
>>> It seems that the elegant design goal is to craft
>>> a combination of architecture, preventive maintenance\
>>> and operating procedures that accommodates low risk failures
>>> -OR- drives specific failure rates down to insignificance.
>>>
>>> I believe this can be achieved without adding the
>>> weight, cost or complexity of burdening a
>>> garden-tractor-style electrical system with
>>> concepts holy-watered by the FAA and embraced
>>> by Boeing and Airbus.
>>>
>>> This requires a simple but thorough thought
>>> process that goes through the steps of considering
>>> EVERY part of your electrical system from crimped
>>> terminals to alternators and batteries.
>>>
>>> How can this part fail?
>>>
>>> Is failure pre-flight detectable?
>>>
>>> If it fails in flight, how will I know about
>>> it?
>>>
>>> How would in-flight failure affect comfortable
>>> termination of flight?
>>>
>>> What are the lowest cost, lightest weight,
>>> simplest mitigations for the failure?
>>>
>>> Due diligence to Failure Mode Effects Analysis
>>> (FMEA) offers the short-path to the simpler,
>>> lightest weight, lowest cost, lowest risk
>>> (elegant) design easily understood and managed by the
>>> cognizant pilot.
>>>
>>> Bob . . .
>>>
>>> *
>>>
>>> _blank">www.aeroelectric.com
>>> .com" target="_blank">www.buildersbooks.com
>>> ="_blank">www.homebuilthelp.com
>>> ="_blank">www.mypilotstore.com
>>> ank">www.mrrace.com
>>> _blank">http://www.matronics.com/contribution
>>> ist" target="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List
>>> tp://forums.matronics.com
>>>
>>> *
>>>
>>> *
>>>
>>>
>>> *
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: alternator / generator |
| From: | Justin Jones <jmjones2000(at)mindspring.com> |
Nothing that we do in aviation, experimental aviation especially, is without risk.
It is merely a game of acceptable risk. For me, having 2 independent and
completely redundant electronic ignition units provides an acceptable level of
risk. This is because there isnt a single point of failure in the system.
I feel that the benefit of having both electronic units is the added performance
of an adaptable timing curve and a much hotter spark. Others, such as yourself,
feel comfortable with one electronic unit and one magneto. Both are correct
because the system meets the designers acceptable amount of risk and both
for different reasons.
Cheers
Justin
> On Nov 27, 2014, at 12:15 PM, Kelly McMullen wrote:
>
>
> Well, I had two electronic ignitions stone cold fail in Alaska. One at 40 below.
The other in summer, but just as inconvenient. You don't hear about the failures
much because they just pull over to roadside and call a tow truck. Typically
when they fail it is a hard failure, not just rough running like a mag on
its way out. I may install electronic in place of one mag, but definitely not
two.
>
> On 11/27/2014 2:04 PM, Justin Jones wrote:
>>
>> I also fly in Alaska. I agree that a battery failure isnt as likely as a starter
failure, but if having two batteries on the aircraft is an acceptable risk
mitigation step for him, then he is justified having the extra battery. I
will have two alternators. One gear driven and one belt driven. I will also carry
a battery jump starter pack and a solar cell that is capable of charging
it when I plan on spending any time in the bush. I understand the added weight
of the pack, however after using it just a single time, it will have been worth
it. If my starter does die and the battery still has at least 6 volts (EFII
system minimum), the ignition and injection systems will still operate, making
hand propping much easier than a healthy magneto. I will still need enough
voltage to excite the alternator for continued 12v operation. One pass of the
flywheel magnets past the crank trigger should start the engine.
>>
>> I disagree with the statement that electronic ignition adds risk. There are
many reasons.
>>
>> 1st reason is the massive amount of time electric ignition has been in operation.
Nearly every vehicle manufactured since the mid 70s has electronic ignition,
meaning there are MANY MANY more hours of operation on electronic ignition
units than magnetos. They have been proven VERY reliable and need very little
maintenance.
>>
>> 2nd reason is there are solid state units that require no moving parts (crank
trigger systems). It is true that there are different electric systems out
there, however they all run on the same principal. There are also redundant systems
available that can keep the engine running in the extremely unlikely event
that one fails. Choose the one that is satisfactory to you and go with it.
>>
>> 3rd reason that electronic ignition doesnt add risk is the complexity and unreliability
of magnetos. They have moving parts that wear. They have TBOs on
them because they are known to wear and malfunction. They are heavy, expensive,
and do not provide the same amount of energy that an electronic ignition does.
I have personally had 3 magneto failures. Thankfully both have never quit
on me at once. A good friend in a Maule M4 just had one fail last week.
>>
>> 4th reason is the correct 12v system architecture that electronic ignition requires
is very reliable. The Z-diagrams that Bob has authored have the capability
to mitigate most risk involved with the 12v system. I have personally chosen
to go with a dual alternator system. I will carry small light solar panels
that can recharge a battery in a matter of days.
>>
>> There is a good compromise out there. Look at the G3i ignition system. It
adds an MSD electronic ignition box and runs it through the magneto (if you feel
that you MUST have the unreliable mags). If the MSD box fails or if the battery
dies, the magnetos will still act like magnetos.
>>
>> The thing to keep in mind regardless of how many batteries that you have on
the aircraft is watching your battery health. If your battery or batteries show
any sign of ill health, replace them. Dont push it. Batteries seldom fail
overnight. Some people even replace them every annual.
>>
>> I feel that a properly installed and maintained redundant electronic ignition
system will actually REDUCE the risk that the legacy magneto systems offer.
>>
>> Respectfully,
>>
>> Justin
>>
>>
>>> On Nov 27, 2014, at 11:10 AM, Kelly McMullen wrote:
>>>
>>>
>
>>> Well, having flown for 20 yrs in Alaska, I would take starter motor failure
as a higher risk than battery failure. Adding electronic ignition to a plane
in that environment IMHO adds risk over a dead simple pair of magnetos. Most
of time there is a means to hand prop if lack of battery presents itself. Needing
electrons to fire the ignition as well as crank the engine creates more potential
risk.
>>>
>>> On 11/27/2014 12:32 PM, Ken Ryan wrote:
>>>> An argument can be made both for and against the second battery. I have considered
both and determined that in my case the extra battery is justified. Your
points are nevertheless well taken.
>>>>
>>>> On Nov 27, 2014 10:54 AM, "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" > wrote:
>>>>
>>>> At 10:58 AM 11/27/2014, you wrote:
>>>>> Being in Alaska, many landings are remote, off airport. The
>>>>> engine must start. If it doesn't the only option is to trigger
>>>>> search and rescue. Two batteries mitigates the risk of the engine
>>>>> not starting 150 miles from the nearest civilization.
>>>>
>>>> Okay, how often has the 'unavailable battery' syndrome
>>>> presented itself . . . and what was root cause for the
>>>> failure?
>>>>
>>>> A battery can and should be the single most reliable
>>>> source of energy on your airplane. This presumes, of
>>>> course, that you give it the same level of attention
>>>> to airworthiness that is bestowed upon fuel, oil, tires,
>>>> continuity of flight controls, fuel filters and sumps,
>>>> prop blade nicks, etc. etc.
>>>>
>>>> Batteries tend to be the oft neglected step-child
>>>> of flight systems. The predominant public perception
>>>> of battery consumerism is to run it until it wont
>>>> crank the engine any more . . . Walmart sells
>>>> a gizillion batteries every year that are replaced
>>>> in response to that same symptom.
>>>>
>>>> Some years ago I corresponded with a Cessna 206
>>>> floatplane owner in S. America who was wanting to add a
>>>> second battery to his ship. We pondered useful volume
>>>> to exploit for several exchanges of e-mails. We
>>>> finally decided that inside one of the floats was
>>>> the best location. The battery could be positioned
>>>> right on C.G. and it occupied volume that had
>>>> no other purpose.
>>>>
>>>> After we had corresponded a few times, he agreed
>>>> that his REAL worry was for loss of a battery contactor.
>>>> He conceded that in the grand scheme of things,
>>>> battery maintenance was not a big adder to cost-of-
>>>> ownership, his big worry was for loss of battery
>>>> contactor that would make the battery unavailable.
>>>>
>>>> I suggested then than he add a piece of welding cable
>>>> to run from downstream side of battery contactor to
>>>> the battery box (accessible while standing on a
>>>> float). Should preflight testing before tossing
>>>> the mooring lines showed that the battery contactor was
>>>> "iffy", he could make a manual connection to the
>>>> battery (+) terminal with the short jumper.
>>>>
>>>> He decided that was a much less expensive, lighter
>>>> and lower cost plan-C for dealing with a failed
>>>> battery contactor. We also discussed simply carrying
>>>> a spare contactor and tools . . . but that didn't
>>>> cover the potential loss of wiring and/or battery
>>>> master switch. So he opted for the jumper-cable
>>>> and a pair of pliers.
>>>>
>>>> The point to ponder is how best to accommodate or
>>>> modify a system that is a direct descendant from
>>>> systems common to garden tractors: PM alternator,
>>>> simple rectifier/regulator and a lead acid battery.
>>>>
>>>> It seems that the elegant design goal is to craft
>>>> a combination of architecture, preventive maintenance\
>>>> and operating procedures that accommodates low risk failures
>>>> -OR- drives specific failure rates down to insignificance.
>>>>
>>>> I believe this can be achieved without adding the
>>>> weight, cost or complexity of burdening a
>>>> garden-tractor-style electrical system with
>>>> concepts holy-watered by the FAA and embraced
>>>> by Boeing and Airbus.
>>>>
>>>> This requires a simple but thorough thought
>>>> process that goes through the steps of considering
>>>> EVERY part of your electrical system from crimped
>>>> terminals to alternators and batteries.
>>>>
>>>> How can this part fail?
>>>>
>>>> Is failure pre-flight detectable?
>>>>
>>>> If it fails in flight, how will I know about
>>>> it?
>>>>
>>>> How would in-flight failure affect comfortable
>>>> termination of flight?
>>>>
>>>> What are the lowest cost, lightest weight,
>>>> simplest mitigations for the failure?
>>>>
>>>> Due diligence to Failure Mode Effects Analysis
>>>> (FMEA) offers the short-path to the simpler,
>>>> lightest weight, lowest cost, lowest risk
>>>> (elegant) design easily understood and managed by the
>>>> cognizant pilot.
>>>>
>>>> Bob . . .
>>>>
>>>> *
>>>>
>>>> _blank">www.aeroelectric.com
>>>> .com" target="_blank">www.buildersbooks.com
>>>> ="_blank">www.homebuilthelp.com
>>>> ="_blank">www.mypilotstore.com
>>>> ank">www.mrrace.com
>>>> _blank">http://www.matronics.com/contribution
>>>> ist" target="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List
>>>> tp://forums.matronics.com
>>>>
>>>> *
>>>>
>>>> *
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> *
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: alternator / generator |
| From: | Bob Verwey <bob.verwey(at)gmail.com> |
Thanks for a very interesting thread, guys!
Justin, I tend to agree with you on the reliability of the electronic systems.
Where I think the problem comes in, is the inconsistency of the
install, and the integration into the existing system.
Best...
Bob Verwey
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Matt Dralle <dralle(at)matronics.com> |
| Subject: | Just Two Days Left! - Still Behind... |
Dear Listers,
There are just two more days left in this years List Fund Raiser. We are still
way behind last year in terms of the number of contributions and total contribution
amount. I really want to keep providing these services to the homebuilt
community, but it take resources. Since there's no advertising budget or deep
pockets to keep the operation a float, its solely your generosity during the
Fund Raiser that keeps things going. Please make a Contribution today.
If you've been putting off showing your support for the Lists, now is the time
to do it!
Make a contribution with a Credit Card or though PayPal at that Matronics Contribution
web site:
http://www.matronics.com/contribution
Or, drop a check in the mail:
Matronics / Matt Dralle
581 Jeannie Way
Livermore, CA 94550
Thank you in advance for your support!
Matt Dralle
Matronics Email List Administrator
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: alternator / generator |
At 13:32 2014-11-27, you wrote:
>An argument can be made both for and against the second battery. I
>have considered both and determined that in my case the extra
>battery is justified. Your points are nevertheless well taken.
Can you share your battery selection and maintenance
program? If you have only one engine driven power source,
then do we presume correctly that you've gathered and
massaged some numbers from which you've developed a
Plan-B . . . a battery only endurance requirement
that will be guarded with periodic measurement?
If you plan to maintain and verify battery(ies)
at some minimum energy content (the general rule
of thumb is 80% of new capacity), is it not
likely that you'll replace batteries before they
become incapable of cranking the engine?
This is the major difference between aviation
and automotive where the battery is often
tasked with two purposes . . . the very
utilitarian purpose of getting the fan
running and the Plan-B purpose of keeping
the panel lit up sans alternator . . . sometimes
for duration of fuel aboard.
This is the core concept for my assertion that
under artfully crafted circumstances, the battery
will become the most robust device in your
suite of engine cranking hardware . . . contrary
to legacy consumer perceptions of battery
dependability.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: alternator / generator |
At 13:32 2014-11-27, you wrote:
>An argument can be made both for and against the second battery. I
>have considered both and determined that in my case the extra
>battery is justified. Your points are nevertheless well taken.
Can you share your battery selection and maintenance
program? If you have only one engine driven power source,
then do we presume correctly that you've gathered and
massaged some numbers from which you've developed a
Plan-B . . . a battery only endurance requirement
that will be guarded with periodic measurement?
If you plan to maintain and verify battery(ies)
at some minimum energy content (the general rule
of thumb is 80% of new capacity), is it not
likely that you'll replace batteries before they
become incapable of cranking the engine?
This is the major difference between aviation
and automotive where the battery is often
tasked with two purposes . . . the very
utilitarian purpose of getting the fan
running and the Plan-B purpose of keeping
the panel lit up sans alternator . . . sometimes
for duration of fuel aboard.
This is the core concept for my assertion that
under artfully crafted circumstances, the battery
will become the most robust device in your
suite of engine cranking hardware . . . contrary
to legacy consumer perceptions of battery
dependability.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| 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?
Sure. The alternators on ALL vehicles are controlled
to a quiescent state when not in use. They present no
load on the battery. Wire per Rotax instructions and
it has a 99.99% probability of functioning as they
intended.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Matt Dralle <dralle(at)matronics.com> |
| Subject: | Make Sure You're Listed! List of Contributors Coming |
Soon!
Dear Listers,
There's just two more days left in this year's List Fund Raiser and that means
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
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
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
At 20:22 2014-11-28, you wrote:
>
>For any question or problem there are a number of ways to skin the
>cat, including it may not be a problem at all.
>To object to folks questioning whether he needs to do what he wants
>is just as valid a discussion and learning point as assuming he has
>correctly parsed his situation, already knows the best solution and
>just needs to know how to implement it.
Exactly. There's another important component to this
discussion. The List is not just a place to ask, "what's
2 + 3 and where do I buy some 3's?" It's a classroom
where about 1400 individuals watch the proceedings and
take away buckets of simple-ideas along with a few
recipes for their utilization.
Whether we're cooking stuff up on the stove, writing
software, or configuring an electrical system, the
elegant solution will be elusive unless the 'chef'
understands exactly how all the ingredients behave
as individual components and then in combination with
each other.
In this class room environment there is, and should
be, a high probability that any questioner may be
asked to stand up in front of the class and defend
his/her recipe for success. My bosses called this
process preliminary, critical, and qualification
design review. A means by which ideas could oscillate between
any constellation of extremes as collegial argument
deduces the elegant, lowest risk way to meet customer
design goals.
There is a risk that some questioner will feel picked
on or belittled. I'm probably as guilty as
any for not always making sure that the questioner
understands this process along with his own, important
role in this sharing of knowledge.
Mr. Ryan has states some ideas and goals and he
has been asked to share his supporting thought processes.
Of course, nobody will be insulted or even disappointed
if he declines. At the same time, everyone
interested in the conversation may harvest and
exploit any number of simple-ideas supported with
examples of how they fit together.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Matt Dralle <dralle(at)matronics.com> |
| Subject: | [Please Read] - Last Official Day of List Fund Raiser! |
Dear Listers,
It's November 30th and that always means a couple of things. Its my birthday again
- 51, so don't reminde me! :-) But it also means that it's that last official
day of the Matronics Email List Fund Raiser! If you been thinking about
picking up one of those really nice incentive gifts now is the time to jump
on it!!
If you've been meaning to make a Contribution this month but have been putting
it off for some reason, NOW is the time!
I will be posting the List of Contributors in a few days, so you'll probably want
to be known as a person that supported the Lists!
I want to thank everyone that has so generously made a Contribution this year in
support of our Lists. It is your generosity that keeps this operation running
and I don't ever forget it.
The List Contribution Web Site is fast and easy. Please support our habit by making
your Contribution right now:
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 to all in advance!
Matt Dralle
Matronics Email List Administrator
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: alternator / generator |
| From: | "pestar" <peter(at)reivernet.com> |
Hi
I have a Rotax 914 with dual Lithium batteries and instead of the Rotax Ducati
regulator use the Schicke GR6 regulator as it a more robust device. My aircraft
French DynAero MCR-4S is advanced avionically and uses as it base Bob's infamous
architecture. I do not have the external alternator as it is unnecessary
(for me).
On the primary bus I use a Vertical Power VP-X (serial connect for laptop control)
and good old automotive fuses on the endurance bus. The VP-X controls the
relay for alternator disconnect.
This is a very stable environment with no problems of any sort. Happy to share
my schematics.
Cheers Peter
--------
Peter Armstrong
Auckland, New Zealand
DynAero MCR-4S (Do not shoot me :) ).
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=435182#435182
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Slick magneto switch shield ground |
| From: | "eschlanser" <eschlanser(at)yahoo.com> |
I am about to connect the magneto switch wires for Slick mags on a Lycoming O320
engine. I have the Z-34 set-up of two (2-3) magneto switches and a push button
for the starter. Note 3 for Z34 advises grounding the shield to engine ground
at the mag end. On a previous post I found this:
I recommend each mag switch get grounded through the shield
of the p-lead where only the mag end of the p-lead shield
goes to the crankcase or other handy fastener on the engine.
Bob . . .
On the mag case an inch from the P lead post there is a handy #8 screw labelled
GND. The case is intimately attached to the engine. Can this GND screw be the
handy fastener on the engine where the P lead shield is grounded when wiring
a mag switch per Z34?
On the switch end, the same P lead shield gets attached to terminal 3 of the switch,
right?
Eric S.
The mag pictured is not mine but is like the one I have and is for illustration
only. No advertisement intended.
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=435191#435191
Attachments:
http://forums.matronics.com//files/slick_magneto_596.jpg
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Slick magneto switch shield ground |
On the mag case an inch from the P lead post there is a handy #8
screw labelled GND. The case is intimately attached to the
engine. Can this GND screw be the handy fastener on the engine where
the P lead shield is grounded when wiring a mag switch per Z34?
Yes . . . or to any other 'handy' ground
to crankcase . . . doesn't have to be on
the mag nor is it prohibited to extend the
shield ground with a pig-tail long enough
to find a more remote ground. But it looks
like your best option is nicely located.
On the switch end, the same P lead shield gets attached to terminal 3
of the switch, right?
Yes . . .
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: B&C alternator question |
At 09:08 2014-10-27, you wrote:
>What is your opinion on the Zeftonici regulators? I had nothing but
>trouble with regulators when I got my Pacer, and then heard about
>Zeftronics. They got an STC for the Pacer PA20, and I put one
>on. It has been absolutely trouble free for 20+ years, and I don't
>remember it being very expensive.
I knew the guy who started Zeftronics. We had many
enjoyable conversations at OSH. He was a capable
designer and manufacturer. I think the company is
in new hands now but I've heard nothing to indicate
that Zeftronics products are not of good value.
Zeftronics shows up on the qualified suppliers
lists for several devices at Cessna.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Robert Borger <rlborger(at)mac.com> |
Bill,
I understand your unanswered requests for help. It=99s not that
they are uninteresting. It=99s because I don=99t have an
answer and I don=99t want to be one of the ones cluttering up the
list with speculation or proposing alternatives you don=99t need.
Blue skies & tailwinds,
Bob Borger
Europa XS Tri, Rotax 914, Airmaster C/S Prop (75 hrs).
Little Toot Sport Biplane, Lycoming Thunderbolt AEIO-320 EXP
3705 Lynchburg Dr.
Corinth, TX 76208-5331
Cel: 817-992-1117
rlborger(at)mac.com
On Dec 2, 2014, at 8:13 AM, Bill Bradburry
wrote:
Stan,
Very well said. A similar problem with the list is when there is no
response at all. This happens to me quite frequently. I suppose it
would help if I had more interesting problems. :>)
Bill
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Dj Merrill <deej(at)deej.net> |
While I see the value of the "why" type questions, I have to agree with
Stan and Tim. I've been on the receiving end of this myself trying to
get a relatively straight answer to an electrical question only to
continually get derailed with exactly the types of comments that Tim
mentions (and on the same topic as it turns out. :-) )
While the "why" can make for an interesting and thought provoking
discussion, there are times when people just need a little help with
decisions that they've made for their aircraft, which may not be the
same decisions that someone else might have made. That's okay, and one
of the reasons why we are in experimental aviation.
In my case I ended up going elsewhere for help because I could not get
the help I needed on the Aeroelectric list, even after doing as Tim
suggested and indicating I didn't want to discuss the "why" any longer,
but needed help with the "how".
Even more frustrating, I brought my solution back to the List in an
attempt to share with others, and was again berated for "why do you need
to do that". I am happy to report that my solution was implemented and
has been working fine for the past several months.
Bob Nuckolls wrote, "The List is not just a place to ask, "what's 2 + 3
and where do I buy some 3's?". While I agree that the list is not
*just* a place to ask the "how", the implication from previous
discussions is that the List is a place where you can't ask the "how"
without also providing a thesis on the "why". Is this the overall
intent of the List?
Again, I can absolutely see the value of the "why" discussions, to a
point. I can also see the value in helping someone with the "how" once
they have made their decision, and am hopeful that we could accommodate
these types of discussions as well.
My hope is that this message is taken as constructive feedback, and not
as a complaint.
My half cents, fwiw,
-Dj
On 12/02/2014 09:50 AM, Tim Olson wrote:
>
> Stan,
>
> While maybe a bit harsh, I get exactly what you're saying.
> When you bring up Brownout protection, instead of getting
> solutions, you get "why do you need brownout protection",
> and "manufacturers should be building things tolerant of
> starter-inrush brown-out events". While the fact remains,
> there are systems that really should have brownout
> protection and it can be a very useful thing. I could fill
> a page on why brownout protection is important to me,
> but nobody would want to spend the time to read through
> that long enough to help with a solution. Sometimes you
> just want it to be "ok" that you require it and you want
> to get help with solutions. So I know what you mean.
> I think if you just know some of the sticky topics going in,
> maybe you can ask the pointed question and try to get
> an answer from at least someone on the list. Like
>
> "I am building a panel and absolutely require brownout
> protection. I'm not interested in debating the NEED
> for brownout protection, but would like to know some of
> the best options for those items requiring it?"
> Maybe at least that would bypass some of the frustration
> causing portions of the discussion.
>
> There are solutions out there for everything. I've been
> very happy with my panel in my RV-10, and since I built
> that, there are "out of the box" solutions from vendors
> like TCW Tech that make things easier for the builder too.
> So getting to what you need isn't impossible.
>
> Tim
>
>
>
> On 12/1/2014 11:30 PM, speedy11(at)aol.com wrote:
>> Kelley,
>> First of all, let me apologize for including all of the emails in my
>> reply. That was a mistake.
>> Secondly, perhaps I am being a bit touchy, but I consistently see the
>> same crap on the aeroelectric list.
>> Someone asks for advice on a relatively simple subject and gets skewered
>> by several people who believe they are personally responsible for
>> teaching the writer the wrongs of his ways. Some people get off on
>> rants implying that their ideas and/or procedures must be followed or
>> the writer has not adequately researched the subject and made the proper
>> decisions. It is the reason this list is dying a slow painful death.
>> Many of us have been around GA airplanes for 40 years (I own an aircraft
>> maintenance company), but we may not know the best solution to a problem
>> (or as Bob likes to think - perhaps a non-problem) especially as new
>> innovative solutions are being tried.
>> From personal experience you don't like full electronic ignition.
>> Personally I like full electronic ignition. But, when a writer asks a
>> question about something, he/she doesn't care our individual
>> preferences. They are interested in a response that may give them
>> greater insight into how to solve the particular problem for their
>> particular airplane.
>> The response they often get is no response at all or a response telling
>> them how wrong they are. They aren't wrong! Just because someone
>> decides to stray from the classical norms doesn't necessarily mean they
>> are wrong.
>> Justin may have given up on this forum to glean the information he
>> desired. Can't say I blame him. He is on the cutting edge of potential
>> improvements. His ideas may not work - then again they may work
>> perfectly. I understand his reasons for choosing to use two batteries
>> for remote AK operations.
>> I agree with you that he may not be choosing the simplest solution, but
>> it is his decision. He was simply asking for advice on how he might
>> implement his decision. I'm surprised he didn't contact Paisley, Rotax
>> and the battery manufacturer on how to best design his system instead of
>> coming to the aeroelectric list for help (who knows, maybe he did).
>> Nonetheless, I believe the response to him should have been something
>> like this:
>> 1. Contact the manufacturers and follow their advise.
>> 2. You can probably implement your chosen equipment in this manner ...
>> 3. However, have you considered doing this instead ...
>> In other words, provide advice on how his idea might be accomplished and
>> then give him advice on other considerations (one of which might be
>> "don't do it because ...").
>> You said " If the best solution was so obvious, he would also know how
>> to implement". There may not be a best solution. You implied that in
>> your first sentence when you said "there are a number of ways to skin a
>> cat". Justin has chosen a way to skin the cat. It may not be the best
>> way, but it is his way. He was asking for advice on how to implement
>> his skinning method - not advice on whether his method is the best, or
>> even desirable.
>> I find myself as frequently frustrated by responses on the aeroelectric
>> list as I am satisfied with them.
>> Touchy? Perhaps.
>> Maybe I've become a grumpy old man.
>> Safe flying to all,
>> Stan Sutterfield
>> Reno Race 84
--
Dj Merrill - N1JOV - VP EAA Chapter 87
Sportsman 2+2 Builder #7118 N421DJ - http://deej.net/sportsman/
Glastar Flyer N866RH - http://deej.net/glastar/
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "B Tomm" <fvalarm(at)rapidnet.net> |
I can't find the detail in the book. When making a fusible link, the inner
"fuse" wire is 22 AWG in this case. Is it necessary to strip the insulation
off?
Thanks
Bevan
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Fusible links |
At 11:44 2014-12-02, you wrote:
>
>
>I can't find the detail in the book. When making a fusible link, the inner
>"fuse" wire is 22 AWG in this case. Is it necessary to strip the insulation
>off?
I presume you're asking about the insulation on the
22AWG wire? No, in fact, you ADD insulation over it
See http://tinyurl.com/msx5ofe
Where are you considering the use of a fusible link?
I crafted that comic-book waaayyy back when we were
wrestling with the notion of extending the BUS in a
fuse block up to a one-terminal-BUS at the input side
of the alternator field breaker. A breaker upstream
of a crow-bar ov protection module.
I think we also dabbled with the use of fusible links
on the meter-leads to a shunt. As a general rule, the
fusible link is attractive only when a fuse holder
is a little 'messy' . . . The TC fleet has used two
fuses in clips to protect ammeter wires for decades.
Emacs!
The last time I was able to walk down the A36
production line (about 10 years ago) the clipped-in
fuses for various 'minor' tasks were quite visible.
The need to extend the bus to accommodate the only
circuit breaker in the airplane was a special case.
Like Figure Z-13/20, and to some extend Z-19, I've
regretted having published the ideas. While useful
and appropriate to the special cases, they've
morphed into other forms that may or may not
have been through PCQDR (preliminary, critical
and qualification design review).
Can or should we talk about it?
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "B Tomm" <fvalarm(at)rapidnet.net> |
Thanks Bob,
I had done it on mine a couple years back, but the other day I was helping a
hangar neighbour make some improvements. He has a rear mounted battery on a
BD4 (engine in front). He has one electronic ignition which was powered by
an 18 awg wire connected on the firewall at the input power terminal at the
starter solenoid. This fat wire was only powered when the master solenoid
(located in back next to the battery) was active. Not ideal for
electrically dependant ignition. There was a spare 18 awg wire already
running all the way back to the battery and the owner wanted to use that. I
suggested that we fuse it but that fuse would have to activate "slower"
than the breaker on the panel. I therefore suggested a fusible link and
that is where I crossed the line. Since it was such a good idea, and I had
suggested it, it was suggested that I do it :) Not a problem since I had
materials left over. Just couldn't remember if the 22awg wire (now hidden
under the silicone impregnated sleeve) on my RV7 had been stripped or not.
My thinking initially was that it must have been stripped because we really
don't want any combustible material "inside" the fuse if possible. It didn't
strip well, so I re-did it without stripping as you have confirmed. Thank
you.
Bevan
_____
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, December 02, 2014 11:41 AM
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Fusible links
At 11:44 2014-12-02, you wrote:
I can't find the detail in the book. When making a fusible link, the inner
"fuse" wire is 22 AWG in this case. Is it necessary to strip the insulation
off?
I presume you're asking about the insulation on the
22AWG wire? No, in fact, you ADD insulation over it
See http://tinyurl.com/msx5ofe
Where are you considering the use of a fusible link?
I crafted that comic-book waaayyy back when we were
wrestling with the notion of extending the BUS in a
fuse block up to a one-terminal-BUS at the input side
of the alternator field breaker. A breaker upstream
of a crow-bar ov protection module.
I think we also dabbled with the use of fusible links
on the meter-leads to a shunt. As a general rule, the
fusible link is attractive only when a fuse holder
is a little 'messy' . . . The TC fleet has used two
fuses in clips to protect ammeter wires for decades.
Emacs!
The last time I was able to walk down the A36
production line (about 10 years ago) the clipped-in
fuses for various 'minor' tasks were quite visible.
The need to extend the bus to accommodate the only
circuit breaker in the airplane was a special case.
Like Figure Z-13/20, and to some extend Z-19, I've
regretted having published the ideas. While useful
and appropriate to the special cases, they've
morphed into other forms that may or may not
have been through PCQDR (preliminary, critical
and qualification design review).
Can or should we talk about it?
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Joe <fransew(at)gmail.com> |
There is an old saying, "Beggars can't be choosy." That applies to the
AeroElectric List where replies are posted by volunteers. If I
volunteered to help someone who then complained about my work, I would
stop giving help. There is one very knowledgeable volunteer on the
AeroElectric list who sometimes gives long winded and philosophical
responses. Sometimes his response answers my question and sometimes
not. Regardless, I appreciate it that he has volunteered his precious
time to address my issue. There are many other participants on this
forum who are also very knowledgeable. Some of them might not post a
response to a question because they are afraid of getting flamed. So
please treat everyone with respect. Do not post something that you
would not say face to face. As for a question not being answered, maybe
the question needs to be rephrased or needs to be more specific.
Joe Gores
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
At 15:53 2014-12-02, you wrote:
Thanks Bob,
I had done it on mine a couple years back, but the other day I was
helping a hangar neighbour make some improvements. He has a rear
mounted battery on a BD4 (engine in front). He has one electronic
ignition which was powered by an 18 awg wire connected on the
firewall at the input power terminal at the starter solenoid. This
fat wire was only powered when the master solenoid (located in back
next to the battery) was active. Not ideal for electrically
dependant ignition. There was a spare 18 awg wire already running
all the way back to the battery and the owner wanted to use that. I
suggested that we fuse it but that fuse would have to
activate "slower" than the breaker on the panel. I therefore
suggested a fusible link and that is where I crossed the line. Since
it was such a good idea, and I had suggested it, it was suggested
that I do it :) Not a problem since I had materials left
over. Just couldn't remember if the 22awg wire (now hidden under the
silicone impregnated sleeve) on my RV7 had been stripped or not. My
thinking initially was that it must have been stripped because we
really don't want any combustible material "inside" the fuse if
possible. It didn't strip well, so I re-did it without stripping as
you have confirmed. Thank you.
Okay, this is a situation similar
to the "bus extension" to panel mounted
breaker for a crowbar ov protection
system.
Keep in mind that circuit protection is
to keep the smoke in wires. Further, the
'rule of thumb' for always hot wires from
a battery bus is to protect at 5A or less
Given that fuses are MUCH faster than
breakers . . . 7A fuse is a comfortable
alternative to the 5A breaker.
This is a convention driven by concerns
for crash safety. Limit the energy available
on an always-hot wire for the purposes of
reducing risk of post crash fire. I don't
believe for a minute that anyone did any
tests combined with statistical analysis
to come up with that 5A number . . . but
intuitively, one finds comfort in protecting
an always-hot wire at the lowest practical
value.
I suspect that the electronic ignition runs
on MUCH less than 5A. What size is the panel
mounted breaker? If it were my airplane,
I'd drive the ignition supply wire from the
battery through a 7A fuse and eliminate the
panel mounted breaker.
If that breaker EVER trips, then there's
something seriously wrong with either
the ignition system or the power pathway
feeding it . . . the notion of resetting it
is does not stand on favorable probabilities
for recovery-by-reset. A 7A fuse, 5A breaker,
or fusible link in the tail does not alter
the probabilities . . .
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Toroid beads VOR antenna vs. Active VOR antenna |
>
>
>All perfectly doable. I just need to get a better understanding of
>the necessities of your request.
>
>Thanks again,
>James
Understand. My current vision of this antenna suggests
that it will look like a piece of RG coax with a little
"lump" of a splice onto a 6-inch piece of wire. The
'lumpy splice' will contain a handful of components that
allows the relatively poor antenna to deliver energy into
the 50-ohm coax (end impedance of too-short element is
WAAayyyy to high).
A little background:
Active antennas have been around for a long time.
Adding some form of amplifier with a high input
impedance to the antenna-end of a low impedance
coax allows the 'crippled' but still quite serviceable
antenna to deliver its energy into the low impedance
feed line.
Here are some examples:
http://tinyurl.com/npdmnsw
In particular, I'll call your attention to one
of many versions described. Check out the
"AA7" . ..
Active Antenna AA-7 HF/VHF/UHF, 3-3000MHz
It has an HF, VHF 'band' switch. You'll note that
in the VHF position, the active circuitry consists
of the single transistor and a couple of passive
components. The circuit I posted earlier . . .
Emacs!
was an adaptation of the AA7 configuration. Most
active antenna designs bring rf energy down the
feed line and send dc power up to the antenna
on the same feed line. I decided to keep coax
installation as pristine as possible and not
mess with the feed line after it leaves the antenna.
So, the ready-to-install antenna assembly
takes on the form described above where you
hopefully will be able to offer a conduit through
which the antenna can be extended into the wing.
To eliminate the 'monkey motion' at the
receiver end of the coax, dc power will have
to be brought out to the amplifier on a
separate, 22 awg wire that can be fed from
the same breaker as the radio . . .
The ferrite transformer cores came in last
week. I need to brass-board this thing
on the bench and verify performance before I
squish it down into that 'lump' described earlier.
An interesting and important feature of this
experiment is to not glass the critter into
place so that any future fiddling with the
design doesn't take a hack saw to the airplane.
I may mount one of this things on my roof and
see how it compares with monitor antennas I
have for listening to local city, police and
fire services.
I have one HF active antenna up there already.
http://tinyurl.com/ou2ezdy
The 'antenna' part of this critter is only a
few inches long. I don't have any other HF
optimized antennas up yet to compare it to . . .
but this 'lump' on the end of a piece of coax
hears 'lots of stuff'. Given that the 'stuff'
of which VOR is made (high power, line of sight)
it seems that our little experiment has a high
probability of success for replacing the legacy
dipoles and whiskers so favored by our TC
brothers.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Charlie England <ceengland7(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Fusible links |
On 12/3/2014 10:26 AM, Robert L. Nuckolls, III wrote:
>
>
>
> At 15:53 2014-12-02, you wrote:
> Thanks Bob,
>
> I had done it on mine a couple years back, but the other day I was
> helping a hangar neighbour make some improvements. He has a rear
> mounted battery on a BD4 (engine in front). He has one electronic
> ignition which was powered by an 18 awg wire connected on the firewall
> at the input power terminal at the starter solenoid. This fat wire was
> only powered when the master solenoid (located in back next to the
> battery) was active. Not ideal for electrically dependant ignition.
> There was a spare 18 awg wire already running all the way back to the
> battery and the owner wanted to use that. I suggested that we fuse it
> but that fuse would have to activate "slower" than the breaker on the
> panel. I therefore suggested a fusible link and that is where I
> crossed the line. Since it was such a good idea, and I had suggested
> it, it was suggested that I do it :) Not a problem since I had
> materials left over. Just couldn't remember if the 22awg wire (now
> hidden under the silicone impregnated sleeve) on my RV7 had been
> stripped or not. My thinking initially was that it must have been
> stripped because we really don't want any combustible material
> "inside" the fuse if possible. It didn't strip well, so I re-did it
> without stripping as you have confirmed. Thank you.
>
> Okay, this is a situation similar
> to the "bus extension" to panel mounted
> breaker for a crowbar ov protection
> system.
>
> Keep in mind that circuit protection is
> to keep the smoke in wires. Further, the
> 'rule of thumb' for always hot wires from
> a battery bus is to protect at 5A or less
> Given that fuses are MUCH faster than
> breakers . . . 7A fuse is a comfortable
> alternative to the 5A breaker.
>
> This is a convention driven by concerns
> for crash safety. Limit the energy available
> on an always-hot wire for the purposes of
> reducing risk of post crash fire. I don't
> believe for a minute that anyone did any
> tests combined with statistical analysis
> to come up with that 5A number . . . but
> intuitively, one finds comfort in protecting
> an always-hot wire at the lowest practical
> value.
>
> I suspect that the electronic ignition runs
> on MUCH less than 5A. What size is the panel
> mounted breaker? If it were my airplane,
> I'd drive the ignition supply wire from the
> battery through a 7A fuse and eliminate the
> panel mounted breaker.
>
> If that breaker EVER trips, then there's
> something seriously wrong with either
> the ignition system or the power pathway
> feeding it . . . the notion of resetting it
> is does not stand on favorable probabilities
> for recovery-by-reset. A 7A fuse, 5A breaker,
> or fusible link in the tail does not alter
> the probabilities . . .
>
>
> Bob . . .
Probably a safe assumption for 'traditional' a/c engines with stock fuel
delivery, but different for 'alternative' (automotive-based) engines and
increasingly, a/c engines, more current is required. Most
automotive-based engines use high pressure fuel injection which must be
included in current calculations. There's now a growing wave of
automotive style injection on a/c engines, as well. High pressure
gerotor or roller-vane fuel pumps typically draw 6-10 amps continuous.
Even the little turbine style pumps (which must be installed inside the
fuel tank; the input must be kept flooded) typically draw 3-4 amps. So
total current demand to keep an 'electronic' engine running usually
exceeds 10 amps; often as high as 15.
So what's the solution? Dedicated fuse bus at the battery to distribute
power to the various engine control components?
Charlie
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | <rnjcurtis(at)charter.net> |
| Subject: | Re:_AeroElectric-List:_Fusible_links? |
DQoNCg0KDQoNCg0KDQpQcm9iYWJseSBhIHNhZmUgYXNzdW1wdGlvbiBmb3IgJ3RyYWRpdGlvbmFs
JyBhL2MgZW5naW5lcyB3aXRoIHN0b2NrIGZ1ZWwgDQpkZWxpdmVyeSwgYnV0IGRpZmZlcmVudCBm
b3IgJ2FsdGVybmF0aXZlJyAoYXV0b21vdGl2ZS1iYXNlZCkgZW5naW5lcyBhbmQgDQppbmNyZWFz
aW5nbHksIGEvYyBlbmdpbmVzLCBtb3JlIGN1cnJlbnQgaXMgcmVxdWlyZWQuIE1vc3QgDQphdXRv
bW90aXZlLWJhc2VkIGVuZ2luZXMgdXNlIGhpZ2ggcHJlc3N1cmUgZnVlbCBpbmplY3Rpb24gd2hp
Y2ggbXVzdCBiZSANCmluY2x1ZGVkIGluIGN1cnJlbnQgY2FsY3VsYXRpb25zLiBUaGVyZSdzIG5v
dyBhIGdyb3dpbmcgd2F2ZSBvZiANCmF1dG9tb3RpdmUgc3R5bGUgaW5qZWN0aW9uIG9uIGEvYyBl
bmdpbmVzLCBhcyB3ZWxsLiBIaWdoIHByZXNzdXJlIA0KZ2Vyb3RvciBvciByb2xsZXItdmFuZSBm
dWVsIHB1bXBzIHR5cGljYWxseSBkcmF3IDYtMTAgYW1wcyBjb250aW51b3VzLiANCkV2ZW4gdGhl
IGxpdHRsZSB0dXJiaW5lIHN0eWxlIHB1bXBzICh3aGljaCBtdXN0IGJlIGluc3RhbGxlZCBpbnNp
ZGUgdGhlIA0KZnVlbCB0YW5rOyB0aGUgaW5wdXQgbXVzdCBiZSBrZXB0IGZsb29kZWQpIHR5cGlj
YWxseSBkcmF3IDMtNCBhbXBzLiBTbyANCnRvdGFsIGN1cnJlbnQgZGVtYW5kIHRvIGtlZXAgYW4g
J2VsZWN0cm9uaWMnIGVuZ2luZSBydW5uaW5nIHVzdWFsbHkgDQpleGNlZWRzIDEwIGFtcHM7IG9m
dGVuIGFzIGhpZ2ggYXMgMTUuDQoNClNvIHdoYXQncyB0aGUgc29sdXRpb24/IERlZGljYXRlZCBm
dXNlIGJ1cyBhdCB0aGUgYmF0dGVyeSB0byBkaXN0cmlidXRlIA0KcG93ZXIgdG8gdGhlIHZhcmlv
dXMgZW5naW5lIGNvbnRyb2wgY29tcG9uZW50cz8NCg0KDQoNCg0KTWluZSBpcyBzZXQgdXAgd2l0
aCBkdWFsIGVsZWN0cm9uaWMgaWduaXRpb24gYW5kIGR1YWwgZnVlbCBwdW1wcy4gIFdpdGggbXkg
ZHVhbCBiYXR0ZXJ5IHN5c3RlbSBJIGhhdmUgMiBmdXNlZCBjaXJjdWl0cyBvZmYgdGhlIG1haW4g
YmF0dGVyeSBidXMgZ29pbmcgdG8gaWduaXRpb24gIzEgYW5kIGZ1ZWwgcHVtcCAjMS4gIEZyb20g
bXkgQXV4aWxpYXJ5IGJhdHRlcnkgYnVzIEkgaGF2ZSBhbm90aGVyIDIgZnVzZWQgY2lyY3VpdHMg
Z29pbmcgdG8gSWduaXRpb24gIzIgYW5kIGZ1ZWwgcHVtcCAjMi4gIFdpdGggdGhpcyBzeXN0ZW0g
eW91IGhhdmUgdG90YWwgcmVkdW5kYW5jeSBhbmQgbGltaXRlZCBjdXJyZW50IGluIGVhY2ggd2ly
ZS4NCg0KDQpSb2dlcg=
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Fusible links |
Probably a safe assumption for 'traditional' a/c engines with stock
fuel delivery, but different for 'alternative' (automotive-based)
engines and increasingly, a/c engines, more current is required. Most
automotive-based engines use high pressure fuel injection which must
be included in current calculations. There's now a growing wave of
automotive style injection on a/c engines, as well. High pressure
gerotor or roller-vane fuel pumps typically draw 6-10 amps
continuous. Even the little turbine style pumps (which must be
installed inside the fuel tank; the input must be kept flooded)
typically draw 3-4 amps. So total current demand to keep an
'electronic' engine running usually exceeds 10 amps; often as high as 15.
So what's the solution? Dedicated fuse bus at the battery to
distribute power to the various engine control components?
He was talking about an ignition system. Energy
to light the fires is quite nominal. Not aware of
any ignition that requires more than 3A. Lightspeed's
flame throwing CD ignition runs 2.6A at 2700 rpm on
a 6 cyl engine.
Fuel delivery is another matter and, as you've noted,
can be all over the map. TBI systems run on a few amps
while some 40+ psi rail fed injector systems can be
MUCH higher.
I'd treat this like the heavy duty e-bus feeder
illustrated in Z-32 . . . except the e-bus alt feed
switch becomes a fuel system control switch. The
relay could be a solid state device or one of the
sealed electro-mechanical critters.
This comports nicely with the TC aircraft philosophy
for achieving a Max-Cold state of all wires when
crew operated switches are placed to OFF.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | <rnjcurtis(at)charter.net> |
| Subject: | Re:_AeroElectric-List:_Fusible_links? |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________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Always on supply |
The GPS manufacturer suggests connecting a second, always on, supply (they call
it "clock power") which will improve GPS position acquisition time.
What is the preferred way of providing this power? Run a fused line (they recommend
a .1a fuse) directly from a battery terminal (or battery side of the master
solenoid) to the GPS?
IIRC, the EFIS would like one of these always on supplies also.
So maybe run a fused wire from the battery to the panel and create an "always
on" bus with fused branches off of that?
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=435279#435279
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Fusible links |
At 14:08 2014-12-03, you wrote:
> Not aware of
> any ignition that requires more than 3A. Lightspeed's
> flame throwing CD ignition runs 2.6A at 2700 rpm on
> a 6 cyl engine.
>
>
>If you are using a PSRU (propeller speed reduction unit) on a 6
>cylinder engine you will have a higher engine RPM, perhaps in the
>range of 4 - 5 k rpm. This higher speed will translate to a higher
>current flow to the electronic CD ignition. An MSD 6A automotive CD
>ignition module is specified at 1A / 1K RPM, which translates to
>perhaps 5A worst case.
Hmmmm . . . that's too bad. There's no good reason
for ignition systems to draw that much current.
I've talked with the guys at EmagAir about this
several times. A take-away from those conversations
says that it's most important to get an adequate spark
delivered right on time. Magnetos have proven their
ability to deliver adequate sparks while running . . .
and they're certainly not flame throwers. Certainly
hard to fiddle with the timing . . . and you need
some kind of monkey motion like impulse couplers or
shower-of-sparks to effect nice starts . . . but
there's hundreds of thousands flying with few
critical issues.
Being able to advance the spark at low manifold
pressures gets you some benefit . . .but the spark
doesn't need to be any hotter . . . in fact, worst
case sparking requirements are at max cylinder pressure
which probably means a boosted engine at max retard
timing.
The legacy Kettering coil, condenser, points system
delivers about 30-40 mJ per spark. For a 6-cyl engine
running 2400 rpm, 40 rev/sec, 3 sparks per rev, energy
at the plugs comes to about 120 mJ per rev or 4800
mJ per second. Assume a really lousy system efficiency
of say 50% and we need to draw 9.6 watts from the
ship's bus or about 700 mA.
Now, deliver that energy even while cold and with
a soggy battery . . . and be able to advance the
timing at low manifold pressures, and you've got
a perfectly adequate ignition system.
So be curious and skeptical when someone says
their 'flame throwing ignition system' is going
to do great things for your airplane. If you're
flying a racer, maybe. If you've got a nice
point-a to point-b transportation machine that
carries battery energy to implement Plan-B, perhaps
all that flame at the spark plugs suggests a
need to re-think the planning.
Elegant solutions benefit from good stewardship
of energy. It starts with the airfoils and
extends down to batteries and fuel aboard.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "B Tomm" <fvalarm(at)rapidnet.net> |
Thanks Bob,
The literature that came with the LightSpeed says the breaker should be 7.5
amp. (IO-540) You still recommend a 5 amp breaker (since he really wants
some form of disconnect on the panel) and a (??? Value fuse, fusible link,
breaker)at the rear for the feed from the battery.
Perhaps I should suggest a 5 or 7.5 amp slow blo fuse at the battery, and a
simple switch on the panel in place of the breaker if he must have a
disconnect.
Bevan
-----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: Wednesday, December 03, 2014 8:27 AM
Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Fusible links
-->
At 15:53 2014-12-02, you wrote:
Thanks Bob,
I had done it on mine a couple years back, but the other day I was helping a
hangar neighbour make some improvements. He has a rear mounted battery on a
BD4 (engine in front). He has one electronic ignition which was powered by
an 18 awg wire connected on the firewall at the input power terminal at the
starter solenoid. This fat wire was only powered when the master solenoid
(located in back next to the battery) was active. Not ideal for
electrically dependant ignition. There was a spare 18 awg wire already
running all the way back to the battery and the owner wanted to use that. I
suggested that we fuse it but that fuse would have to activate "slower"
than the breaker on the panel. I therefore suggested a fusible link and
that is where I crossed the line. Since it was such a good idea, and I had
suggested it, it was suggested
that I do it :) Not a problem since I had materials left
over. Just couldn't remember if the 22awg wire (now hidden under the
silicone impregnated sleeve) on my RV7 had been stripped or not. My
thinking initially was that it must have been stripped because we really
don't want any combustible material "inside" the fuse if possible. It didn't
strip well, so I re-did it without stripping as you have confirmed. Thank
you.
Okay, this is a situation similar
to the "bus extension" to panel mounted
breaker for a crowbar ov protection
system.
Keep in mind that circuit protection is
to keep the smoke in wires. Further, the
'rule of thumb' for always hot wires from
a battery bus is to protect at 5A or less
Given that fuses are MUCH faster than
breakers . . . 7A fuse is a comfortable
alternative to the 5A breaker.
This is a convention driven by concerns
for crash safety. Limit the energy available
on an always-hot wire for the purposes of
reducing risk of post crash fire. I don't
believe for a minute that anyone did any
tests combined with statistical analysis
to come up with that 5A number . . . but
intuitively, one finds comfort in protecting
an always-hot wire at the lowest practical
value.
I suspect that the electronic ignition runs
on MUCH less than 5A. What size is the panel
mounted breaker? If it were my airplane,
I'd drive the ignition supply wire from the
battery through a 7A fuse and eliminate the
panel mounted breaker.
If that breaker EVER trips, then there's
something seriously wrong with either
the ignition system or the power pathway
feeding it . . . the notion of resetting it
is does not stand on favorable probabilities
for recovery-by-reset. A 7A fuse, 5A breaker,
or fusible link in the tail does not alter
the probabilities . . .
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Bill Bradburry" <bbradburry(at)verizon.net> |
I was being "cute" with the uninteresting comment, Bob.
I suspect that everything on the list is interesting to someone on the list,
although maybe not to everybody on the list. I think I get something even
from the posts that I don't quite understand and for sure from the posts
counseling the need for something someone wants to do. Sometimes I agree
and sometimes not, but an opinion not your own can sometimes turn on a light
bulb.
When my questions get ignored I just assume that no one reading that day has
a suggestion that he feels strongly about enough to post. It is
disappointing though, when you really kinda want a suggestion and don't get
anything and then some fairly basic thing will get 10 hits. :>)
But I am not criticizing the list, because God knows, I am flying an
airplane the parts of which would still be scattered all over the hangar if
it had not been for the good and generous graces if Bob N. and the others on
this list.
Bill
_____
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Robert
Borger
Sent: Tuesday, December 02, 2014 9:15 AM
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: Touchy
Bill,
I understand your unanswered requests for help. It's not that they are
uninteresting. It's because I don't have an answer and I don't want to be
one of the ones cluttering up the list with speculation or proposing
alternatives you don't need.
Blue skies & tailwinds,
Bob Borger
Europa XS Tri, Rotax 914, Airmaster C/S Prop (75 hrs).
Little Toot Sport Biplane, Lycoming Thunderbolt AEIO-320 EXP
3705 Lynchburg Dr.
Corinth, TX 76208-5331
Cel: 817-992-1117
rlborger(at)mac.com
On Dec 2, 2014, at 8:13 AM, Bill Bradburry wrote:
Stan,
Very well said. A similar problem with the list is when there is no
response at all. This happens to me quite frequently. I suppose it would
help if I had more interesting problems. :>)
Bill
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Lyle Peterson <lyleap(at)centurylink.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Fusible links |
Hi,
I've been involved in electronics for some 30 years. I know what a
fusible link is in an automobile. They do come in a variety of designs,
some very much like a fuse as we know them.
I have always questioned the value of a fusible link such as is used in
automobiles. They are a length of wire, usually 4 wire gauges smaller
than the wire they are protecting. They are most often a hassle to
replace. Why would not a common fuse perform the same function and be
much more easily replaced?
Inquiring minds want to know,
Lyle
On 12/3/2014 4:14 PM, Robert L. Nuckolls, III wrote:
>
>
> At 14:08 2014-12-03, you wrote:
>
>
>> Not aware of
>> any ignition that requires more than 3A. Lightspeed's
>> flame throwing CD ignition runs 2.6A at 2700 rpm on
>> a 6 cyl engine.
>>
>>
>> If you are using a PSRU (propeller speed reduction unit) on a 6
>> cylinder engine you will have a higher engine RPM, perhaps in the
>> range of 4 - 5 k rpm. This higher speed will translate to a higher
>> current flow to the electronic CD ignition. An MSD 6A automotive CD
>> ignition module is specified at 1A / 1K RPM, which translates to
>> perhaps 5A worst case.
>
>
--
Lyle
Sent from my Gateway E4610D desktop
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "B Tomm" <fvalarm(at)rapidnet.net> |
The advantages of the fusible link in this case is:
Must be slower acting than the breaker. I blew quite a few fuses until I
found that I needed a fuse of about double the value to ensure the breaker
trips first. This would suggest a 15 amp fuse which is larger than desired.
Robust (although a fuse in an inline holder is equally suitable in this
regard.)
There's no place to mount a breaker near the battery where it is easily
accessible and yet not in the way for battery access through the small panel
where it is located.
Cost and availability. We're trying to get this airplane back in the air so
it can go home. They can make more permanent changes there.
Bevan
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Lyle
Peterson
Sent: Wednesday, December 03, 2014 7:08 PM
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Fusible links
-->
Hi,
I've been involved in electronics for some 30 years. I know what a fusible
link is in an automobile. They do come in a variety of designs, some very
much like a fuse as we know them.
I have always questioned the value of a fusible link such as is used in
automobiles. They are a length of wire, usually 4 wire gauges smaller than
the wire they are protecting. They are most often a hassle to replace. Why
would not a common fuse perform the same function and be much more easily
replaced?
Inquiring minds want to know,
Lyle
On 12/3/2014 4:14 PM, Robert L. Nuckolls, III wrote:
>
>
> At 14:08 2014-12-03, you wrote:
>
>
>> Not aware of
>> any ignition that requires more than 3A. Lightspeed's
>> flame throwing CD ignition runs 2.6A at 2700 rpm on
>> a 6 cyl engine.
>>
>>
>> If you are using a PSRU (propeller speed reduction unit) on a 6
>> cylinder engine you will have a higher engine RPM, perhaps in the
>> range of 4 - 5 k rpm. This higher speed will translate to a higher
>> current flow to the electronic CD ignition. An MSD 6A automotive CD
>> ignition module is specified at 1A / 1K RPM, which translates to
>> perhaps 5A worst case.
>
>
--
Lyle
Sent from my Gateway E4610D desktop
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Bill Bradburry" <bbradburry(at)verizon.net> |
| Subject: | Sending two msgs to the list |
I seem to be sending two msgs to the list each time I post. I am using
Outlook. Does anyone know why this may be happening? It appears to have
started a couple of days ago. The msgs are about 12 minutes apart and I am
only hitting send one time. AFAIK it is only happening with msgs to the
Aeroelectric list.
Thanks for any ideas.
Bill
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Bob Verwey <bob.verwey(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | Fusible links NOW VARIATION ON A THEME |
So I have a fat wire (00) running from the battery behind pilot seat, to
the firewall, from whence the starter fat wire is connected on the engine
side, and a 4 awg behind the firewall to the bus through a contactor.
Its a Chevy V6, so the starter contactor is built into the starter.
The fat wire is always hot at this stage, and I am looking for a solution
in the form of a fuse/ fusible link near the battery so that in the event
of an accident induced short, or an engaged starter hangup, that there is
protection.
Best...
Bob Verwey
On 2 December 2014 at 23:53, B Tomm wrote:
> Thanks Bob,
>
> I had done it on mine a couple years back, but the other day I was helping
> a hangar neighbour make some improvements. He has a rear mounted battery
> on a BD4 (engine in front). He has one electronic ignition which
> was powered by an 18 awg wire connected on the firewall at the input power
> terminal at the starter solenoid. This fat wire was only powered when the
> master solenoid (located in back next to the battery) was active. Not
> ideal for electrically dependant ignition. There was a spare 18 awg wire
> already running all the way back to the battery and the owner wanted to use
> that. I suggested that we fuse it but that fuse would have to activate
> "slower" than the breaker on the panel. I therefore suggested a fusible
> link and that is where I crossed the line. Since it was such a good idea,
> and I had suggested it, it was suggested that I do it :) Not a problem
> since I had materials left over. Just couldn't remember if the 22awg wire
> (now hidden under the silicone impregnated sleeve) on my RV7 had been
> stripped or not. My thinking initially was that it must have been stripped
> because we really don't want any combustible material "inside" the fuse if
> possible. It didn't strip well, so I re-did it without stripping as you
> have confirmed. Thank you.
>
> Bevan
>
> ------------------------------
> *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, December 02, 2014 11:41 AM
> *To:* aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
> *Subject:* Re: AeroElectric-List: Fusible links
>
> At 11:44 2014-12-02, you wrote:
>
>
> I can't find the detail in the book. When making a fusible link, the inner
> "fuse" wire is 22 AWG in this case. Is it necessary to strip the
> insulation
> off?
>
>
> I presume you're asking about the insulation on the
> 22AWG wire? No, in fact, you ADD insulation over it
>
> See http://tinyurl.com/msx5ofe
>
> Where are you considering the use of a fusible link?
> I crafted that comic-book waaayyy back when we were
> wrestling with the notion of extending the BUS in a
> fuse block up to a one-terminal-BUS at the input side
> of the alternator field breaker. A breaker upstream
> of a crow-bar ov protection module.
>
> I think we also dabbled with the use of fusible links
> on the meter-leads to a shunt. As a general rule, the
> fusible link is attractive only when a fuse holder
> is a little 'messy' . . . The TC fleet has used two
> fuses in clips to protect ammeter wires for decades.
>
> [image: Emacs!]
>
> The last time I was able to walk down the A36
> production line (about 10 years ago) the clipped-in
> fuses for various 'minor' tasks were quite visible.
>
> The need to extend the bus to accommodate the only
> circuit breaker in the airplane was a special case.
>
> Like Figure Z-13/20, and to some extend Z-19, I've
> regretted having published the ideas. While useful
> and appropriate to the special cases, they've
> morphed into other forms that may or may not
> have been through PCQDR (preliminary, critical
> and qualification design review).
>
> Can or should we talk about it?
>
> Bob . . .
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Justin Jones <jmjones2000(at)mindspring.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Fusible links NOW VARIATION ON A THEME |
Bob,
If you don=99t want to run your starter through the master
contractor, I suggest you use a device like this. A location closer to
the battery is better. A cable can be used in place of the push tube if
you need.
http://www.jegs.com/i/Flaming+River/898/FR1003-2/10002/-1
<http://www.jegs.com/i/Flaming+River/898/FR1003-2/10002/-1>
During a run-on or stuck starter situation, it will take a while for the
fusable link to burn through. This switch will also allow you to shut
off the power to the starter any time you don=99t need it, such as
the aircraft sitting on the ground or while doing maintenance. The last
thing you want is to be working on the engine and accidentally short out
the contacts of the starter and have that prop come swinging through.
If you are doing maintenance on the starter itself, I would still
disconnect the battery from the starter cable.
Hope this helps.
Justin
> On Dec 3, 2014, at 11:19 PM, Bob Verwey wrote:
>
> So I have a fat wire (00) running from the battery behind pilot seat,
to the firewall, from whence the starter fat wire is connected on the
engine side, and a 4 awg behind the firewall to the bus through a
contactor.
>
> Its a Chevy V6, so the starter contactor is built into the starter.
>
> The fat wire is always hot at this stage, and I am looking for a
solution in the form of a fuse/ fusible link near the battery so that in
the event of an accident induced short, or an engaged starter hangup,
that there is protection.
>
>
>
> Best...
>
> Bob Verwey
>
>
> On 2 December 2014 at 23:53, B Tomm > wrote:
> Thanks Bob,
>
> I had done it on mine a couple years back, but the other day I was
helping a hangar neighbour make some improvements. He has a rear
mounted battery on a BD4 (engine in front). He has one electronic
ignition which was powered by an 18 awg wire connected on the firewall
at the input power terminal at the starter solenoid. This fat wire was
only powered when the master solenoid (located in back next to the
battery) was active. Not ideal for electrically dependant ignition.
There was a spare 18 awg wire already running all the way back to the
battery and the owner wanted to use that. I suggested that we fuse it
but that fuse would have to activate "slower" than the breaker on the
panel. I therefore suggested a fusible link and that is where I crossed
the line. Since it was such a good idea, and I had suggested it, it was
suggested that I do it :) Not a problem since I had materials left
over. Just couldn't remember if the 22awg wire (now hidden under the
silicone impregnated sleeve) on my RV7 had been stripped or not. My
thinking initially was that it must have been stripped because we really
don't want any combustible material "inside" the fuse if possible. It
didn't strip well, so I re-did it without stripping as you have
confirmed. Thank you.
>
> Bevan
>
> 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, December 02, 2014 11:41 AM
> To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
> Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Fusible links
>
> At 11:44 2014-12-02, you wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>
>> I can't find the detail in the book. When making a fusible link, the
inner
>> "fuse" wire is 22 AWG in this case. Is it necessary to strip the
insulation
>> off?
>
> I presume you're asking about the insulation on the
> 22AWG wire? No, in fact, you ADD insulation over it
>
> See http://tinyurl.com/msx5ofe
>
> Where are you considering the use of a fusible link?
> I crafted that comic-book waaayyy back when we were
> wrestling with the notion of extending the BUS in a
> fuse block up to a one-terminal-BUS at the input side
> of the alternator field breaker. A breaker upstream
> of a crow-bar ov protection module.
>
> I think we also dabbled with the use of fusible links
> on the meter-leads to a shunt. As a general rule, the
> fusible link is attractive only when a fuse holder
> is a little 'messy' . . . The TC fleet has used two
> fuses in clips to protect ammeter wires for decades.
>
> <400400db.jpg>
>
> The last time I was able to walk down the A36
> production line (about 10 years ago) the clipped-in
> fuses for various 'minor' tasks were quite visible.
>
> The need to extend the bus to accommodate the only
> circuit breaker in the airplane was a special case.
>
> Like Figure Z-13/20, and to some extend Z-19, I've
> regretted having published the ideas. While useful
> and appropriate to the special cases, they've
> morphed into other forms that may or may not
> have been through PCQDR (preliminary, critical
> and qualification design review).
>
> Can or should we talk about it?
>
> Bob . . .
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Bob Verwey <bob.verwey(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Fusible links NOW VARIATION ON A THEME |
Thanks Justin,
I have a very similar device lying on the shelf in my shop, used in boating
applications.
I guess I was just looking for some re-assurance that it is a good solution
.
Thanks!
Best...
Bob Verwey
On 4 December 2014 at 10:49, Justin Jones
wrote:
> Bob,
>
> If you don=99t want to run your starter through the master contract
or, I
> suggest you use a device like this. A location closer to the battery is
> better. A cable can be used in place of the push tube if you need.
>
> http://www.jegs.com/i/Flaming+River/898/FR1003-2/10002/-1
>
> During a run-on or stuck starter situation, it will take a while for the
> fusable link to burn through. This switch will also allow you to shut of
f
> the power to the starter any time you don=99t need it, such as the
aircraft
> sitting on the ground or while doing maintenance. The last thing you wan
t
> is to be working on the engine and accidentally short out the contacts of
> the starter and have that prop come swinging through. If you are doing
> maintenance on the starter itself, I would still disconnect the battery
> from the starter cable.
>
> Hope this helps.
>
> Justin
>
>
> On Dec 3, 2014, at 11:19 PM, Bob Verwey wrote:
>
> So I have a fat wire (00) running from the battery behind pilot seat, to
> the firewall, from whence the starter fat wire is connected on the engine
> side, and a 4 awg behind the firewall to the bus through a contactor.
>
> Its a Chevy V6, so the starter contactor is built into the starter.
>
> The fat wire is always hot at this stage, and I am looking for a solution
> in the form of a fuse/ fusible link near the battery so that in the event
> of an accident induced short, or an engaged starter hangup, that there is
> protection.
>
>
> Best...
>
> Bob Verwey
>
>
> On 2 December 2014 at 23:53, B Tomm wrote:
>
>> Thanks Bob,
>>
>> I had done it on mine a couple years back, but the other day I was
>> helping a hangar neighbour make some improvements. He has a rear mounte
d
>> battery on a BD4 (engine in front). He has one electronic ignition whic
h
>> was powered by an 18 awg wire connected on the firewall at the input pow
er
>> terminal at the starter solenoid. This fat wire was only powered when t
he
>> master solenoid (located in back next to the battery) was active. Not
>> ideal for electrically dependant ignition. There was a spare 18 awg wir
e
>> already running all the way back to the battery and the owner wanted to
use
>> that. I suggested that we fuse it but that fuse would have to activate
>> "slower" than the breaker on the panel. I therefore suggested a fusibl
e
>> link and that is where I crossed the line. Since it was such a good ide
a,
>> and I had suggested it, it was suggested that I do it :) Not a proble
m
>> since I had materials left over. Just couldn't remember if the 22awg wi
re
>> (now hidden under the silicone impregnated sleeve) on my RV7 had been
>> stripped or not. My thinking initially was that it must have been strip
ped
>> because we really don't want any combustible material "inside" the fuse
if
>> possible. It didn't strip well, so I re-did it without stripping as you
>> have confirmed. Thank you.
>>
>> Bevan
>>
>> ------------------------------
>> *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, December 02, 2014 11:41 AM
>> *To:* aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
>> *Subject:* Re: AeroElectric-List: Fusible links
>>
>> At 11:44 2014-12-02, you wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> I can't find the detail in the book. When making a fusible link, the
>> inner
>> "fuse" wire is 22 AWG in this case. Is it necessary to strip the
>> insulation
>> off?
>>
>>
>> I presume you're asking about the insulation on the
>> 22AWG wire? No, in fact, you ADD insulation over it
>>
>> See http://tinyurl.com/msx5ofe
>>
>> Where are you considering the use of a fusible link?
>> I crafted that comic-book waaayyy back when we were
>> wrestling with the notion of extending the BUS in a
>> fuse block up to a one-terminal-BUS at the input side
>> of the alternator field breaker. A breaker upstream
>> of a crow-bar ov protection module.
>>
>> I think we also dabbled with the use of fusible links
>> on the meter-leads to a shunt. As a general rule, the
>> fusible link is attractive only when a fuse holder
>> is a little 'messy' . . . The TC fleet has used two
>> fuses in clips to protect ammeter wires for decades.
>>
>> <400400db.jpg>
>>
>> The last time I was able to walk down the A36
>> production line (about 10 years ago) the clipped-in
>> fuses for various 'minor' tasks were quite visible.
>>
>> The need to extend the bus to accommodate the only
>> circuit breaker in the airplane was a special case.
>>
>> Like Figure Z-13/20, and to some extend Z-19, I've
>> regretted having published the ideas. While useful
>> and appropriate to the special cases, they've
>> morphed into other forms that may or may not
>> have been through PCQDR (preliminary, critical
>> and qualification design review).
>>
>> Can or should we talk about it?
>>
>> Bob . . .
>>
>
>
> *
>
===========
m>
ldersbooks.com>
.com>
com>
om/contribution>
===========
www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List>
===========
===========
>
> *
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Bill Watson <Mauledriver(at)nc.rr.com> |
On 12/3/2014 10:13 AM, Joe wrote:
>
> There is an old saying, "Beggars can't be choosy." That applies to
> the AeroElectric List where replies are posted by volunteers. If I
> volunteered to help someone who then complained about my work, I would
> stop giving help. There is one very knowledgeable volunteer on the
> AeroElectric list who sometimes gives long winded and philosophical
> responses. Sometimes his response answers my question and sometimes
> not. Regardless, I appreciate it that he has volunteered his precious
> time to address my issue. There are many other participants on this
> forum who are also very knowledgeable. Some of them might not post a
> response to a question because they are afraid of getting flamed. So
> please treat everyone with respect. Do not post something that you
> would not say face to face. As for a question not being answered,
> maybe the question needs to be rephrased or needs to be more specific.
> Joe Gores
>
I'd second that. Regarding 'brownout protection' in particular; I too
am a builder that wanted/needed such protection for my 'kitchen sink'
panel. Bob never 'liked it', always challenged it and I learned a lot
along the way but in the end, it's my plane, I fly it, I got it and am
very happy. Oh, forgot to mention, he was right on every point I can
recall not that it really matters since the points of disagreements only
involved personal operating practices, not electrons, systems or products.
But I valued every interaction with every single person, particularly
Bob, on this list. From my perspective, this is Bob's playpen, school,
blog, whatever. It's his personality and expertise that has attracted
the group of volunteers who have decided to play here. Without Bob,
this doesn't work on any useful level, at least not in it's current
form. It could be better, it could be worse but it is what it is. If
you want to play, jump in. You can contribute, you can take away, or
you can do a little of both. Or one can just walk away. It's free and
not required reading.
...just one lister's opinion, nothing personal intended and I totally
respect the OP's opinion
Bill "a couple of on/off switches would have been cheaper than TCW
brownout protection but I did it my way and I like it" Watson
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Sending two msgs to the list |
| From: | "user9253" <fransew(at)gmail.com> |
A disk failed on the web server a couple of days ago but has been fixed. If you
still have problems, the cause could be at your end. Instead of using email
to post, I use this link:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewforum.php?f=3
and enter my message directly onto the AeroElectric website. There is no issue
with email program compatibility or concerns about rich text or formatting.
Joe
--------
Joe Gores
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=435317#435317
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Charlie England <ceengland7(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Fusible links NOW VARIATION ON A THEME |
It would be a lot cheaper, lighter, and easier to just put a regular
starter solenoid in series with the heavy starter wire at the source.
The same control signal can activate the solenoid and the 'trigger'
terminal on the starter itself. We had a similar discussion here a few
months ago, and I think there's an example in the book. IIRC, the B&C
starters are controlled this way.
Charlie
On 12/4/2014 3:24 AM, Bob Verwey wrote:
> Thanks Justin,
>
> I have a very similar device lying on the shelf in my shop, used in
> boating applications.
>
> I guess I was just looking for some re-assurance that it is a good
> solution.
>
> Thanks!
>
>
> Best...
>
> Bob Verwey
>
>
> On 4 December 2014 at 10:49, Justin Jones > wrote:
>
> Bob,
>
> If you dont want to run your starter through the master
> contractor, I suggest you use a device like this. A location
> closer to the battery is better. A cable can be used in place of
> the push tube if you need.
>
> http://www.jegs.com/i/Flaming+River/898/FR1003-2/10002/-1
>
> During a run-on or stuck starter situation, it will take a while
> for the fusable link to burn through. This switch will also allow
> you to shut off the power to the starter any time you dont need
> it, such as the aircraft sitting on the ground or while doing
> maintenance. The last thing you want is to be working on the
> engine and accidentally short out the contacts of the starter and
> have that prop come swinging through. If you are doing
> maintenance on the starter itself, I would still disconnect the
> battery from the starter cable.
>
> Hope this helps.
>
> Justin
>
>
>> On Dec 3, 2014, at 11:19 PM, Bob Verwey > > wrote:
>>
>> So I have a fat wire (00) running from the battery behind pilot
>> seat, to the firewall, from whence the starter fat wire is
>> connected on the engine side, and a 4 awg behind the firewall to
>> the bus through a contactor.
>>
>> Its a Chevy V6, so the starter contactor is built into the starter.
>>
>> The fat wire is always hot at this stage, and I am looking for a
>> solution in the form of a fuse/ fusible link near the battery so
>> that in the event of an accident induced short, or an engaged
>> starter hangup, that there is protection.
>>
>>
>>
>> Best...
>>
>> Bob Verwey
>>
>>
>> On 2 December 2014 at 23:53, B Tomm > > wrote:
>>
>> Thanks Bob,
>> I had done it on mine a couple years back, but the other day
>> I was helping a hangar neighbour make some improvements. He
>> has a rear mounted battery on a BD4 (engine in front). He
>> has one electronic ignition which was powered by an 18 awg
>> wire connected on the firewall at the input power terminal at
>> the starter solenoid. This fat wire was only powered when the
>> master solenoid (located in back next to the battery) was
>> active. Not ideal for electrically dependant ignition. There
>> was a spare 18 awg wire already running all the way back to
>> the battery and the owner wanted to use that. I suggested
>> that we fuse it but that fuse would have to activate
>> "slower" than the breaker on the panel. I therefore
>> suggested a fusible link and that is where I crossed the
>> line. Since it was such a good idea, and I had suggested it,
>> it was suggested that I do it :) Not a problem since I had
>> materials left over. Just couldn't remember if the 22awg
>> wire (now hidden under the silicone impregnated sleeve) on
>> my RV7 had been stripped or not. My thinking initially was
>> that it must have been stripped because we really don't want
>> any combustible material "inside" the fuse if possible. It
>> didn't strip well, so I re-did it without stripping as you
>> have confirmed. Thank you.
>> Bevan
>>
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> *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, December 02, 2014 11:41 AM
>> *To:* aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
>>
>> *Subject:* Re: AeroElectric-List: Fusible links
>>
>> At 11:44 2014-12-02, you wrote:
>>> >
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> I can't find the detail in the book. When making a fusible
>>> link, the inner
>>> "fuse" wire is 22 AWG in this case. Is it necessary to strip
>>> the insulation
>>> off?
>>
>> I presume you're asking about the insulation on the
>> 22AWG wire? No, in fact, you ADD insulation over it
>>
>> See http://tinyurl.com/msx5ofe
>>
>> Where are you considering the use of a fusible link?
>> I crafted that comic-book waaayyy back when we were
>> wrestling with the notion of extending the BUS in a
>> fuse block up to a one-terminal-BUS at the input side
>> of the alternator field breaker. A breaker upstream
>> of a crow-bar ov protection module.
>>
>> I think we also dabbled with the use of fusible links
>> on the meter-leads to a shunt. As a general rule, the
>> fusible link is attractive only when a fuse holder
>> is a little 'messy' . . . The TC fleet has used two
>> fuses in clips to protect ammeter wires for decades.
>>
>> <400400db.jpg>
>>
>> The last time I was able to walk down the A36
>> production line (about 10 years ago) the clipped-in
>> fuses for various 'minor' tasks were quite visible.
>>
>> The need to extend the bus to accommodate the only
>> circuit breaker in the airplane was a special case.
>>
>> Like Figure Z-13/20, and to some extend Z-19, I've
>> regretted having published the ideas. While useful
>> and appropriate to the special cases, they've
>> morphed into other forms that may or may not
>> have been through PCQDR (preliminary, critical
>> and qualification design review).
>>
>> Can or should we talk about it?
>>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Fusible links NOW VARIATION ON A THEME |
At 02:19 2014-12-04, you wrote:
>So I have a fat wire (00) running from the battery behind pilot
>seat, to the firewall, from whence the starter fat wire is connected
>on the engine side, and a 4 awg behind the firewall to the bus
>through a contactor.
You mean that your battery contactor is not
mounted adjacent to the battery?
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Always on supply |
| From: | "user9253" <fransew(at)gmail.com> |
Is GPS position acquisition time a concern? I never noticed a delay problem with
my Garmin GPS 496. If an always hot supply is really needed, then a 5 amp
(or less) ATC inline fuse can be connected directly to the battery or battery
side of the master contactor. Smaller fuses located in the instrument panel could
be tapped off from the always-hot 5 amp circuit, but I do not think that
the extra fuses are necessary. Maybe others can offer their opinion.
Joe
--------
Joe Gores
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=435321#435321
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Always on supply |
| From: | Tim Andres <tim2542(at)sbcglobal.net> |
Assuming a very low current for a "keep alive circuit", you could also just use
a 10k ohm resistor installed at the source end of the wire instead of a fuse.
Tim
> On Dec 4, 2014, at 8:12 AM, user9253 wrote:
>
>
> Is GPS position acquisition time a concern? I never noticed a delay problem
with my Garmin GPS 496. If an always hot supply is really needed, then a 5 amp
(or less) ATC inline fuse can be connected directly to the battery or battery
side of the master contactor. Smaller fuses located in the instrument panel
could be tapped off from the always-hot 5 amp circuit, but I do not think that
the extra fuses are necessary. Maybe others can offer their opinion.
> Joe
>
> --------
> Joe Gores
>
>
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=435321#435321
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Eric M. Jones" <emjones(at)charter.net> |
> He was asking for advice on how to implement his skinning method - not advice
on whether his method is the best, or even desirable.
> I find myself as frequently frustrated by responses on the aeroelectric list
as I am satisfied with them.
I suppose some people act like they know everything and some people do know almost
everything, and frequently telling those two types apart is difficult.
Some people withhold their advice for fear that it may be thought too forward,
or that they might be considered a "know-it-all". This is basically what Richard
Hofstadter described in his book "Anti-Intellectualism in American Life.".
"Intellect needs to be understood not as some kind of claim against the other
human excellences for which a fatally high price has to be paid, but rather as
a complement to them without which they cannot be fully consummated."
I find that I feel wrong when I withhold opinions (or actions) that I feel would
be beneficial to a group or an individual. Do I sometimes stick my opinions
in when I should be quiet? Sure. Sometimes my wife tells me that.
So if you post on the Aeroelectric, I might have a technical answer as to how something
can be accomplished, or advice not to do it. Expect either or sometimes
both.
Xmas story: I once knew a guy who, every holiday season would wrap up a pack of
cigarettes together with a bottle of cheap fortified wine, drove down to skid
row and donated these gifts to homeless people living in alleyways and cardboard
boxes on the streets of Los Angeles....
I have to admit that I thought this was a pretty irresponsible and uncharitable
idea and said so, until a mutual friend told me that the guy had been homeless
on the street himself for five years, and I was certainly in no position to
pass judgment on his actions. I was humbled.
--------
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=435332#435332
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Bill Watson <Mauledriver(at)nc.rr.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Always on supply |
>
> Is GPS position acquisition time a concern? I never noticed a delay problem
with my Garmin GPS 496. If an always hot supply is really needed, then a 5 amp
(or less) ATC inline fuse can be connected directly to the battery or battery
side of the master contactor. Smaller fuses located in the instrument panel
could be tapped off from the always-hot 5 amp circuit, but I do not think that
the extra fuses are necessary. Maybe others can offer their opinion.
> Joe
>
>
I'd guess not. While it may be for a device that's constantly being
powered on and off for ad hoc use, it would seem to me that GPS
acquisition time matches up favorably with normal aircraft 'run up
time'. That is, the GPS can find itself quite easily long before you
are ready to depart.
Conversely, an always on clock power circuit for the GPS or EFIS does
not match up well with common aircraft cycle times. That is, many
aircraft sit unused for extended periods. I'm sure someone can explain
that the typical clock power drain is so minimal that extended down
times aren't be an issue (?). It certainly gave me fits on my (3) GRT
HX installation.
Ironically I think they decided to pick-up the time from the GPS if
that's possible.
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Always on supply |
| From: | Tim Andres <tim2542(at)sbcglobal.net> |
If a GPS has been off more than 30 minutes it needs to download a second data table
from the satellites before it can get a fix, that takes longer then to get
a position.
GRT made a software change a while back to pick up current time from the gps, so
you can D/C the keep alive circuit if you have current software and not worry
about the parasitic drain on the battery. Haven't tried it yet myself, but that's
what I've been told.
Tim
> On Dec 4, 2014, at 11:03 AM, Bill Watson wrote:
>
>
>>
>> Is GPS position acquisition time a concern? I never noticed a delay problem
with my Garmin GPS 496. If an always hot supply is really needed, then a 5 amp
(or less) ATC inline fuse can be connected directly to the battery or battery
side of the master contactor. Smaller fuses located in the instrument panel
could be tapped off from the always-hot 5 amp circuit, but I do not think that
the extra fuses are necessary. Maybe others can offer their opinion.
>> Joe
> I'd guess not. While it may be for a device that's constantly being powered
on and off for ad hoc use, it would seem to me that GPS acquisition time matches
up favorably with normal aircraft 'run up time'. That is, the GPS can find
itself quite easily long before you are ready to depart.
>
> Conversely, an always on clock power circuit for the GPS or EFIS does not match
up well with common aircraft cycle times. That is, many aircraft sit unused
for extended periods. I'm sure someone can explain that the typical clock power
drain is so minimal that extended down times aren't be an issue (?). It
certainly gave me fits on my (3) GRT HX installation.
>
> Ironically I think they decided to pick-up the time from the GPS if that's possible.
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Bill Bradburry" <bbradburry(at)verizon.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Sending two msgs to the list |
Thanks, Joe.
It is probably resolved, I noticed that my request for help only showed up
once.
Bill
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of user9253
Sent: Thursday, December 04, 2014 9:33 AM
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Re: Sending two msgs to the list
A disk failed on the web server a couple of days ago but has been fixed. If
you still have problems, the cause could be at your end. Instead of using
email to post, I use this link:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewforum.php?f=3
and enter my message directly onto the AeroElectric website. There is no
issue with email program compatibility or concerns about rich text or
formatting.
Joe
--------
Joe Gores
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=435317#435317
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: AeroElectric-List Digest: 15 Msgs - 12/03/14 |
| From: | speedy11(at)aol.com |
=0A Joe,=0AGood points. I suspect virtually everyone who freq
uents this list has been a volunteer at one time or anothe
r. We rarely get our panties in a wad and quit voluntee
ring because someone complains. Rather we generally listen to
the complaint and ponder whether the complaint is valid and
, if so, how we can improve our volunteer work so as to
create a satisfied customer (beggar). Doing volunteer work sh
ould not mean that you can only have my volunteer informatio
n if you jump through my hoops in order to get it.=0AI a
m as grateful as anyone for the information obtained from th
is list. I've learned a lot about building and maintaining
aircraft electrical systems. Much of it is information that
would have been difficult to get any other way. Learning
about aeroelectricity required hours of study, hours spent on
this list, and hours of practice. It was time well spent.
I sincerely appreciate what Bob and others have voluntaril
y done to assist.=0ASometimes the question does need to be r
ephrased. It seems that more often the question needs more
supporting information or qualifying information in order to be
answered. That is true of the recent question regarding fus
able links. Once the questioner better explained his situatio
n, his question was clarified to the point that even I cou
ld understand.=0AOften it is convenient to anomyously send comme
nts to the list thinking that nobody is reading it. In
fact, there are hundreds of people reading this list. Howev
er, nothing said here would be unsuitable for in-person conver
sation.=0AI have long been, and still am, of the opinion tha
t getting an answer to a question posed to the list is p
ainfully frustrating.=0AIn all of this, I mean no disrespect t
o any of the list volunteers who donate their time to educ
ate, inform and assist those of us who are less capable.
Indeed, I appreciate their efforts.=0ARegards,=0AStan Sutterfield=0ADo
not archive=0A=0A=0AThere is an old saying, "Beggars can't be
choosy." That applies to the =0AAeroElectric List where re
plies are posted by volunteers. If I =0Avolunteered to help
someone who then complained about my work, I would =0Astop
giving help. There is one very knowledgeable volunteer on t
he =0AAeroElectric list who sometimes gives long winded and ph
ilosophical =0Aresponses. Sometimes his response answers my que
stion and sometimes =0Anot. Regardless, I appreciate it that
he has volunteered his precious =0Atime to address my issue.
There are many other participants on this =0Aforum who are
also very knowledgeable. Some of them might not post a =0Are
sponse to a question because they are afraid of getting flam
ed. So =0Aplease treat everyone with respect. Do not pos
t something that you =0Awould not say face to face. As
for a question not being answered, maybe =0Athe question needs
to be rephrased or needs to be more specific.=0AJoe Gores=0A
=0A=0A=0A=0A =0A
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Dreamliner lithium fire final report |
See:
http://tinyurl.com/pl97rqj
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "B Tomm" <fvalarm(at)rapidnet.net> |
Bob ,
Was that photo of the fuses/wiring in the engine compartment?
Bevan
_____
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, December 02, 2014 11:41 AM
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Fusible links
At 11:44 2014-12-02, you wrote:
I can't find the detail in the book. When making a fusible link, the inner
"fuse" wire is 22 AWG in this case. Is it necessary to strip the insulation
off?
I presume you're asking about the insulation on the
22AWG wire? No, in fact, you ADD insulation over it
See http://tinyurl.com/msx5ofe
Where are you considering the use of a fusible link?
I crafted that comic-book waaayyy back when we were
wrestling with the notion of extending the BUS in a
fuse block up to a one-terminal-BUS at the input side
of the alternator field breaker. A breaker upstream
of a crow-bar ov protection module.
I think we also dabbled with the use of fusible links
on the meter-leads to a shunt. As a general rule, the
fusible link is attractive only when a fuse holder
is a little 'messy' . . . The TC fleet has used two
fuses in clips to protect ammeter wires for decades.
Emacs!
The last time I was able to walk down the A36
production line (about 10 years ago) the clipped-in
fuses for various 'minor' tasks were quite visible.
The need to extend the bus to accommodate the only
circuit breaker in the airplane was a special case.
Like Figure Z-13/20, and to some extend Z-19, I've
regretted having published the ideas. While useful
and appropriate to the special cases, they've
morphed into other forms that may or may not
have been through PCQDR (preliminary, critical
and qualification design review).
Can or should we talk about it?
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "B Tomm" <fvalarm(at)rapidnet.net> |
| Subject: | Dreamliner lithium fire final report |
Very interesting read. Sound like a thorough investigation. One thing I
noticed that there was no discussion (that I could find) of changing to a
more traditional battery type or another version of Lithium such as LiFePo.
Bevan
-----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, December 04, 2014 8:40 PM
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Dreamliner lithium fire final report
-->
See:
http://tinyurl.com/pl97rqj
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Always on supply |
| From: | Dj Merrill <deej(at)deej.net> |
On 12/04/2014 04:04 PM, Tim Andres wrote:
> GRT made a software change a while back to pick up current time from the gps,
so you can D/C the keep alive circuit if you have current software and not worry
about the parasitic drain on the battery. Haven't tried it yet myself, but
that's what I've been told.
That's the way mine (HX and Mini-X) are setup (no keep alive circuit for
either), and it works well. Picks up the time shortly after powerup.
No issues so far that I've noticed.
-Dj
--
Dj Merrill - N1JOV - VP EAA Chapter 87
Sportsman 2+2 Builder #7118 N421DJ - http://deej.net/sportsman/
Glastar Flyer N866RH - http://deej.net/glastar/
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Bill Watson <Mauledriver(at)nc.rr.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Always on supply |
On 12/5/2014 9:52 AM, Dj Merrill wrote:
>
> On 12/04/2014 04:04 PM, Tim Andres wrote:
>> GRT made a software change a while back to pick up current time from the gps,
so you can D/C the keep alive circuit if you have current software and not worry
about the parasitic drain on the battery. Haven't tried it yet myself, but
that's what I've been told.
> That's the way mine (HX and Mini-X) are setup (no keep alive circuit for
> either), and it works well. Picks up the time shortly after powerup.
> No issues so far that I've noticed.
>
> -Dj
>
Same here. When they made the change I disco'd the stay alive circuits,
the HXs pick up the time before I go looking for it and a nagging
battery problem went away.
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Always on supply |
Then problem solved!
One less wire to run. :D
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=435380#435380
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Dreamliner lithium fire final report |
At 00:26 2014-12-05, you wrote:
>
>Very interesting read. Sound like a thorough investigation. One thing I
>noticed that there was no discussion (that I could find) of changing to a
>more traditional battery type or another version of Lithium such as LiFePo.
Not the NTSBs job. Incident investigations are limited
to deduction of root cause and chain of events that
followed. The FAA will (and in some respects already
has) responded with enhanced (read more educated)
certification criteria. True Blue has been marching
to the new drum and has been holy watered. I'm hoping
to visit with the guys in Wichita that manufacture
and market the True Blue line in the near future.
I don't think the FAA has mumbled anything about banning
one chemistry in favor of another . . . again, not
part of their charter. But they have said that if
you choose to incorporate a new product or process
into your design, you need to demonstrate either (1)
exceedingly improbable or (2) total mitigation for
worst case events.
There are a number of youtube videos but one in
particular where the producer-director subjects
the LiFePo cells to spectacular abuse yet fails
to produce more than a few sparks or a little smoke.
Clearly, the LiFePo chemistry is the most attractive
product for future consideration in OBAM aircraft.
Given that a series string of 4 cells cannot be
abused by over-charging in a 14v system, it seems
that the most challenging issues will focus
on cost of ownership. If a cell is severely discharged
(much below 2.8v) it's trashed. An array of cells
subject to repeated deep discharge/recharge events
is at risk for charge imbalance in one or more
cells which places them at risk for early failure.
We're fortunate to have access to a HUGE testing
laboratory for rapidly growing numbers of LiFePo
products . . . motorcycles and recreational
vehicles. A market that is probably 100x larger
than aviation applications. I do periodic
web searches on motorcycle+lithium+fire and to
date, I've not discovered any instances of mishap
unique to or exacerbated by the application of
lithium. If anyone runs across an incident of
interest on the web, I'd like to get a note on
it.
Here is one interesting battery narrative from the
motorcycle world http://tinyurl.com/3uccevs
These guys are wrestling with the same performance
and system integration issues we face. We would do
well to study their experience for expanded lessons-
learned.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Bob Verwey <bob.verwey(at)gmail.com> |
Eric, nice post, kinda reminds me of the Warren Buffet quote:
*Wall Street is the only place that **people ride to in a Rolls Royce to
get advice from those who take the subway. *
Best...
Bob Verwey
On 4 December 2014 at 20:48, Eric M. Jones wrote:
> emjones(at)charter.net>
>
>
> > He was asking for advice on how to implement his skinning method - not
> advice on whether his method is the best, or even desirable.
> > I find myself as frequently frustrated by responses on the aeroelectric
> list as I am satisfied with them.
>
>
> I suppose some people act like they know everything and some people do
> know almost everything, and frequently telling those two types apart is
> difficult.
>
> Some people withhold their advice for fear that it may be thought too
> forward, or that they might be considered a "know-it-all". This is
> basically what Richard Hofstadter described in his book
> "Anti-Intellectualism in American Life.". "Intellect needs to be understo
od
> not as some kind of claim against the other human excellences for which a
> fatally high price has to be paid, but rather as a complement to them
> without which they cannot be fully consummated."
>
> I find that I feel wrong when I withhold opinions (or actions) that I fee
l
> would be beneficial to a group or an individual. Do I sometimes stick my
> opinions in when I should be quiet? Sure. Sometimes my wife tells me that
.
>
> So if you post on the Aeroelectric, I might have a technical answer as to
> how something can be accomplished, or advice not to do it. Expect either
or
> sometimes both.
>
> Xmas story: I once knew a guy who, every holiday season would wrap up a
> pack of cigarettes together with a bottle of cheap fortified wine, drove
> down to skid row and donated these =9Cgifts=9D to homeless pe
ople living in
> alleyways and cardboard boxes on the streets of Los Angeles....
>
> I have to admit that I thought this was a pretty irresponsible and
> uncharitable idea and said so, until a mutual friend told me that the guy
> had been homeless on the street himself for five years, and I was certain
ly
> in no position to pass judgment on his actions. I was humbled.
>
> --------
> 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=435332#435332
>
>
===========
===========
===========
===========
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Bob Verwey <bob.verwey(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Fusible links NOW VARIATION ON A THEME |
Correct Bob N, I have only a 70amp relay to feed the bus.
[image: Inline images 1]
Best...
Bob Verwey
On 4 December 2014 at 17:58, Robert L. Nuckolls, III <
nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> wrote:
> nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com>
>
> At 02:19 2014-12-04, you wrote:
>
>> So I have a fat wire (00) running from the battery behind pilot seat, to
>> the firewall, from whence the starter fat wire is connected on the engine
>> side, and a 4 awg behind the firewall to the bus through a contactor.
>>
>
> You mean that your battery contactor is not
> mounted adjacent to the battery?
>
>
> Bob . . .
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Jeff Luckey <jluckey(at)pacbell.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Fusible links NOW VARIATION ON A THEME |
BobV,
The rule of thumb is to keep the fat wires that are bolted directly to B+ as short
as possible. My personal rule is less than 18 inches.
Is there a reason not to add a traditional start solenoid right at the battery?
In your case is may be redundant but it keeps the un-protected feeder length
short. You would have to move the master relay to that position also - so that's
another few feet of #4. This is probably less expensive than the manual
disconnect & it keeps the big starter cable inert except during cranking.
-Jeff
On Monday, December 8, 2014 3:25 AM, Bob Verwey wrote:
Correct Bob N, I have only a 70amp relay to feed the bus.
Best...
Bob Verwey
On 4 December 2014 at 17:58, Robert L. Nuckolls, III
wrote:
>
>At 02:19 2014-12-04, you wrote:
>
>So I have a fat wire (00) running from the battery behind pilot seat, to the firewall,
from whence the starter fat wire is connected on the engine side, and
a 4 awg behind the firewall to the bus through a contactor.
>>
> You mean that your battery contactor is not
> mounted adjacent to the battery?
>
>
> 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: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Fusible links NOW VARIATION ON A THEME |
At 05:08 2014-12-08, you wrote:
>Correct Bob N, I have only a 70amp relay to feed the bus.
Oh yeah, I seem to recall this condition from an
earlier thread . . . one of the 70A rated plastic
relays with fast-on tabs?
You're probably aware of the variances in your
system when compared with the legacy design
philosophies harvested from the TC aircraft world.
One of those ideas goes toward making ship's wiring
max-cold when crew operated controls are placed
at OFF. This generally calls for placing disconnects
in major conductors (meaning protected at more than 5A)
as close to the source as practical. Hence the oft repeated
picture below (Cessna 150 1962 and before) where
we see the battery contactor mounted right on the
battery box.
Emacs!
If your design goals dictate alternate configurations
for managing power in your major wires, then it's
a good thing to take a mental expedition through
the woods and briar patches of Failure Modes Effects
Analysis. If you're considering fault protection for
any conductor, fat wires, bus feeders, wires of any
size . . . consider all the circumstances under which
that circuit protection might be expected to operate.
Two conditions which are high on the list in the TC
aircraft world call for minimizing risk for post-crash
fire -AND- making sure that some mechanic doesn't swing
a wrench against an always hot fat-feeder terminal
when he/she erroneously believes that ship's wiring
is max-cold.
A guy I worked with right out high school was under
a oil-patch truck routing cables for a two-way radio
we were installing. I was working in the cab and
stuffing a wire down through a grommet that he
was going to attach to the starter contactor.
At some point I heard this loud yell followed
by his wristwatch flying out from under the truck
in a smoking trajectory that hit the wall. Seems he'd
forgotten one if his check-list items for disconnecting
battery ground cable before starting the job. Burned him
pretty bad . . . destroyed a new watch he was really
proud of. Unfortunately, oil patch trucks don't have
battery contactors.
The point is, if you choose to do something different,
please think through the hazards and then be aware
of them as part of the risk management for the
use and maintenance of your airplane.
Speaking of battery contactors . . .
A couple weeks ago I expressed some skepticism
for a statement from SkyTec literature asserting
that Cessna's starter contactors were of the
continuous duty type and therefore, ill suited
to the task.
I didn't start there until '64 and the first
couple of years were spent learning to write, illustrate
and publish accessory kits for radio installations.
The electrical group was right across the isle
from me and we had a lot of conversation but
I was oblivious to many details of the electrical
systems both present and historical.
So, I've been digging up service and parts catalogs
on the older Cessnas. The image above was captured
from a 1962 and prior service manual were we're
shown a Cutler-Hammer 6041 style contactor used
as a battery contactor. I'm discovering that the
wine-barrel RBM controls devices familiar to me
came along sometime in the early/mid 60's. The
oldest airplane I've flown fitted with an electrical
system was a '46 120-1/2 . . . the system was
added after it left the factory . . . I think
it had a wine-barrel battery contactor. Didn't
need a starter contactor (had cockpit pull-
handle, mechanical engagement).
All of the catalog/service data I've gathered
so far calls out Cessna source control drawings
for all contactors . . . so I'm not yet privy
to manufacturer's source data. I'm compiling a
list of source control numbers. Next time I'm
inside the hallowed halls of Textron, I'll put
the microscope to SkyTec's somewhat startling
assertions. When I began writing narratives
for the service manuals, I'm recalling that there
were distinctions made between battery (continuous)
and starter (intermittent) duty wine-barrel
contactors. I'll go find out . . .
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Larry Mac Donald <lm4(at)juno.com> |
I am offering the following aviation tools for sale.
If you are interested, make a reasonable offer.
Whitney hand punch
Tubing cutter
Hole flanging tool
Seaming tool
Fly-cutter
Micro stop countersink
Aviation snips-left-right & straight
3X rivet gun
Safety wire twister
Magnetic base protractor
Rivet spacer
Air grinder
Pop rivet tool
Rivet gauges
Cleco pliers
Deburring tool
Countersink
Fluting plier
Bucking bar
Rivet squeezer with 1-1/2 yoke
3 In. yoke
Pneumatic Rivet squeezer with 1-1/2 in. yoke
Rivet squeezer dies
Dimpleing dies
Blind rivet kit
Air drill
Clecos
Hand seamer
____________________________________________________________
NetZero now offers 4G mobile broadband. Sign up now.
http://www.netzero.net/?refcd=NZINTISP0512T4GOUT1
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | <rnjcurtis(at)charter.net> |
| Subject: | Re:_AeroElectric-List:_For_sale? |
QW5kLiAuIC4gIFdoYXQgbWlnaHQgeW91IGNvbnNpZGVyIGEg4oCccmVhc29uYWJsZSBvZmZlcuKA
nT8gIFdpdGhvdXQgcGljdHVyZXMgb3IgZGVzY3JpcHRpb25zIGl0IGlzIGRpZmZpY3VsdCB0byBr
bm93IE1hbnVmYWN0dXJlciwgY29uZGl0aW9uLCBldGMuICBJcyB0aGlzIGEgTG90IFNhbGUgb3Ig
aW5kaXZpZHVhbCBwaWVjZXM/DQoNCg0KUm9nZXINCg0KDQoNCg0KDQoNCkZyb206IExhcnJ5IE1h
YyBEb25hbGQNClNlbnQ6IOKAjk1vbmRheeKAjiwg4oCORGVjZW1iZXLigI4g4oCOOOKAjiwg4oCO
MjAxNCDigI4z4oCOOuKAjjA14oCOIOKAjlBNDQpUbzogYWVyb2VsZWN0cmljLWxpc3RAbWF0cm9u
aWNzLmNvbQ0KDQoNCg0KDQoNCi0tPiBBZXJvRWxlY3RyaWMtTGlzdCBtZXNzYWdlIHBvc3RlZCBi
eTogTGFycnkgTWFjIERvbmFsZCA8bG00QGp1bm8uY29tPg0KDQpJIGFtIG9mZmVyaW5nIHRoZSBm
b2xsb3dpbmcgYXZpYXRpb24gdG9vbHMgZm9yIHNhbGUuDQpJZiB5b3UgYXJlIGludGVyZXN0ZWQs
IG1ha2UgYSByZWFzb25hYmxlIG9mZmVyLg0KDQpXaGl0bmV5IGhhbmQgcHVuY2gNClR1YmluZyBj
dXR0ZXINCkhvbGUgZmxhbmdpbmcgdG9vbA0KU2VhbWluZyB0b29sDQpGbHktY3V0dGVyDQpNaWNy
byBzdG9wIGNvdW50ZXJzaW5rDQpBdmlhdGlvbiBzbmlwcy1sZWZ0LXJpZ2h0ICYgc3RyYWlnaHQN
CjNYIHJpdmV0IGd1bg0KU2FmZXR5IHdpcmUgdHdpc3Rlcg0KTWFnbmV0aWMgYmFzZSBwcm90cmFj
dG9yDQpSaXZldCBzcGFjZXINCkFpciBncmluZGVyDQpQb3Agcml2ZXQgdG9vbA0KUml2ZXQgZ2F1
Z2VzDQpDbGVjbyBwbGllcnMNCkRlYnVycmluZyB0b29sDQpDb3VudGVyc2luaw0KRmx1dGluZyBw
bGllcg0KQnVja2luZyBiYXINClJpdmV0IHNxdWVlemVyIHdpdGggMS0xLzIgeW9rZQ0KMyBJbi4g
eW9rZQ0KUG5ldW1hdGljIFJpdmV0IHNxdWVlemVyIHdpdGggMS0xLzIgaW4uIHlva2UNClJpdmV0
IHNxdWVlemVyIGRpZXMNCkRpbXBsZWluZyBkaWVzDQpCbGluZCByaXZldCBraXQNCkFpciBkcmls
bA0KQ2xlY29zDQpIYW5kIHNlYW1lcg0KDQoNCg0KX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19f
X19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fDQpOZXRaZXJvIG5vdyBvZmZlcnMgNEcg
bW9iaWxlIGJyb2FkYmFuZC4gU2lnbiB1cCBub3cuDQpodHRwOi8vd3d3Lm5ldHplcm8ubmV0Lz9y
ZWZjZD1OWklOVElTUDA1MTJUNEdPVVQxDQoNCl8tPT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09
PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09DQpfLT0NCl8tPSAgICAgICAtLSBQbGVh
c2UgU3VwcG9ydCBZb3VyIExpc3RzIFRoaXMgTW9udGggLS0NCl8tPSAgICAgICAgICAgKEFuZCBH
ZXQgU29tZSBBV0VTT01FIEZSRUUgR2lmdHMhKQ0KXy09DQpfLT0gICBOb3ZlbWJlciBpcyB0aGUg
QW5udWFsIExpc3QgRnVuZCBSYWlzZXIuICBDbGljayBvbg0KXy09ICAgdGhlIENvbnRyaWJ1dGlv
biBsaW5rIGJlbG93IHRvIGZpbmQgb3V0IG1vcmUgYWJvdXQNCl8tPSAgIHRoaXMgeWVhcidzIFRl
cnJpZmljIEZyZWUgSW5jZW50aXZlIEdpZnRzIHByb3ZpZGVkDQpfLT0gICBieToNCl8tPSAgIA0K
Xy09ICAgICAqIEFlcm9FbGVjdHJpYyB3d3cuYWVyb2VsZWN0cmljLmNvbQ0KXy09ICAgICAqIFRo
ZSBCdWlsZGVyJ3MgQm9va3N0b3JlIHd3dy5idWlsZGVyc2Jvb2tzLmNvbQ0KXy09ICAgICAqIEhv
bWVidWlsdEhFTFAgd3d3LmhvbWVidWlsdGhlbHAuY29tDQpfLT0gICAgICogTXkgUGlsb3QgU3Rv
cmUgd3d3Lm15cGlsb3RzdG9yZS5jb20NCl8tPSAgICAgKiBSYWNlIENvbnN1bHRpbmcgd3d3Lm1y
cmFjZS5jb20NCl8tPQ0KXy09ICAgTGlzdCBDb250cmlidXRpb24gV2ViIFNpdGU6DQpfLT0NCl8t
PSAgIC0tPiBodHRwOi8vd3d3Lm1hdHJvbmljcy5jb20vY29udHJpYnV0aW9uDQpfLT0NCl8tPSAg
IFRoYW5rIHlvdSBmb3IgeW91ciBnZW5lcm91cyBzdXBwb3J0IQ0KXy09DQpfLT0gICAgICAgICAg
ICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAtTWF0dCBEcmFsbGUsIExpc3QgQWRtaW4uDQpfLT0NCl8tPT09
PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09
DQpfLT0gICAgICAgICAgLSBUaGUgQWVyb0VsZWN0cmljLUxpc3QgRW1haWwgRm9ydW0gLQ0KXy09
IFVzZSB0aGUgTWF0cm9uaWNzIExpc3QgRmVhdHVyZXMgTmF2aWdhdG9yIHRvIGJyb3dzZQ0KXy09
IHRoZSBtYW55IExpc3QgdXRpbGl0aWVzIHN1Y2ggYXMgTGlzdCBVbi9TdWJzY3JpcHRpb24sDQpf
LT0gQXJjaGl2ZSBTZWFyY2ggJiBEb3dubG9hZCwgNy1EYXkgQnJvd3NlLCBDaGF0LCBGQVEsDQpf
LT0gUGhvdG9zaGFyZSwgYW5kIG11Y2ggbXVjaCBtb3JlOg0KXy09DQpfLT0gICAtLT4gaHR0cDov
L3d3dy5tYXRyb25pY3MuY29tL05hdmlnYXRvcj9BZXJvRWxlY3RyaWMtTGlzdA0KXy09DQpfLT09
PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09
PQ0KXy09ICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgLSBNQVRST05JQ1MgV0VCIEZPUlVNUyAtDQpfLT0gU2FtZSBn
cmVhdCBjb250ZW50IGFsc28gYXZhaWxhYmxlIHZpYSB0aGUgV2ViIEZvcnVtcyENCl8tPQ0KXy09
ICAgLS0+IGh0dHA6Ly9mb3J1bXMubWF0cm9uaWNzLmNvbQ0KXy09DQpfLT09PT09PT09PT09PT09
PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PQ=
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Weaver, Erich" <erich.weaver(at)urs.com> |
| Subject: | Bad overvoltage module? |
I have a Z-13/8 electrical system on my RV-7A. While finishing up a remode
l of my panel, I tested my new switches and found that when I turned on the
backup PM alternator with engine off, my 5 amp circuit breaker instantly t
ripped. Checked the switch and traced out my wiring and both seem fine, s
o I now suspect that either the crowbar over-voltage module or the associat
ed S8005-1 relay from B&C is bad. I removed the over-voltage module and my
multimeter indicates continuity between the two wires. Im thinking that s
hould only occur when there is an over-voltage event, so my module must be
bad, letting the current bypass the relay altogether and tripping my breake
r. Am I thinking this through correctly?
Thanks
erich
This e-mail and any attachments contain URS Corporation confidential inform
ation that may be proprietary or privileged. If you receive this message in
error or are not the intended recipient, you should not retain, distribute
, disclose or use any of this information and you should destroy the e-mail
and any attachments or copies.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | C&K <yellowduckduo(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Bad overvoltage module? |
Sounds like a good diagnosis to me Erich.
Especially if the circuit breaker does not trip with the module
disconnected.
Ken
On 08/12/2014 4:59 PM, Weaver, Erich wrote:
>
> I have a Z-13/8 electrical system on my RV-7A. While finishing up a
> remodel of my panel, I tested my new switches and found that when I
> turned on the backup PM alternator with engine off, my 5 amp circuit
> breaker instantly tripped. Checked the switch and traced out my
> wiring and both seem fine, so I now suspect that either the crowbar
> over-voltage module or the associated S8005-1 relay from B&C is bad.
> I removed the over-voltage module and my multimeter indicates
> continuity between the two wires. Im thinking that should only occur
> when there is an over-voltage event, so my module must be bad, letting
> the current bypass the relay altogether and tripping my breaker. Am I
> thinking this through correctly?
>
> Thanks
>
> erich
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Bad overvoltage module? |
At 15:59 2014-12-08, you wrote:
>I have a Z-13/8 electrical system on my RV-7A. While finishing up a
>remodel of my panel, I tested my new switches and found that when I
>turned on the backup PM alternator with engine off, my 5 amp circuit
>breaker instantly tripped. Checked the switch and traced out my
>wiring and both seem fine, so I now suspect that either the crowbar
>over-voltage module or the associated S8005-1 relay from B&C is
>bad. I removed the over-voltage module and my multimeter indicates
>continuity between the two wires. Im thinking that should only
>occur when there is an over-voltage event, so my module must be bad,
>letting the current bypass the relay altogether and tripping my
>breaker. Am I thinking this through correctly?
Sounds right. Did you get it from B&C or from me?
Doesn't matter. Drop it to me in an envelope and
I'll repair/replace it as appropriate.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Jack Haviland <jghrv6a(at)gmail.com> |
> On Dec 8, 2014, at 3:05 PM, Larry Mac Donald wrote:
>
> I am offering the following aviation tools for sale.
EAA Chapter 384 in Brighton MI has started a project to have students
and adults build an RV12 kit. Our offer for 100 of your 3/32=9D
clecos, cleco pliers and hand seamer is $50 (shipped to Brighton
Airport, 8664 Hyne Rd, Brighton MI 48114) .
Thanks for considering our offer!
Jack H.
810.629.1870
RV6A
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Weaver, Erich" <erich.weaver(at)urs.com> |
| Subject: | Bad overvoltage module? |
Quote:
I have a Z-13/8 electrical system on my RV-7A. While finishing up a
remodel of my panel, I tested my new switches and found that when I
turned on the backup PM alternator with engine off, my 5 amp circuit
breaker instantly tripped. Checked the switch and traced out my
wiring and both seem fine, so I now suspect that either the crowbar
over-voltage module or the associated S8005-1 relay from B&C is
bad. I removed the over-voltage module and my multimeter indicates
continuity between the two wires. Im thinking that should only
occur when there is an over-voltage event, so my module must be bad,
letting the current bypass the relay altogether and tripping my
breaker. Am I thinking this through correctly?
Sounds right. Did you get it from B&C or from me?
Doesn't matter. Drop it to me in an envelope and
I'll repair/replace it as appropriate.
Bob . . .
Thanks guys. It came from B&C and I went ahead and ordered a replacement f
rom them. Who knows when it went bad - haven't had a need to switch on the
back up alternator.
I noticed on a OVM doc available on the Aeroelectric Connection website a r
ecommendation that the OVM be checked every year as part of the annual insp
ection. Im wondering if I shouldn't just remove the OVM entirely. I shoul
d be notified if my voltage starts climbing from my EIS/EFIS warning lights
and be able to manually turn off a faulty alternator anyway. Bad idea?
Erich
This e-mail and any attachments contain URS Corporation confidential inform
ation that may be proprietary or privileged. If you receive this message in
error or are not the intended recipient, you should not retain, distribute
, disclose or use any of this information and you should destroy the e-mail
and any attachments or copies.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Ken Ryan <keninalaska(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | regulator-rectifier questions |
Rotax wiring diagram shows the regulator-rectifier for the integrated
generator to have four terminals (in addition to the two that connect to
the generator).
These terminals are marked R,B+,L and C. I am trying to figure out what
they all do.
So far I think I have managed to figure out three of them:
C is the one that "turns on" the regulator/generator and it also supplies
current to the warning light.
L is the ground path for the warning light.
B+ delivers the charging current to the battery/bus.
Question 1: Have I correctly identified the function of C,L and B+ ?
Question 2: What is the function of the R terminal?
I do know that the R terminal must connect to the positive battery
terminal, but I would like to know its function.
Thanks in advance for your direct answers.
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Bad overvoltage module? |
| From: | Jared Yates <email(at)jaredyates.com> |
I'd vote for bad idea! You might browse through Chapter 6 of the AEC again
.
On Tue, Dec 9, 2014 at 4:18 PM, Weaver, Erich wrote:
> *Quote:*
>
> I have a Z-13/8 electrical system on my RV-7A. While finishing up a
> remodel of my panel, I tested my new switches and found that when I
> turned on the backup PM alternator with engine off, my 5 amp circuit
> breaker instantly tripped. Checked the switch and traced out my
> wiring and both seem fine, so I now suspect that either the crowbar
> over-voltage module or the associated S8005-1 relay from B&C is
> bad. I removed the over-voltage module and my multimeter indicates
> continuity between the two wires. Im thinking that should only
> occur when there is an over-voltage event, so my module must be bad,
> letting the current bypass the relay altogether and tripping my
> breaker. Am I thinking this through correctly?
>
>
> * Sounds right. Did you get it from B&C or from me? Doesn't matter. Drop
> it to me in an envelope and I'll repair/replace it as appropriate. Bob .
.
> .*
>
>
> *Thanks guys. It came from B&C and I went ahead and ordered a replacemen
t
> from them. Who knows when it went bad =93 haven=99t had a ne
ed to switch on
> the back up alternator.*
>
> *I noticed on a OVM doc available on the Aeroelectric Connection website
> a recommendation that the OVM be checked every year as part of the annual
> inspection. Im wondering if I shouldn=99t just remove the OVM enti
rely. I
> should be notified if my voltage starts climbing from my EIS/EFIS warning
> lights and be able to manually turn off a faulty alternator anyway. Bad
> idea?*
>
>
> *Erich *
>
>
> This e-mail and any attachments contain URS Corporation confidential
> information that may be proprietary or privileged. If you receive this
> message in error or are not the intended recipient, you should not retain
,
> distribute, disclose or use any of this information and you should destro
y
> the e-mail and any attachments or copies.
>
> *
>
===========
m>
ldersbooks.com>
.com>
com>
om/contribution>
===========
www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List>
===========
===========
>
> *
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Bad overvoltage module? |
>Thanks guys. It came from B&C and I went ahead
>and ordered a replacement from them. Who knows
>when it went bad ' haven=92t had a need to switch on the back up
alternator.
I'd still like to get the bad one even if
you don't want it back.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Charlie England <ceengland7(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Bad overvoltage module? |
On 12/9/2014 3:18 PM, Weaver, Erich wrote:
>
> *Quote:*
>
> I have a Z-13/8 electrical system on my RV-7A. While finishing up a
> remodel of my panel, I tested my new switches and found that when I
> turned on the backup PM alternator with engine off, my 5 amp circuit
> breaker instantly tripped. Checked the switch and traced out my
> wiring and both seem fine, so I now suspect that either the crowbar
> over-voltage module or the associated S8005-1 relay from B&C is
> bad. I removed the over-voltage module and my multimeter indicates
> continuity between the two wires. Im thinking that should only
> occur when there is an over-voltage event, so my module must be bad,
> letting the current bypass the relay altogether and tripping my
> breaker. Am I thinking this through correctly?
>
> *
> Sounds right. Did you get it from B&C or from me?
> Doesn't matter. Drop it to me in an envelope and
> I'll repair/replace it as appropriate.
>
> Bob . . .*
>
> **
>
> *Thanks guys. It came from B&C and I went ahead and ordered a
> replacement from them. Who knows when it went bad -- haven't had a
> need to switch on the back up alternator.*
>
> **
>
> *I noticed on a OVM doc available on the Aeroelectric Connection
> website a recommendation that the OVM be checked every year as part of
> the annual inspection. Im wondering if I shouldn't just remove the
> OVM entirely. I should be notified if my voltage starts climbing from
> my EIS/EFIS warning lights and be able to manually turn off a faulty
> alternator anyway. Bad idea?*
>
> **
>
> *Erich *
>
>
Only snag with that plan is if the failure happens while the pilot is in
a high-workload situation. If the pilot doesn't react quickly enough, he
could lose all the avionics to overvoltage just when he needs them most.
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Bad overvoltage module? |
| From: | Jared Yates <email(at)jaredyates.com> |
In AEC v12, page 6-7, Bob explains that the Crowbar OV module is designed
to work on a 5 millisecond interval. I don't think it matters much what
the pilot's workload is, he or she is not going to beat 5 milliseconds!
Also on that page and the page before, he writes about how the method that
the crowbar system uses to disconnect the circuit is special, so that it
doesn't break an inductive circuit. It's a really good chapter that makes
the case for why the Crowbar OVM is important. I would copy and paste it,
but in version 12, those pages are optically scanned.
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: regulator-rectifier questions |
| From: | "user9253" <fransew(at)gmail.com> |
Yes, you have correctly identified the function of C, L and B+
The R terminal is connected to the B+ terminal. Why, I do not know, either for
increased ampacity or redundancy. According to a schematic of the regulator
that I have seen, terminals R and B+ are also connected together inside of the
regulator.
On page 18-3 of this document, http://www.vansaircraft.com/pdf/revisions/RV-12/User_Manuals/MM.pdf
is a wiring diagram of the regulator in Van's RV-12.
The warning light is not needed if an EFIS indicates a low voltage condition.
The regulator should be mounted in a cool location. It is notoriously prone to
failure from overheating. Heat conductive grease should be applied to the mounting
base.
Joe
--------
Joe Gores
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=435556#435556
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Bad overvoltage module? |
| From: | "user9253" <fransew(at)gmail.com> |
I agree with others that not having over-voltage protection is a bad idea. High
voltage can damage expensive avionics in much less time than a human can react
to shut it off.
--------
Joe Gores
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=435558#435558
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Bad overvoltage module? |
| From: | "user9253" <fransew(at)gmail.com> |
> when I turned on the backup PM alternator with engine off, my 5 amp circuit breaker
instantly tripped.
With the over-voltage module removed from the circuit, does the relay energize
(click) when the aux alt switch is turned on? And does the circuit breaker not
trip? If both true, then the fault must be the O.V. module.
Joe
--------
Joe Gores
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=435559#435559
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Charles Brame <ChasB(at)satx.rr.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Bad overvoltage module? |
I noted the recommendation that the OVM be checked annually. I have not done that
in the nearly eight years my RV has been flying. Nor has the OVM ever shut
down the alternator. Nor have I had any voltage surge that damaged anything. Just
lucky?
What is the best (easiest) method to check the OVM operation?
Charlie Brame
RV-6A N11CB
San Antonio
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Ken Ryan <keninalaska(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: regulator-rectifier questions |
Thanks Joe.
On Wed, Dec 10, 2014 at 6:03 AM, user9253 wrote:
>
> Yes, you have correctly identified the function of C, L and B+
> The R terminal is connected to the B+ terminal. Why, I do not know,
> either for increased ampacity or redundancy. According to a schematic of
> the regulator that I have seen, terminals R and B+ are also connected
> together inside of the regulator.
> On page 18-3 of this document,
> http://www.vansaircraft.com/pdf/revisions/RV-12/User_Manuals/MM.pdf
> is a wiring diagram of the regulator in Van's RV-12.
> The warning light is not needed if an EFIS indicates a low voltage
> condition.
> The regulator should be mounted in a cool location. It is notoriously
> prone to failure from overheating. Heat conductive grease should be
> applied to the mounting base.
> Joe
>
> --------
> Joe Gores
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Bad overvoltage module? |
| From: | "user9253" <fransew(at)gmail.com> |
> What is the best (easiest) method to check the OVM operation?
Page 1 of his document http://www.aeroelectric.com/DIY/DIY_Crowbar_OVP_F.pdf
shows how to test an over-voltage module. The best way is on a workbench using
an adjustable DC power supply. The easy way is in the aircraft using alligator
clips and a battery. Bob says to use a 6 volt lantern battery, but 4 D cells
in series might work too. Notice that the negative alligator clip is attached
to the aircraft power bus. I recommend that all avionics and any polarity
sensitive devices be shut off prior to doing this test.
Joe
--------
Joe Gores
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=435567#435567
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Steve Stearns <steve(at)tomasara.com> |
| Subject: | downloadable notes that go with the "Z" diagrams... |
Greetings,
Anyone have a link or a .pdf for the notes that go with the architecture
drawings? I couldn't find them on the aeroelectric website.
Thanks,
Steve Stearns
LongEz N45FC, currently working on a Quickie...
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Steve Stearns <steve(at)tomasara.com> |
| Subject: | Alternator Disconnect Z17 vs Z20... |
Greetings,
I'm currently working on wiring up a Quickie with a Rotax 503 (and a
glass panel, go figure...). The two architecture diagrams that look
appropriate to start from are Z17 "Small Rotax System" (sounds right...)
and Z20 "Small Jabiru System".
They are basically the same EXCEPT they way the alternator is
disconnected (Z17 is downstream of regulator, Z20 is upstream of the
regulator).
I might be mistaken (please correct me...) but it also appears both
diagrams are assuming more of a diode bridge than a real regulator as
they both show a 20,000uF cap on the output of the regulator.
My questions: 1) What's the significance, if any, of the different
approaches to the alternator disconnect? 2) If I use Rotax 264 870
regulator (as opposed to the 866 080 bridge) is the cap still
appropriate (it's not shown in Rotex's wiring diagrams?
All thoughts welcome.
Thanks,
Steve Stearns
LongEz N45FC (working on a Quickie)
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Ken Ryan <keninalaska(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | fuse or breaker for OVP? |
I read on another forum that the B&C over voltage protection thingy must
only be used to trip a breaker, not to blow a fuse. Yet, I just re-read the
chapter on over voltage protection and did not see that mentioned. So the
question is, should the OVP device be used to: a) trip a breaker b) blow a
fuse c) either is okay ?
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Steve Stearns <steve(at)tomasara.com> |
| Subject: | Overvoltage crowbar availability? |
Greetings,
It looks like B and C no longer carries the stand-alone overvoltage
crowbar (at least I think that's where I bought the one in my LongEz).
I know Bob is trying to get out of the parts distribution business.
Does anyone else know of a source or should I just plan on building my
own. (and if you have the link handy to Bob's schematic that would be
great but don't search if you don't as I'm sure I can find it...).
Thanks,
Steve Stearns
LongEz N45FC (and currently working on a Quickie).
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Steve Stearns <steve(at)tomasara.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Never mind... Re: Overvoltage crowbar availability? |
Found it. It's still available at B&C if you search by it's part number
OVM-14...
Sorry for the distraction,
Steve.
On 12/11/2014 7:43 PM, Steve Stearns wrote:
> Greetings,
>
> It looks like B and C no longer carries the stand-alone overvoltage
> crowbar (at least I think that's where I bought the one in my
> LongEz). I know Bob is trying to get out of the parts distribution
> business. Does anyone else know of a source or should I just plan on
> building my own. (and if you have the link handy to Bob's schematic
> that would be great but don't search if you don't as I'm sure I can
> find it...).
>
> Thanks,
>
> Steve Stearns
> LongEz N45FC (and currently working on a Quickie).
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Jeff Luckey <jluckey(at)pacbell.net> |
| Subject: | Re: fuse or breaker for OVP? |
The idea behind feeding the Regulator with a circuit breaker is that it gives the
pilot the ability to shut-down the alternator (by pulling the breaker) if that
becomes necessary.
A few reasons you might want to shut down the alternator are:
1. a failed regulator that is giving full field (if you don't have an over voltage
module)
2. a failed over-voltage module
3. testing purposes
A breaker is simply more practical in this situation.
On Thursday, December 11, 2014 3:35 PM, Ken Ryan wrote:
I read on another forum that the B&C over voltage protection thingy must only be
used to trip a breaker, not to blow a fuse. Yet, I just re-read the chapter
on over voltage protection and did not see that mentioned. So the question is,
should the OVP device be used to: a) trip a breaker b) blow a fuse c) either
is okay ?
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Ken Ryan <keninalaska(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: fuse or breaker for OVP? |
Thanks Jeff. Are you saying that it would be okay to use the OVP device to
blow a fuse? Would it be okay to use the bigger breaker in the charging
circuit to accomplish a manual shutdown?
On Thu, Dec 11, 2014 at 9:28 PM, Jeff Luckey wrote:
>
>
> The idea behind feeding the Regulator with a circuit breaker is that it
> gives the pilot the ability to shut-down the alternator (by pulling the
> breaker) if that becomes necessary.
>
> A few reasons you might want to shut down the alternator are:
> 1. a failed regulator that is giving full field (if you don't have an over
> voltage module)
> 2. a failed over-voltage module
> 3. testing purposes
>
> A breaker is simply more practical in this situation.
>
>
> On Thursday, December 11, 2014 3:35 PM, Ken Ryan
> wrote:
>
>
> I read on another forum that the B&C over voltage protection thingy must
> only be used to trip a breaker, not to blow a fuse. Yet, I just re-read the
> chapter on over voltage protection and did not see that mentioned. So the
> question is, should the OVP device be used to: a) trip a breaker b) blow a
> fuse c) either is okay ?
>
>
> *
>
>
> *
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: downloadable notes that go with the "Z" diagrams... |
| From: | "user9253" <fransew(at)gmail.com> |
The notes are in appendix Z of this document:
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Book/AEC_R12A.pdf
Not only that, but you get the whole book FREE!
Joe
--------
Joe Gores
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=435649#435649
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Jeff Luckey <jluckey(at)pacbell.net> |
| Subject: | Re: fuse or breaker for OVP? |
Ken,
To answer your question directly: Yes, it's okay to use a fuse w/ an OVM. It will
just be more difficult to reset ( and it does not give you a convenient way
to turn-off the alternator ).
However, I'm not sure I'm following you...
The best way to shut-down a standard, externally-regulated alternator is to turn-off
its regulator. The regulator usually draws less than 1 amp, so you will
commonly see a 1 or 2 amp Tyco Series 23 circuit breaker feeding the regulator.
Like this:
The Over Voltage Modules we've been talking about are designed to create a short
circuit on the field breaker when high voltage is present, thus popping it and
shutting-down an errant regulator/alternator.
In this scenario, there is no big circuit breaker in the output of the alternator
because it's not needed. The output of the alternator is controlled by the
regulator & its circuit breaker. (And therein lies the beauty of this system:
no big breaker required and no big wires running to that breaker in the panel.)
So, I'm a little confused by your question: "... Would it be okay to use the bigger
breaker in the charging circuit to accomplish a manual shutdown?"
Perhaps I'm missing something? Are you referring to one of BobN's Z drawings?
Do you have a schematic of the system you are talking about? (a schematic is
worth a thousand words)
-Jeff
On Friday, December 12, 2014 8:23 AM, Ken Ryan wrote:
Thanks Jeff. Are you saying that it would be okay to use the OVP device to blow
a fuse? Would it be okay to use the bigger breaker in the charging circuit to
accomplish a manual shutdown?
On Thu, Dec 11, 2014 at 9:28 PM, Jeff Luckey wrote:
>
>The idea behind feeding the Regulator with a circuit breaker is that it gives
the pilot the ability to shut-down the alternator (by pulling the breaker) if
that becomes necessary.
>
>A few reasons you might want to shut down the alternator are:
>1. a failed regulator that is giving full field (if you don't have an over voltage
module)
>2. a failed over-voltage module
>3. testing purposes
>
>A breaker is simply more practical in this situation.
>
>
>On Thursday, December 11, 2014 3:35 PM, Ken Ryan wrote:
>
>
>
>I read on another forum that the B&C over voltage protection thingy must only
be used to trip a breaker, not to blow a fuse. Yet, I just re-read the chapter
on over voltage protection and did not see that mentioned. So the question is,
should the OVP device be used to: a) trip a breaker b) blow a fuse c) either
is okay ?
>
>
>_blank">www.aeroelectric.com
.com" target="_blank">www.buildersbooks.com
="_blank">www.homebuilthelp.com
="_blank">www.mypilotstore.com
ank">www.mrrace.com
_blank">http://www.matronics.com/contribution
ist" target="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List
tp://forums.matronics.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Ken Ryan <keninalaska(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: fuse or breaker for OVP? |
Thanks Jeff. Your reply is very helpful. I am developing schematics, but
have no easy way of scanning them. My system (Rotax) will have two engine
driven current producers. One of them is a more traditional alternator with
the internal regulator, and the other a permanent magnet affair with an
external regulator that the Z diagrams like to refer to as a "Dynamo."
I understand how the over voltage protection device is (differently) wired
for each of these two current producers, how for the alternator it cuts the
field circuit and for the dynamo it disconnects the regulator.
But I was unaware that the use of the OVP device eliminates the need for a
breaker in the high current charging wire. Now, looking again at the Z
drawings, I see that the "fuse" in the high current alternator wire is
marked by "note 10" which makes reference to something called a "fuse like
device called a current limiter."
How is this "current limiter" different from a fuse or breaker and why is
it preferable to a fuse or breaker?
Now, when I look at the Rotax specific drawing, I see the high current wire
from the "dynamo" seems to be protected by a 16 gauge fusible link. The
"dynamo" is rated at 22 amps. Is the 16 gauge fusible link up to the task?
Why would I want to use a fusible link, rather than a fuse or a breaker?
Ken
On Fri, Dec 12, 2014 at 12:18 PM, Jeff Luckey wrote:
>
> Ken,
>
> To answer your question directly: Yes, it's okay to use a fuse w/ an OVM.
> It will just be more difficult to reset ( and it does not give you a
> convenient way to turn-off the alternator ).
>
> However, I'm not sure I'm following you...
>
> The best way to shut-down a standard, externally-regulated alternator is
> to turn-off its regulator. The regulator usually draws less than 1 amp, so
> you will commonly see a 1 or 2 amp Tyco Series 23 circuit breaker feeding
> the regulator. Like this:
>
>
> The Over Voltage Modules we've been talking about are designed to create a
> short circuit on the field breaker when high voltage is present, thus
> popping it and shutting-down an errant regulator/alternator.
>
> In this scenario, there is no big circuit breaker in the output of the
> alternator because it's not needed. The output of the alternator is
> controlled by the regulator & its circuit breaker. (And therein lies the
> beauty of this system: no big breaker required and no big wires running to
> that breaker in the panel.)
>
> So, I'm a little confused by your question: "... Would it be okay to use
> the bigger breaker in the charging circuit to accomplish a manual shutdown?"
>
> Perhaps I'm missing something? Are you referring to one of BobN's Z
> drawings? Do you have a schematic of the system you are talking about? (a
> schematic is worth a thousand words)
>
> -Jeff
>
>
> On Friday, December 12, 2014 8:23 AM, Ken Ryan
> wrote:
>
>
> Thanks Jeff. Are you saying that it would be okay to use the OVP device to
> blow a fuse? Would it be okay to use the bigger breaker in the charging
> circuit to accomplish a manual shutdown?
>
> On Thu, Dec 11, 2014 at 9:28 PM, Jeff Luckey wrote:
>
>
> The idea behind feeding the Regulator with a circuit breaker is that it
> gives the pilot the ability to shut-down the alternator (by pulling the
> breaker) if that becomes necessary.
>
> A few reasons you might want to shut down the alternator are:
> 1. a failed regulator that is giving full field (if you don't have an over
> voltage module)
> 2. a failed over-voltage module
> 3. testing purposes
>
> A breaker is simply more practical in this situation.
>
>
> On Thursday, December 11, 2014 3:35 PM, Ken Ryan
> wrote:
>
>
> I read on another forum that the B&C over voltage protection thingy must
> only be used to trip a breaker, not to blow a fuse. Yet, I just re-read the
> chapter on over voltage protection and did not see that mentioned. So the
> question is, should the OVP device be used to: a) trip a breaker b) blow a
> fuse c) either is okay ?
>
>
> *
>
> _blank">www.aeroelectric.com <http://www.aeroelectric.com>
> .com" target="_blank">www.buildersbooks.com <http://www.buildersbooks.com>
> ="_blank">www.homebuilthelp.com <http://www.homebuilthelp.com>
> ="_blank">www.mypilotstore.com <http://www.mypilotstore.com>
> ank">www.mrrace.com <http://www.mrrace.com>
> _blank">http://www.matronics.com/contribution
> ist" target="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List
> tp://forums.matronics.com <http://forums.matronics.com>
>
> *
>
>
> *
>
>
> *
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Alternator Disconnect Z17 vs Z20... |
| From: | "user9253" <fransew(at)gmail.com> |
The Z-17 and Z-20 diagrams that I have both show the relay between the regulator
and the battery side of the starter contactor. Z-16 has the relay between the
dynamo and the regulator, thus switching the AC current. Either way will work.
The 20,000 microfarad capacitor helps to smooth out the pulsing DC from the single phase dynamo. Even if it is not required (but probably is), installing it will not hurt anything. Z-17 and Z-20 have voltage regulators which also rectify the AC into DC. I found this article: http://www.pra.org/publicdl/engines/477%20electrical%20output.pdf
I think that a voltage regulator should be installed rather than just a bridge
rectifier.
Joe
--------
Joe Gores
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=435658#435658
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Charlie England <ceengland7(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: fuse or breaker for OVP? |
I'm not Jeff, but,
A very short length (4"-6") of wire will carry much more current than
its 'rated' capacity (which is for much longer lengths), and that's the
basis on which the fusible link idea arises.
Fusible links are common in cars these days for wire runs that have a
very low likelihood of overcurrent due to their load, but still need to
be protected from catastrophic faults (like pinched insulation causing a
short to ground). You can buy silicone-protected fusible link wire in
bulk on line in various sizes for protecting heavier wire. Common
practice is to make the link smaller by 4 numbers than the wire it
protects (a 16ga link protects a 12ga wire). Like a fuse or breaker, it
should be placed on the current source end of the wire. Properly
installed, they are much less prone to defect-induced failure than
circuit breakers or fuses (and much, much cheaper than a/c circuit
breakers). Somewhere in 'the book' you should find a reference to making
your own fusible link. It basically amounts to sliding a woven
fiberglass sleeve over the smaller gauge wire link and the joint between
link & wire. Download the book in digital form & use Acrobat Reader's
search function to find the references. If that isn't clear, just ask
for more detail.
Charlie
On 12/12/2014 4:27 PM, Ken Ryan wrote:
> Thanks Jeff. Your reply is very helpful. I am developing schematics,
> but have no easy way of scanning them. My system (Rotax) will have two
> engine driven current producers. One of them is a more traditional
> alternator with the internal regulator, and the other a permanent
> magnet affair with an external regulator that the Z diagrams like to
> refer to as a "Dynamo."
>
> I understand how the over voltage protection device is (differently)
> wired for each of these two current producers, how for the alternator
> it cuts the field circuit and for the dynamo it disconnects the regulator.
>
> But I was unaware that the use of the OVP device eliminates the need
> for a breaker in the high current charging wire. Now, looking again at
> the Z drawings, I see that the "fuse" in the high current alternator
> wire is marked by "note 10" which makes reference to something called
> a "fuse like device called a current limiter."
>
> How is this "current limiter" different from a fuse or breaker and why
> is it preferable to a fuse or breaker?
>
> Now, when I look at the Rotax specific drawing, I see the high current
> wire from the "dynamo" seems to be protected by a 16 gauge fusible
> link. The "dynamo" is rated at 22 amps. Is the 16 gauge fusible link
> up to the task? Why would I want to use a fusible link, rather than a
> fuse or a breaker?
>
> Ken
>
>
> On Fri, Dec 12, 2014 at 12:18 PM, Jeff Luckey > wrote:
>
> Ken,
>
> To answer your question directly: Yes, it's okay to use a fuse w/
> an OVM. It will just be more difficult to reset ( and it does not
> give you a convenient way to turn-off the alternator ).
>
> However, I'm not sure I'm following you...
>
> The best way to shut-down a standard, externally-regulated
> alternator is to turn-off its regulator. The regulator usually
> draws less than 1 amp, so you will commonly see a 1 or 2 amp Tyco
> Series 23 circuit breaker feeding the regulator. Like this:
>
>
> The Over Voltage Modules we've been talking about are designed to
> create a short circuit on the field breaker when high voltage is
> present, thus popping it and shutting-down an errant
> regulator/alternator.
>
> In this scenario, there is no big circuit breaker in the output of
> the alternator because it's not needed. The output of the
> alternator is controlled by the regulator & its circuit breaker.
> (And therein lies the beauty of this system: no big breaker
> required and no big wires running to that breaker in the panel.)
>
> So, I'm a little confused by your question: "... Would it be okay
> to use the bigger breaker in the charging circuit to accomplish a
> manual shutdown?"
>
> Perhaps I'm missing something? Are you referring to one of BobN's
> Z drawings? Do you have a schematic of the system you are talking
> about? (a schematic is worth a thousand words)
>
> -Jeff
>
>
> On Friday, December 12, 2014 8:23 AM, Ken Ryan
> > wrote:
>
>
> Thanks Jeff. Are you saying that it would be okay to use the OVP
> device to blow a fuse? Would it be okay to use the bigger breaker
> in the charging circuit to accomplish a manual shutdown?
>
> On Thu, Dec 11, 2014 at 9:28 PM, Jeff Luckey > wrote:
>
>
> The idea behind feeding the Regulator with a circuit breaker
> is that it gives the pilot the ability to shut-down the
> alternator (by pulling the breaker) if that becomes necessary.
>
> A few reasons you might want to shut down the alternator are:
> 1. a failed regulator that is giving full field (if you don't
> have an over voltage module)
> 2. a failed over-voltage module
> 3. testing purposes
>
> A breaker is simply more practical in this situation.
>
>
> On Thursday, December 11, 2014 3:35 PM, Ken Ryan
> > wrote:
>
>
> I read on another forum that the B&C over voltage protection
> thingy must only be used to trip a breaker, not to blow a
> fuse. Yet, I just re-read the chapter on over voltage
> protection and did not see that mentioned. So the question is,
> should the OVP device be used to: a) trip a breaker b) blow a
> fuse c) either is okay ?
>
> *
> *
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Jim Kale" <jimkale(at)roadrunner.com> |
| Subject: | fuse or breaker for OVP? |
I=99d like to down load =9Cthe book=9D if anyone can
tell me what it is????
Jim Kale
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of
Charlie England
Sent: Friday, December 12, 2014 5:39 PM
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: fuse or breaker for OVP?
I'm not Jeff, but,
A very short length (4"-6") of wire will carry much more current than
its 'rated' capacity (which is for much longer lengths), and that's the
basis on which the fusible link idea arises.
Fusible links are common in cars these days for wire runs that have a
very low likelihood of overcurrent due to their load, but still need to
be protected from catastrophic faults (like pinched insulation causing a
short to ground). You can buy silicone-protected fusible link wire in
bulk on line in various sizes for protecting heavier wire. Common
practice is to make the link smaller by 4 numbers than the wire it
protects (a 16ga link protects a 12ga wire). Like a fuse or breaker, it
should be placed on the current source end of the wire. Properly
installed, they are much less prone to defect-induced failure than
circuit breakers or fuses (and much, much cheaper than a/c circuit
breakers). Somewhere in 'the book' you should find a reference to making
your own fusible link. It basically amounts to sliding a woven
fiberglass sleeve over the smaller gauge wire link and the joint between
link & wire. Download the book in digital form & use Acrobat Reader's
search function to find the references. If that isn't clear, just ask
for more detail.
Charlie
On 12/12/2014 4:27 PM, Ken Ryan wrote:
Thanks Jeff. Your reply is very helpful. I am developing schematics, but
have no easy way of scanning them. My system (Rotax) will have two
engine driven current producers. One of them is a more traditional
alternator with the internal regulator, and the other a permanent magnet
affair with an external regulator that the Z diagrams like to refer to
as a "Dynamo."
I understand how the over voltage protection device is (differently)
wired for each of these two current producers, how for the alternator it
cuts the field circuit and for the dynamo it disconnects the regulator.
But I was unaware that the use of the OVP device eliminates the need for
a breaker in the high current charging wire. Now, looking again at the Z
drawings, I see that the "fuse" in the high current alternator wire is
marked by "note 10" which makes reference to something called a "fuse
like device called a current limiter."
How is this "current limiter" different from a fuse or breaker and why
is it preferable to a fuse or breaker?
Now, when I look at the Rotax specific drawing, I see the high current
wire from the "dynamo" seems to be protected by a 16 gauge fusible link.
The "dynamo" is rated at 22 amps. Is the 16 gauge fusible link up to the
task? Why would I want to use a fusible link, rather than a fuse or a
breaker?
Ken
On Fri, Dec 12, 2014 at 12:18 PM, Jeff Luckey > wrote:
Ken,
To answer your question directly: Yes, it's okay to use a fuse w/ an
OVM. It will just be more difficult to reset ( and it does not give you
a convenient way to turn-off the alternator ).
However, I'm not sure I'm following you...
The best way to shut-down a standard, externally-regulated alternator is
to turn-off its regulator. The regulator usually draws less than 1 amp,
so you will commonly see a 1 or 2 amp Tyco Series 23 circuit breaker
feeding the regulator. Like this:
The Over Voltage Modules we've been talking about are designed to create
a short circuit on the field breaker when high voltage is present, thus
popping it and shutting-down an errant regulator/alternator.
In this scenario, there is no big circuit breaker in the output of the
alternator because it's not needed. The output of the alternator is
controlled by the regulator & its circuit breaker. (And therein lies
the beauty of this system: no big breaker required and no big wires
running to that breaker in the panel.)
So, I'm a little confused by your question: "... Would it be okay to use
the bigger breaker in the charging circuit to accomplish a manual
shutdown?"
Perhaps I'm missing something? Are you referring to one of BobN's Z
drawings? Do you have a schematic of the system you are talking about?
(a schematic is worth a thousand words)
-Jeff
On Friday, December 12, 2014 8:23 AM, Ken Ryan > wrote:
Thanks Jeff. Are you saying that it would be okay to use the OVP device
to blow a fuse? Would it be okay to use the bigger breaker in the
charging circuit to accomplish a manual shutdown?
On Thu, Dec 11, 2014 at 9:28 PM, Jeff Luckey > wrote:
The idea behind feeding the Regulator with a circuit breaker is that it
gives the pilot the ability to shut-down the alternator (by pulling the
breaker) if that becomes necessary.
A few reasons you might want to shut down the alternator are:
1. a failed regulator that is giving full field (if you don't have an
over voltage module)
2. a failed over-voltage module
3. testing purposes
A breaker is simply more practical in this situation.
On Thursday, December 11, 2014 3:35 PM, Ken Ryan > wrote:
I read on another forum that the B&C over voltage protection thingy must
only be used to trip a breaker, not to blow a fuse. Yet, I just re-read
the chapter on over voltage protection and did not see that mentioned.
So the question is, should the OVP device be used to: a) trip a breaker
b) blow a fuse c) either is okay ?
<http://www.aeroelectric.com>
<http://www.buildersbooks.com>
<http://www.homebuilthelp.com>
<http://www.mypilotstore.com>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Charlie England <ceengland7(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: fuse or breaker for OVP? |
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: fuse or breaker for OVP? |
| From: | "user9253" <fransew(at)gmail.com> |
Here is a link to the book:
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Book/AEC_R12A.pdf
--------
Joe Gores
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=435682#435682
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Bob McCallum" <robert.mccallum2(at)sympatico.ca> |
| Subject: | fuse or breaker for OVP? |
Here it is.
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Book/AEC_R12A.pdf
Bob McC
_____
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Jim Kale
Sent: Friday, December 12, 2014 11:56 PM
Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: fuse or breaker for OVP?
I'd like to down load "the book" if anyone can tell me what it is????
Jim Kale
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Charlie
England
Sent: Friday, December 12, 2014 5:39 PM
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: fuse or breaker for OVP?
I'm not Jeff, but,
A very short length (4"-6") of wire will carry much more current than its
'rated' capacity (which is for much longer lengths), and that's the basis on
which the fusible link idea arises.
Fusible links are common in cars these days for wire runs that have a very
low likelihood of overcurrent due to their load, but still need to be
protected from catastrophic faults (like pinched insulation causing a short
to ground). You can buy silicone-protected fusible link wire in bulk on line
in various sizes for protecting heavier wire. Common practice is to make the
link smaller by 4 numbers than the wire it protects (a 16ga link protects a
12ga wire). Like a fuse or breaker, it should be placed on the current
source end of the wire. Properly installed, they are much less prone to
defect-induced failure than circuit breakers or fuses (and much, much
cheaper than a/c circuit breakers). Somewhere in 'the book' you should find
a reference to making your own fusible link. It basically amounts to
sliding a woven fiberglass sleeve over the smaller gauge wire link and the
joint between link & wire. Download the book in digital form & use Acrobat
Reader's search function to find the references. If that isn't clear, just
ask for more detail.
Charlie
On 12/12/2014 4:27 PM, Ken Ryan wrote:
Thanks Jeff. Your reply is very helpful. I am developing schematics, but
have no easy way of scanning them. My system (Rotax) will have two engine
driven current producers. One of them is a more traditional alternator with
the internal regulator, and the other a permanent magnet affair with an
external regulator that the Z diagrams like to refer to as a "Dynamo."
I understand how the over voltage protection device is (differently) wired
for each of these two current producers, how for the alternator it cuts the
field circuit and for the dynamo it disconnects the regulator.
But I was unaware that the use of the OVP device eliminates the need for a
breaker in the high current charging wire. Now, looking again at the Z
drawings, I see that the "fuse" in the high current alternator wire is
marked by "note 10" which makes reference to something called a "fuse like
device called a current limiter."
How is this "current limiter" different from a fuse or breaker and why is it
preferable to a fuse or breaker?
Now, when I look at the Rotax specific drawing, I see the high current wire
from the "dynamo" seems to be protected by a 16 gauge fusible link. The
"dynamo" is rated at 22 amps. Is the 16 gauge fusible link up to the task?
Why would I want to use a fusible link, rather than a fuse or a breaker?
Ken
On Fri, Dec 12, 2014 at 12:18 PM, Jeff Luckey wrote:
Ken,
To answer your question directly: Yes, it's okay to use a fuse w/ an OVM. It
will just be more difficult to reset ( and it does not give you a convenient
way to turn-off the alternator ).
However, I'm not sure I'm following you...
The best way to shut-down a standard, externally-regulated alternator is to
turn-off its regulator. The regulator usually draws less than 1 amp, so you
will commonly see a 1 or 2 amp Tyco Series 23 circuit breaker feeding the
regulator. Like this:
Image removed by sender.
The Over Voltage Modules we've been talking about are designed to create a
short circuit on the field breaker when high voltage is present, thus
popping it and shutting-down an errant regulator/alternator.
In this scenario, there is no big circuit breaker in the output of the
alternator because it's not needed. The output of the alternator is
controlled by the regulator & its circuit breaker. (And therein lies the
beauty of this system: no big breaker required and no big wires running to
that breaker in the panel.)
So, I'm a little confused by your question: "... Would it be okay to use the
bigger breaker in the charging circuit to accomplish a manual shutdown?"
Perhaps I'm missing something? Are you referring to one of BobN's Z
drawings? Do you have a schematic of the system you are talking about? (a
schematic is worth a thousand words)
-Jeff
On Friday, December 12, 2014 8:23 AM, Ken Ryan
wrote:
Thanks Jeff. Are you saying that it would be okay to use the OVP device to
blow a fuse? Would it be okay to use the bigger breaker in the charging
circuit to accomplish a manual shutdown?
On Thu, Dec 11, 2014 at 9:28 PM, Jeff Luckey wrote:
The idea behind feeding the Regulator with a circuit breaker is that it
gives the pilot the ability to shut-down the alternator (by pulling the
breaker) if that becomes necessary.
A few reasons you might want to shut down the alternator are:
1. a failed regulator that is giving full field (if you don't have an over
voltage module)
2. a failed over-voltage module
3. testing purposes
A breaker is simply more practical in this situation.
On Thursday, December 11, 2014 3:35 PM, Ken Ryan
wrote:
I read on another forum that the B&C over voltage protection thingy must
only be used to trip a breaker, not to blow a fuse. Yet, I just re-read the
chapter on over voltage protection and did not see that mentioned. So the
question is, should the OVP device be used to: a) trip a breaker b) blow a
fuse c) either is okay ?
www.aeroelectric.comhttp://www.matronics.com/contribution> http://www.matronics.com/c
-Matt Dralle, List - The AeroElectric-List Email List utilities such
as List Photoshare, and much much -->
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List
http://forums.matronics.com====
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Overvoltage crowbar availability? |
At 20:43 2014-12-11, you wrote:
>
>Greetings,
>
>It looks like B and C no longer carries the stand-alone overvoltage
>crowbar (at least I think that's where I bought the one in my LongEz).
>I know Bob is trying to get out of the parts distribution business.
>Does anyone else know of a source or should I just plan on building
>my own. (and if you have the link handy to Bob's schematic that
>would be great but don't search if you don't as I'm sure I can find it...).
There is a replacement for the legacy crowbar modules
in the works. Boards are laid out and software is
nearly complete. Probably have some working hardware
in the next two weeks. B&C can probably still sell you
the older version as well.
The new one is software based and much more immune
to nuisance trips. It's also packaged to look more
like an 'airplane part' than the legacy CBOVM
modules.
Emacs!
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: fuse or breaker for OVP? |
At 17:38 2014-12-12, you wrote:
>I'm not Jeff, but,
>
>A very short length (4"-6") of wire will carry
>much more current than its 'rated' capacity
>(which is for much longer lengths), and that's
>the basis on which the fusible link idea arises.
>Fusible links are common in cars these days for
>wire runs that have a very low likelihood of
>overcurrent due to their load, but still need to
>be protected from catastrophic faults (like
>pinched insulation causing a short to ground).
>You can buy silicone-protected fusible link wire
>in bulk on line in various sizes for protecting
>heavier wire. Common practice is to make the
>link smaller by 4 numbers than the wire it
>protects (a 16ga link protects a 12ga wire).
>Like a fuse or breaker, it should be placed on
>the current source end of the wire. Properly
>installed, they are much less prone to
>defect-induced failure than circuit breakers or
>fuses (and much, much cheaper than a/c circuit
>breakers). Somewhere in 'the book' you should
>find a reference to making your own fusible
>link.=C2 It basically amounts to sliding a woven
>fiberglass sleeve over the smaller gauge wire
>link and the joint between link & wire. Download
>the book in digital form & use Acrobat Reader's
>search function to find the references. If that
>isn't clear, just ask for more detail.
It's not described in the book . . . but a search at
aeroelectric.com on "fusible link" will produce a
comic book on its fabrication . . .
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Alternator Disconnect Z17 vs Z20... |
Greetings,
I'm currently working on wiring up a Quickie with a Rotax 503 (and a
glass panel, go figure...). The two architecture diagrams that look
appropriate to start from are Z17 "Small Rotax System" (sounds right...)
and Z20 "Small Jabiru System".
They are basically the same EXCEPT they way the alternator is
disconnected (Z17 is downstream of regulator, Z20 is upstream of the
regulator).
I might be mistaken (please correct me...) but it also appears both
diagrams are assuming more of a diode bridge than a real regulator as
they both show a 20,000uF cap on the output of the regulator.
All z-figures for permanent magnet alternators depict
rectifier/regulators as the device of choice for
converting the PM alternator's output to DC and then
controlling it in a manner friendly to batteries and
avionics. Specifications for the 503 state:
GENERATOR OUTPUT: 170 W AC at 6000 rpm and 13.5 V RMS
RECTIFIER- REGULATOR: (optional) a.) #9103 requires min. load 12 W (1
amp) to regulate
b.) #9251 requires no min. load
Are you planning to use one of these two rectifier/regulators
or some other product? 170 watts of output probably translate
to about 14A maximum available output from the r/r . . . do
you plan electric start? Have you conducted a load
analysis of all planned accessories to determine
that you have enough engine driven power to support
the load?
My questions: 1) What's the significance, if any, of the different
approaches to the alternator disconnect?
None
2) If I use Rotax 264 870 regulator (as opposed to the 866 080
bridge) is the cap still appropriate (it's not shown in Rotex's
wiring diagrams?
Where might I find data on these two products? They're
not cited as one of the two options in the spec sheet I
downloaded. I'm not sure why anyone would ever use an
ordinary bridge rectifier between their PM alternator
and any other accessory. Can you point me to any literature
that describes/recommends this?
The capacitor has been a legacy feature of Rotax installations
on airplanes for decades. But the little testing I've been
able to do on PM alternators and rectifier/regulators cannot
confirm the value of adding this device. I'm planing to
get another look at the question with more sophisticated
equipment in the not too distant future.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Ken Ryan <keninalaska(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: fuse or breaker for OVP? |
On something like a generator charging wire that is connected to the
battery, since either end of the wire can be the power source, would it
make sense to put a fusible link at each end of the wire?
On Sat, Dec 13, 2014 at 8:22 AM, Robert L. Nuckolls, III <
nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> wrote:
>
> At 17:38 2014-12-12, you wrote:
>
> I'm not Jeff, but,
>
> A very short length (4"-6") of wire will carry much more current than its
> 'rated' capacity (which is for much longer lengths), and that's the basis
> on which the fusible link idea arises.
> Fusible links are common in cars these days for wire runs that have a ver
y
> low likelihood of overcurrent due to their load, but still need to be
> protected from catastrophic faults (like pinched insulation causing a sho
rt
> to ground). You can buy silicone-protected fusible link wire in bulk on
> line in various sizes for protecting heavier wire. Common practice is to
> make the link smaller by 4 numbers than the wire it protects (a 16ga link
> protects a 12ga wire). Like a fuse or breaker, it should be placed on the
> current source end of the wire. Properly installed, they are much less
> prone to defect-induced failure than circuit breakers or fuses (and much,
> much cheaper than a/c circuit breakers). Somewhere in 'the book' you shou
ld
> find a reference to making your own fusible link.=C3=82 It basically amo
unts to
> sliding a woven fiberglass sleeve over the smaller gauge wire link and th
e
> joint between link & wire. Download the book in digital form & use Acroba
t
> Reader's search function to find the references. If that isn't clear, jus
t
> ask for more detail.
>
>
> It's not described in the book . . . but a search at
> aeroelectric.com on "fusible link" will produce a
> comic book on its fabrication . . .
>
>
> Bob . . .
>
> *
>
===========
m>
ldersbooks.com>
.com>
com>
om/contribution>
===========
www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List>
===========
===========
>
> *
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: fuse or breaker for OVP? |
At 17:35 2014-12-11, you wrote:
>I read on another forum that the B&C over voltage protection thingy
>must only be used to trip a breaker, not to blow a fuse. Yet, I just
>re-read the chapter on over voltage protection and did not see that
>mentioned. So the question is, should the OVP device be used to: a)
>trip a breaker b) blow a fuse c) either is okay ?
Either device will function as-intended . . . open the
alternator field circuit when an ov condition is detected.
Suggest you review the discussions unique to "crowbar"
ov protection on aeroelectric.com
http://tinyurl.com/q48agpd
You will discover both the reasoning behind adoption
of this technique along with recommendations for
its use on your airplane.
If your project includes a circuit breaker
panel, then the choice for fuse vs. breakers
is moot. If your choice of circuit protection
leans toward fuses, then the breaker is
recommended for (1) convenient inflight reset
(ONLY ONE TIME) in case of a nuisance trip,
(2) ground maintenance operations where you'd
like to stop a non-rotating alternator from
draining the battery. The later is applicable
only if you use the simple, two-pole, two-position
DC master that brings battery and alternator on
at the same time. If you choose to use the
three-position, on-on-on switch shown on various
z-figures, OFF, BAT, BAT+ALT then the pullable
breaker for ground ops is not necessary.
But in terms of OV protection, either fuse
or breaker will do the job.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: fuse or breaker for OVP? |
At 11:47 2014-12-13, you wrote:
>On something like a generator charging wire that is connected to the
>battery, since either end of the wire can be the power source, would
>it make sense to put a fusible link at each end of the wire?
Not normally needed. An alternator is magnetically
incapable of blowing it's own b-lead protection.
You need protect only the battery-end of the
b-lead.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Alternator Disconnect Z17 vs Z20... |
| From: | Steve Stearns <steve(at)tomasara.com> |
Bob N. asked:
"Are you planning to use one of these two rectifier/regulators
or some other product? 170 watts of output probably translate
to about 14A maximum available output from the r/r . . . do
you plan electric start? Have you conducted a load
analysis of all planned accessories to determine
that you have enough engine driven power to support
the load?"
Steve replies:
The 264 870 regulator is listed in the engine manual (all I have is hard
copy) and on line from rotax suppliers. I don't have a spec sheet on it
but given the pictures (big module with a heat sink) it's more than a diode
bridge. The engine manual says it doesn't require any load to be in
regulation. Our configuration will have electric start and it looks like
it needs a good bit of juice per the manual (16AH min battery 10mm2 wire,
which looks to me like 2AWG. Engine up front, battery in back so 20' of
heavy cable. . The load analysis shows there is plenty of juice
(Dynon D60, low-power transponder, radio and engine monitor, LED tip lights
and only one halogen on the tail).
There are clearly (at least) two version of the 503 (as older one removed
has one spark plug per cylinder and the newer one installed has two). If I
run across a link for the manuals I have I'll forward them to you.
New sanity-check question:
The rotax documentation specifies a 16A fuse between the regulator and ship
loads (including battery). I'm assuming the location of this fuse is
determined by the same factors as an ANL on an alternator equipped ship
and, as such, I've put the fuse next to the battery in back, not up front
with the regulator. Is there anything about a PM dynamo/regulator
combination that would drive putting the fuse up near the regulator? (I
still would want something in back near the battery...)
Thanks for your help,
Steve.
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Alternator Disconnect Z17 vs Z20... |
| From: | Steve Stearns <steve(at)tomasara.com> |
P.S. Bob N., It looks like you have the same engine manual as I. Check
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Mfgr_Data/Rotax/Rotax_503_Electrical.pdf page
18-5.
Steve.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Alternator Disconnect Z17 vs Z20... |
>Thanks for your help,
Good data dump! Need to run a mini-van load
of grandkids to ICT but will pray over your
posting a bit this evening.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Alternator Disconnect Z17 vs Z20... |
| From: | "user9253" <fransew(at)gmail.com> |
Perihelion Design sells lightweight copper-clad cable. http://www.periheliondesign.com/fatwires.htm
> Is there anything about a PM dynamo/regulator combination that would drive putting
the fuse up near the regulator?
Alternators and dynamos are self current limiting. A dynamo rated at 13 amps will
not put out much more than that even if the output is shorted. So there is
no need to put a fuse near the dynamo or regulator. A fuse is needed near the
battery to protect the wires from excessive battery current if a wire is ever
shorted to ground.
Joe
--------
Joe Gores
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=435710#435710
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Ken Ryan <keninalaska(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | reset time for crowbar |
How long does it take for the crowbar OVP device to reset, once the over
voltage condition has been removed?
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: reset time for crowbar |
At 15:18 2014-12-14, you wrote:
>How long does it take for the crowbar OVP device to reset, once the
>over voltage condition has been removed?
Power to activate an ov trip comes through the
field supply circuit breaker. As soon as the
crowbar 'trips' . . . voltage to the field
drops to about 1.5v until the breaker opens
10-20 milliseconds later whereupon the
field voltage falls to zero.
The crowbar module 'latches' ON for
as long as any substantial amount of current flows
through it. So as soon as the breaker opens, the
SCR current goes to zero, the crowbar module is
then 'unlatched' or officially 'reset' depending on
which term you prefer.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Ken Ryan <keninalaska(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | voltage drop across relay |
I have scanned chapter 11 but was not able to find the answer to this
question: What would be the typical voltage drop across a relay in a 12
volt system using 10 gauge wire to carry about 20 amps?
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: voltage drop across relay |
| From: | Charlie England <ceengland7(at)gmail.com> |
Should be in the range of a few millivolts, at most, if the contacts are in g
ood shape. Wire size isn't relevant to voltage drop across the relay contact
s.
Sent from my iPhone
> On Dec 15, 2014, at 2:44 PM, Ken Ryan wrote:
>
> I have scanned chapter 11 but was not able to find the answer to this ques
tion: What would be the typical voltage drop across a relay in a 12 volt sys
tem using 10 gauge wire to carry about 20 amps?
>
>
==========================
=========
==========================
=========
==========================
=========
==========================
=========
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: voltage drop across relay |
At 14:44 2014-12-15, you wrote:
>I have scanned chapter 11 but was not able to find the answer to
>this question: What would be the typical voltage drop across a relay
>in a 12 volt system using 10 gauge wire to carry about 20 amps?
Charlie's right . . . but I'm curious as
to what prompted the question.
In the best of all worlds, two pieces of
metal brought together to carry current
(switch and relay contacts) would produce
a zero-ohms joint but alas, we don't live
in a perfect world.
A relay in the same 'class' as you describe
Emacs!
Emacs!
. . . has a published maximum resistance of 0.030 ohms
Emacs!
according to specs . . . a drop of 20A x 0.030 ohms = 600 millivolts
or about 1.2 watts of dissipation at the contacts. I can
guarantee that contacts of that mass dumping that much
heat would not be long for this earth.
As a practical matter, any time you measure more than
100 millivolts across any set of switch or small relay
contacts at these kinds of loads, it's worth your time
to see if the critter is getting into trouble.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Ken Ryan <keninalaska(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: voltage drop across relay |
The answer to "what prompted the question" as to typical voltage drop
across a 12 volt relay is:
The Rotax schematic has the regulator C wire (which measures voltage) going
through a couple of relays on its way back to the battery. The text says
that there should be no more than 0.2 volt difference between the battery
and the C terminal. I was trying to get a handle on how much drop to expect
from the two relays.
On Mon, Dec 15, 2014 at 2:08 PM, Robert L. Nuckolls, III <
nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> wrote:
>
> At 14:44 2014-12-15, you wrote:
>
> I have scanned chapter 11 but was not able to find the answer to this
> question: What would be the typical voltage drop across a relay in a 12
> volt system using 10 gauge wire to carry about 20 amps?
>
>
> Charlie's right . . . but I'm curious as
> to what prompted the question.
>
> In the best of all worlds, two pieces of
> metal brought together to carry current
> (switch and relay contacts) would produce
> a zero-ohms joint but alas, we don't live
> in a perfect world.
>
> A relay in the same 'class' as you describe
>
> [image: Emacs!] [image: Emacs!]
>
> . . . has a published maximum resistance of 0.030 ohms
>
> [image: Emacs!]
>
> according to specs . . . a drop of 20A x 0.030 ohms = 600 millivolts
> or about 1.2 watts of dissipation at the contacts. I can
> guarantee that contacts of that mass dumping that much
> heat would not be long for this earth.
>
> As a practical matter, any time you measure more than
> 100 millivolts across any set of switch or small relay
> contacts at these kinds of loads, it's worth your time
> to see if the critter is getting into trouble.
>
>
> Bob . . .
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: voltage drop across relay |
At 17:30 2014-12-15, you wrote:
>The answer to "what prompted the question" as to
>typical voltage drop across a 12 volt relay is:
>
>The Rotax schematic has the regulator C wire
>(which measures voltage) going through a couple
>of relays on its way back to the battery. The
>text says that there should be no more than 0.2
>volt difference between the battery and the C
>terminal. I was trying to get a handle on how
>much drop to expect from the two relays.
Oh . . . yeah . . .
Suggest you consider an architecture like
Z-16 that places no switches or relay
contacts in series with the regulator's
output (B&R) or sense lead (C) and
the bus.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: voltage drop across relay |
At 17:30 2014-12-15, you wrote:
>The answer to "what prompted the question" as to
>typical voltage drop across a 12 volt relay is:=C2
>
>The Rotax schematic has the regulator C wire
>(which measures voltage) going through a couple
>of relays on its way back to the battery. The
>text says that there should be no more than 0.2
>volt difference between the battery and the C
>terminal. I was trying to get a handle on how
>much drop to expect from the two relays.
I'm surprised they did that. Here's an excerpt from
another Rotax document that seems to avoid that
pitfall nicely . . .
Emacs!
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: voltage drop across relay |
| From: | "user9253" <fransew(at)gmail.com> |
The Rotax Installation Manual http://www.flyrotax.com/portaldata/5/dokus/d04967.pdf
shows a battery contactor between the battery and main bus and a 25 amp circuit
breaker between the main bus and the regulator. There are no small relays used
in the regulator circuit. During normal flight, only battery charging current
flows through the battery contactor. Any voltage drop across the battery
contactor does not affect the output of the voltage regulator. The Rotax wiring
diagram has a couple of issues: the master switch does NOT shut off the dynamo,
and the starter contactor is connected directly to the battery instead of
being in series with the master contactor like many E-AB aircraft are wired.
The schematic that Bob posted is not from Rotax but is actually from Van's Aircraft
RV-12. I recommend NOT using the Rotax schematic. Instead, wire the rectifier/regulator
per Van's schematic with the addition of a 5 amp fuse in the
terminal "C" circuit at the main bus. The regulator "C" sense circuit and "R+B"
output circuit should be wired with separate paths to the main bus. Then
the voltage drop to the "C" terminal will be minimized because only milliamps
will flow in its circuit. Less current results in less voltage drop. Bob, please
correct me if anything that I said is wrong.
See attached picture of the Rotax wiring diagram.
Below is the key to reference numbers on the Rotax wiring diagram:
1. Electronic modules (A and B)
2-3. plug connection for ignition switch
4. Integrated generator
5-6. External regulator - rectifier with plug connections
7. Electric starter
8-9. Starter relay with plug connection
10-12. External alternator with connections
13. Electric rev-counter
14. Capacitor 22,000 microfarad
15. Ignition switches
16. Master switch
17. Starter switch
18. Control lamp
19. Battery relay (contactor)
20. Battery
21. Bus bar
22. Capacitor
23. Plug connection for trigger coil assy.
24. Trigger coil assy. (tachometer)
25. Electrical fuel pump
26. Starting equipment at the electronic modules
--------
Joe Gores
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=435773#435773
Attachments:
http://forums.matronics.com//files/rotax_wiring_diagram_102.jpg
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Ken Ryan <keninalaska(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: voltage drop across relay |
Joe, The Rotax diagram I'm looking at is for the 914 and it has the C wire
going through one relay plus the battery contactor. [Reference Link]
<http://www.flyrotax.com/portaldata/5/dokus/d04273.pdf>
On Tue, Dec 16, 2014 at 7:56 AM, user9253 wrote:
>
>
> The Rotax Installation Manual
> http://www.flyrotax.com/portaldata/5/dokus/d04967.pdf
> shows a battery contactor between the battery and main bus and a 25 amp
> circuit breaker between the main bus and the regulator. There are no small
> relays used in the regulator circuit. During normal flight, only battery
> charging current flows through the battery contactor. Any voltage drop
> across the battery contactor does not affect the output of the voltage
> regulator. The Rotax wiring diagram has a couple of issues: the master
> switch does NOT shut off the dynamo, and the starter contactor is connected
> directly to the battery instead of being in series with the master
> contactor like many E-AB aircraft are wired.
> The schematic that Bob posted is not from Rotax but is actually from
> Van's Aircraft RV-12. I recommend NOT using the Rotax schematic. Instead,
> wire the rectifier/regulator per Van's schematic with the addition of a 5
> amp fuse in the terminal "C" circuit at the main bus. The regulator "C"
> sense circuit and "R+B" output circuit should be wired with separate paths
> to the main bus. Then the voltage drop to the "C" terminal will be
> minimized because only milliamps will flow in its circuit. Less current
> results in less voltage drop. Bob, please correct me if anything that I
> said is wrong.
>
> See attached picture of the Rotax wiring diagram.
> Below is the key to reference numbers on the Rotax wiring diagram:
> 1. Electronic modules (A and B)
> 2-3. plug connection for ignition switch
> 4. Integrated generator
> 5-6. External regulator - rectifier with plug connections
> 7. Electric starter
> 8-9. Starter relay with plug connection
> 10-12. External alternator with connections
> 13. Electric rev-counter
> 14. Capacitor 22,000 microfarad
> 15. Ignition switches
> 16. Master switch
> 17. Starter switch
> 18. Control lamp
> 19. Battery relay (contactor)
> 20. Battery
> 21. Bus bar
> 22. Capacitor
> 23. Plug connection for trigger coil assy.
> 24. Trigger coil assy. (tachometer)
> 25. Electrical fuel pump
> 26. Starting equipment at the electronic modules
>
> --------
> Joe Gores
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=435773#435773
>
>
> Attachments:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com//files/rotax_wiring_diagram_102.jpg
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: voltage drop across relay |
| From: | "user9253" <fransew(at)gmail.com> |
> Joe, The Rotax diagram I'm looking at is for the 914 and it has the C wire going
through one relay plus the battery contactor.
Ken,
You are right. I was looking at the Rotax 912 schematic, not the 914 which has fuel injection. I can understand why the regulator "C" terminal is connected directly to the "R+B" terminals. They want the dynamo to supply power to the fuel pump with no way for the pilot to shut off the regulator. Therefore, I take back what I wrote about connecting terminal "C" according to the RV-12 schematic (unless all scenarios have been considered). If you wire the regulator according to Rotax's schematic and are concerned about the voltage drop across the regulator relay, then consider a double pole relay with the the poles connected in parallel. http://tinyurl.com/DPST-Relay
--------
Joe Gores
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=435785#435785
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Ken Ryan <keninalaska(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: voltage drop across relay |
Joe, thanks for the DPST relay tip. The Rotax 914 isn't fuel injected (it's
turbocharged) but like a fuel injected engine it must have the electrical
fuel pump working in order to run.
On Tue, Dec 16, 2014 at 1:19 PM, user9253 wrote:
>
>
> > Joe, The Rotax diagram I'm looking at is for the 914 and it has the C
> wire going through one relay plus the battery contactor.
>
> Ken,
> You are right. I was looking at the Rotax 912 schematic, not the 914
> which has fuel injection. I can understand why the regulator "C" terminal
> is connected directly to the "R+B" terminals. They want the dynamo to
> supply power to the fuel pump with no way for the pilot to shut off the
> regulator. Therefore, I take back what I wrote about connecting terminal
> "C" according to the RV-12 schematic (unless all scenarios have been
> considered). If you wire the regulator according to Rotax's schematic and
> are concerned about the voltage drop across the regulator relay, then
> consider a double pole relay with the the poles connected in parallel.
> http://tinyurl.com/DPST-Relay
>
> --------
> Joe Gores
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=435785#435785
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Wiring dual fuel pumps to single switch |
| From: | "carrollcw" <carrollswa(at)gmail.com> |
How can I wire a single dual pole switch to control 2 fuel pumps, only one of which
can operate at once with the switch being off bottom, pump 1 middle, pump
2 top. I also need each pump to have an independent power source. I thought I
could do it with a 2-1, but I can only get it to go on-off-on. Is there a dual
pole switch that will accomplish this?
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=435793#435793
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Charlie England <ceengland7(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Wiring dual fuel pumps to single switch |
On 12/16/2014 8:03 PM, carrollcw wrote:
>
> How can I wire a single dual pole switch to control 2 fuel pumps, only one of
which can operate at once with the switch being off bottom, pump 1 middle, pump
2 top. I also need each pump to have an independent power source. I thought
I could do it with a 2-1, but I can only get it to go on-off-on. Is there a dual
pole switch that will accomplish this?
>
>
A mechanical failure of the switch could take out both pumps; is that
acceptable?
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Buy 2 get 1 free,Apple Iphone 6/6 plus/5S/5C,Sony Xperia |
Z3,
| From: | "selings" <selingsource(at)gmail.com> |
For Quick Order contact US
Skype :seling.source
Whatsapp /call: +254773036008
Text/sms : +17075748774
Email.: selingsource(at)gmail.com
Buy at affordable price Xmas Promotion sales
Apple iPhone 6plus 128GB -$500usd
Apple iPhone 6plus 64GB-- $450usd
Apple iPhone 6plus 16GB-- $400usd
Apple iPhone 6 16gb
Apple iPhone 6 64GB
Apple iPhone 6 128GB
Apple iPhone 5s 64gb Gold
Apple iPhone 5s 32gb Gold
Apple iPhone 5s 16gb Gold
Apple iPhone 5c 32gb
Apple iPhone 5c 16gb
Apple Iphone 5 64GB
Apple Iphone 5 32GB
Apple Iphone 5 16GB
Apple iPad Air Wi-Fi 5th Gen
Apple iPad Air 2
Apple iPad Mini 3 Wi-Fi 4G 64gb
Apple iPad Mini 3 Wi-Fi 4G 32gb
Apple iPad Mini 3 Wi-Fi 4G 16gb
Microsoft Lumia 535
Samsung Galaxy Note 4
Samsung Galaxy S5
Samsung Galaxy Note 3
samsung Galaxy S4 Active LTE-A
Samsung Galaxy S4 i9505
Samsung Galaxy Star Trios S5283
Samsung Galaxy Note 3 Neo Duos
Samsung Galaxy Note 3 Neo
Samsung Galaxy Tab 3 Lite 7.0 3G
Samsung Galaxy Grand Neo
Samsung Galaxy Note Pro 12.2 LTE
Samsung Galaxy Tab Pro 10.1 LTE
Sealed Sony Playstation 4 Console 500gb (ps4, Ntsc/usa, Jet Black)
Blackberry Porsche Design P'9983
Blackberry Passport
BlackBerry Porsche Design P9982
Blackberry Z3
Blackberry Z30
Blackberry Q10
BlackBerry Porsche Design P9981
Sony Xperia E3 Dual
Sony Xperia Z3
Sony Xperia Z2
Sony Xperia E1 dual
Sony Xperia E1
Sony Xperia T2 Ultra dual
Sony Xperia T2 Ultra
Sony Xperia Z1s
Sony Xperia Z1 Compact
Sony Xperia Z1
Motorola Moto G Dual SIM
Motorola Moto G
Motorola Moto X
Motorola DROID Ultra
Motorola DROID Maxx
Motorola RAZR D3 XT919
Motorola RAZR D1
HTC Nexus 9
HTC One (M8)
HTC Desire 310
HTC Desire 501 dual sim
HTC Desire 700 dual sim
HTC Desire 601 dual sim
LG G Pro 2
LG Optimus L1 II Tri E475
LG Optimus F3Q
Nokia X
Nokia X+
Nokia Lumia Icon
Nokia Lumia 525
Nokia Lumia 1520
Nokia Lumia 1320
Nokia Lumia 925
Nokia Lumia 928
Apple Macbook Air
Apple MacBook Pro
Nikon D800 36.3 MP FX-format CMOS Digital SLR
Nikon D3X Digital SLR with 24.5 Mp
Nikon D700 Digital SLR Camera with AF-S 24-70mm
Nikon D4 16.2 megapixel digital SLR camera
Nikon D90 Digital SLR with AF-S DX NIKKOR 18-105mm
Nikon D300 Digital SLR Camera with 18-200mm DX AF-S
Nikon D60 10.2MP Digital SLR Camera with 18-55mm
Nikon D80 DSLR with AF-S DX 18-135mm .... $ 800
Nikon D7000 16.2MP DX Format CMOS Digital SLR with 3.0-inch
Canon EOS 5D Mark III Digital SLR Camera with EF 24-105mm
Canon EOS 5D Mark II Digital SLR Camera with EF 24-105mm
Canon EOS-1D X Digital SLR Camera, 18.1 Mp
Canon EOS 7D Digital SLR with EF 28-135mm
Canon EOS 50D Digital SLR Camera with 28-135mm EF
Canon EOS 40D Digital SLR Camera with EF 28-135mm
Canon EOS 600D Digital SLR with 18-200mm IS lens
Yamaha Tyros 5 61 Key Keyboard Cost $2,300usd
Yamaha Tyros4 61-Key Arranger Workstation Keyboard cost $1,500usd
Yamaha Tyros3 61-Key Arranger Workstation Keyboard TYROS3 cost $800usd
Yamaha Cp300 cost $500usd
Yamaha Motif XS8 Synthesizer 88 Key Demo cost $730usd
Yamaha Arius YDP 160 Digital Piano $400usd
Yamaha CP33 Stage Piano cost $380usd
Yamaha PSR-S900 Portable Keyboard cost $400usd
Yamaha MOTIF XS6 Synthesizer cost $940usd
Korg M3 Workstation 61 Key Pro Keyboard cost $580usd
Korg M3 88 Key Workstation Keyboard cost $750usd
Korg M3-73 Workstation cost $760usd
Korg Pa800 Synthesizer cost $780usd
Rawlings 5' Classic Grand Piano (Walnut Polish) cost $1400usd
Rawlings 50" Professional Upright Piano (Mahogany Polish) cost $700usd
5' Queen Anne Grand Piano (Ebony Polish) cost $1,800usd
Roland RD700GX Digital Piano cost $750usd
Clavia Nord Stage 88 EX cost $780usd
For Quick Order contact info below
Skype :seling.source
Whatsapp /call: +254773036008
Text/sms : +17075748774
Email.: selingsource(at)gmail.com
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=435803#435803
Attachments:
http://forums.matronics.com//files/1x_204.jpg
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Wiring dual fuel pumps to single switch |
| From: | "carrollcw" <carrollswa(at)gmail.com> |
Ceengland, if you posted a picture, it's not showing up for me.
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=435804#435804
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Justin Jones <jmjones2000(at)mindspring.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Wiring dual fuel pumps to single switch |
If you don=92t want to do it with 2 separate switches, I would suggest
looking at a rotary switch. Pay attention to the switch amperage
ratings as it may require a relay to drive a fuel pump. Keep in mind
that with this option, you will not have the ability to turn both pumps
on simultaneously.
The 2 switches below may work.
http://www.digikey.com/product-detail/en/MRT23-A/360-2376-ND/1046092
<http://www.digikey.com/product-detail/en/MRT23-A/360-2376-ND/1046092>
http://www.digikey.com/product-detail/en/HS13Y-D/360-2350-ND/2039688
<http://www.digikey.com/product-detail/en/HS13Y-D/360-2350-ND/2039688>
link to the knob for this switch (
http://www.digikey.com/product-detail/en/AT432/360-2366-ND/639088
<http://www.digikey.com/product-detail/en/AT432/360-2366-ND/639088> )
There are many more options out there for rotary switches.
Hope this helps
Justin
> On Dec 16, 2014, at 5:03 PM, carrollcw wrote:
>
>
> How can I wire a single dual pole switch to control 2 fuel pumps, only
one of which can operate at once with the switch being off bottom, pump
1 middle, pump 2 top. I also need each pump to have an independent power
source. I thought I could do it with a 2-1, but I can only get it to go
on-off-on. Is there a dual pole switch that will accomplish this?
>
>
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=435793#435793
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Wiring dual fuel pumps to single switch |
| From: | John Tipton <jmtipton(at)btopenworld.com> |
What you want to do is achievable (I believe) with a 2-10, which is an ON-ON
-ON - 2 Pole - so wire as you will
see here:
Ebay: 131380680747
Or 'Steinair'
John
Sent from my iPad
----x--O--x----
> On 17 Dec 2014, at 03:37 pm, Justin Jones wro
te:
>
> If you don=99t want to do it with 2 separate switches, I would sugge
st looking at a rotary switch. Pay attention to the switch amperage ratings
as it may require a relay to drive a fuel pump. Keep in mind that with thi
s option, you will not have the ability to turn both pumps on simultaneously
.
>
> The 2 switches below may work.
>
> http://www.digikey.com/product-detail/en/MRT23-A/360-2376-ND/1046092
>
>
> http://www.digikey.com/product-detail/en/HS13Y-D/360-2350-ND/2039688 link
to the knob for this switch ( http://www.digikey.com/product-detail/en/AT4
32/360-2366-ND/639088 )
>
>
>
> There are many more options out there for rotary switches.
>
> Hope this helps
>
> Justin
>
>
>> On Dec 16, 2014, at 5:03 PM, carrollcw wrote:
>>
m>
>>
>> How can I wire a single dual pole switch to control 2 fuel pumps, only on
e of which can operate at once with the switch being off bottom, pump 1 midd
le, pump 2 top. I also need each pump to have an independent power source. I
thought I could do it with a 2-1, but I can only get it to go on-off-on. Is
there a dual pole switch that will accomplish this?
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Read this topic online here:
>>
>> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=435793#435793
>
>
>
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
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Charlie England <ceengland7(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Wiring dual fuel pumps to single switch |
On 12/17/2014 4:49 AM, carrollcw wrote:
>
> Ceengland, if you posted a picture, it's not showing up for me.
>
>
No pic; just a reminder that using one switch means a potential single
point of failure for both fuel pumps. Might be acceptably low risk, but
should be considered.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Wiring dual fuel pumps to single switch |
At 10:38 2014-12-17, you wrote:
>
>
>On 12/17/2014 4:49 AM, carrollcw wrote:
>>
>>Ceengland, if you posted a picture, it's not showing up for me.
>>
>No pic; just a reminder that using one switch means a potential
>single point of failure for both fuel pumps. Might be acceptably low
>risk, but should be considered.
As John mentioned, you can wire a =10 style toggle
switch to offer single pole, three position functionality
as described in chapter 11 of the 'Connection.
Here is one example of this technique.
Emacs!
A single-pole, three position, center-off will
work too . . . but this makes the switch different
from all the rest in that OFF is not fully down
but mid-position.
Charlie's question goes to the notion that if
you have two such pumps, then we assume that one
must be operational at all times to keep the engine
running . . . hence a spare pump. If this is
true, then consider the fact that the pump
can fail to work for a host of reasons . . .
broken wire, bad switch, blown fuse, etc.
If one pump circuit goes bad and pops the fuse,
then the single failure may take down both
pumps.
The legacy failure mode effects analysis
suggests that the two pumps are best installed
as totally separate entities with dedicated
switches and power sources.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Jeff Luckey <jluckey(at)pacbell.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Wiring dual fuel pumps to single switch |
If you're taking a poll...
I add my vote to what Charlie said. One switch is a single point of failure -
if it fails you could lose both pumps.
Just occurred to me: Do you have a situation where you want to prevent both pumps
from being on simultaneously? Could use a mechanical interlock between 2 switches
if that is the case.
-Jeff
On Wednesday, December 17, 2014 8:53 AM, Charlie England
wrote:
On 12/17/2014 4:49 AM, carrollcw wrote:
>
> Ceengland, if you posted a picture, it's not showing up for me.
>
>
No pic; just a reminder that using one switch means a potential single
point of failure for both fuel pumps. Might be acceptably low risk, but
should be considered.
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Wiring dual fuel pumps to single switch |
| From: | Charlie England <ceengland7(at)gmail.com> |
On Wed, Dec 17, 2014 at 10:54 AM, Robert L. Nuckolls, III <
nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> wrote:
>
> At 10:38 2014-12-17, you wrote:
>
> ceengland7(at)gmail.com>
>
> On 12/17/2014 4:49 AM, carrollcw wrote:
>
> >
>
> Ceengland, if you posted a picture, it's not showing up for me.
>
> No pic; just a reminder that using one switch means a potential single
> point of failure for both fuel pumps. Might be acceptably low risk, but
> should be considered.
>
>
> As John mentioned, you can wire a =10 style toggle
> switch to offer single pole, three position functionality
> as described in chapter 11 of the 'Connection.
>
> Here is one example of this technique.
>
>
> [image: Emacs!]
>
>
> A single-pole, three position, center-off will
> work too . . . but this makes the switch different
> from all the rest in that OFF is not fully down
> but mid-position.
>
> Charlie's question goes to the notion that if
> you have two such pumps, then we assume that one
> must be operational at all times to keep the engine
> running . . . hence a spare pump. If this is
> true, then consider the fact that the pump
> can fail to work for a host of reasons . . .
> broken wire, bad switch, blown fuse, etc.
> If one pump circuit goes bad and pops the fuse,
> then the single failure may take down both
> pumps.
>
> The legacy failure mode effects analysis
> suggests that the two pumps are best installed
> as totally separate entities with dedicated
> switches and power sources.
>
> Bob . . .
>
I think he spec'd separate power sources for each pump. But a mechanical
failure (cracked housing allowing the switch to fall apart, etc), while
admittedly rather low risk for a quality switch, could still take out both
pumps.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Ken Ryan <keninalaska(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | stacking ring terminals on terminal post |
What's the accepted practice for stacking ring terminals on a terminal
post? Rotax 914 diagram shows 5 wires coming together at a capacitor.
What's the best way to make that connection?
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: stacking ring terminals on terminal post |
| From: | Joe Motis <joemotis(at)gmail.com> |
With new star washers and noalox?
2/3
more than that??
uh uh..
One man's opinion
On Wed, Dec 17, 2014 at 5:21 PM, Ken Ryan wrote:
>
> What's the accepted practice for stacking ring terminals on a terminal
> post? Rotax 914 diagram shows 5 wires coming together at a capacitor.
> What's the best way to make that connection?
>
> *
>
>
> *
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | BobsV35B(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: stacking ring terminals on terminal post |
Don't know what is being taught these days, but when I went through
Aviation Electricians Mate school in 1947 we were told no more than three ring
terminals per post. No star washers were to be used because they interfered
with good clean contact.
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
Corporal USMC 646659 AEM
In a message dated 12/17/2014 7:25:57 P.M. Central Standard Time,
keninalaska(at)gmail.com writes:
What's the accepted practice for stacking ring terminals on a terminal
post? Rotax 914 diagram shows 5 wires coming together at a capacitor. What's
the best way to make that connection?
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Chuck Birdsall <cbirdsall6(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: stacking ring terminals on terminal post |
Currently being taught is no more than 4 terminals per post. If more
connections are needed, then use two posts with a buss bar connecting
the two of them - and no more than 3 terminals plus the buss bar per post.
Reference is AC 43.13-1B Chapter 11 Sections 8 & 14.
See also the section beginning at page 98 in this training manual:
http://www.keybridgeti.com/videotraining/manualdl/25827.PDF (which
includes a discussion about washers).
So, to answer the question directly - in my mind, the standard method
would be to terminate all five wires with a ring terminal. Use two
adjacent terminal posts on a terminal strip, bridge them with a buss bar
and attach two terminals to one post and three to the other.
Alternatively you could make a short jumper wire with a terminal on each
end, and use it to bridge two posts (you'll wind up with 4 terminals on
one post and 3 on the other). *(Wires and/or buss bars sized
appropriately for the current load.)
Now I'm going to muddy the water a bit. 43.13-1B does say that more
than 4 terminals can be placed on a post IF specifically authorized. In
the Type-Certificated world that I live in, it's much easier to just
wire it to the standard (4 or less per post) than it is to go get
approval to do it differently - unless there is an "approved" source
(such as an install manual for an STC'd item) telling me to do it
differently.
Chuck
On 12/17/2014 8:02 PM, BobsV35B(at)aol.com wrote:
> Don't know what is being taught these days, but when I went through
> Aviation Electricians Mate school in 1947 we were told no more than
> three ring terminals per post. No star washers were to be used because
> they interfered with good clean contact.
> Happy Skies,
> Old Bob
> Corporal USMC 646659 AEM
> In a message dated 12/17/2014 7:25:57 P.M. Central Standard Time,
> keninalaska(at)gmail.com writes:
>
> What's the accepted practice for stacking ring terminals on a
> terminal post? Rotax 914 diagram shows 5 wires coming together at
> a capacitor. What's the best way to make that connection?
>
> *
>
> *
>
> *
> *
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Jared Yates <email(at)jaredyates.com> |
| Subject: | Re: stacking ring terminals on terminal post |
Is this a case where a pair of wires could be crimped together in a single r
ing terminal?
> On Dec 18, 2014, at 01:17, Chuck Birdsall wrote:
>
> Currently being taught is no more than 4 terminals per post. If more conn
ections are needed, then use two posts with a buss bar connecting the two of
them - and no more than 3 terminals plus the buss bar per post.
>
> Reference is AC 43.13-1B Chapter 11 Sections 8 & 14.
>
> See also the section beginning at page 98 in this training manual: http:/
/www.keybridgeti.com/videotraining/manualdl/25827.PDF (which includes a disc
ussion about washers).
>
> So, to answer the question directly - in my mind, the standard method woul
d be to terminate all five wires with a ring terminal. Use two adjacent term
inal posts on a terminal strip, bridge them with a buss bar and attach two t
erminals to one post and three to the other. Alternatively you could make a
short jumper wire with a terminal on each end, and use it to bridge two pos
ts (you'll wind up with 4 terminals on one post and 3 on the other). *(Wires
and/or buss bars sized appropriately for the current load.)
>
> Now I'm going to muddy the water a bit. 43.13-1B does say that more than 4
terminals can be placed on a post IF specifically authorized. In the Type-
Certificated world that I live in, it's much easier to just wire it to the s
tandard (4 or less per post) than it is to go get approval to do it differen
tly - unless there is an "approved" source (such as an install manual for an
STC'd item) telling me to do it differently.
>
> Chuck
>
>
>> On 12/17/2014 8:02 PM, BobsV35B(at)aol.com wrote:
>> Don't know what is being taught these days, but when I went through Aviat
ion Electricians Mate school in 1947 we were told no more than three ring te
rminals per post. No star washers were to be used because they interfered wi
th good clean contact.
>>
>> Happy Skies,
>> Old Bob
>> Corporal USMC 646659 AEM
>>
>> In a message dated 12/17/2014 7:25:57 P.M. Central Standard Time, keninal
aska(at)gmail.com writes:
>> What's the accepted practice for stacking ring terminals on a terminal po
st? Rotax 914 diagram shows 5 wires coming together at a capacitor. What's t
he best way to make that connection?
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
==========================
=========
==========================
=========
==========================
=========
==========================
=========
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Ken Ryan <keninalaska(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: stacking ring terminals on terminal post |
Thanks for all the good answers.
On Thu, Dec 18, 2014 at 3:25 AM, Jared Yates wrote:
>
> Is this a case where a pair of wires could be crimped together in a single
> ring terminal?
>
>
> On Dec 18, 2014, at 01:17, Chuck Birdsall wrote:
>
> Currently being taught is no more than 4 terminals per post. If more
> connections are needed, then use two posts with a buss bar connecting the
> two of them - and no more than 3 terminals plus the buss bar per post.
>
> Reference is AC 43.13-1B Chapter 11 Sections 8 & 14.
>
> See also the section beginning at page 98 in this training manual:
> http://www.keybridgeti.com/videotraining/manualdl/25827.PDF (which
> includes a discussion about washers).
>
> So, to answer the question directly - in my mind, the standard method
> would be to terminate all five wires with a ring terminal. Use two adjacent
> terminal posts on a terminal strip, bridge them with a buss bar and attach
> two terminals to one post and three to the other. Alternatively you could
> make a short jumper wire with a terminal on each end, and use it to bridge
> two posts (you'll wind up with 4 terminals on one post and 3 on the other).
> *(Wires and/or buss bars sized appropriately for the current load.)
>
> Now I'm going to muddy the water a bit. 43.13-1B does say that more than
> 4 terminals can be placed on a post IF specifically authorized. In the
> Type-Certificated world that I live in, it's much easier to just wire it to
> the standard (4 or less per post) than it is to go get approval to do it
> differently - unless there is an "approved" source (such as an install
> manual for an STC'd item) telling me to do it differently.
>
> Chuck
>
>
> On 12/17/2014 8:02 PM, BobsV35B(at)aol.com wrote:
>
> Don't know what is being taught these days, but when I went through
> Aviation Electricians Mate school in 1947 we were told no more than three
> ring terminals per post. No star washers were to be used because they
> interfered with good clean contact.
>
> Happy Skies,
> Old Bob
> Corporal USMC 646659 AEM
>
> In a message dated 12/17/2014 7:25:57 P.M. Central Standard Time,
> keninalaska(at)gmail.com writes:
>
> What's the accepted practice for stacking ring terminals on a terminal
> post? Rotax 914 diagram shows 5 wires coming together at a capacitor.
> What's the best way to make that connection?
>
>
> *
>
>
> *
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: stacking ring terminals on terminal post |
At 09:44 2014-12-18, you wrote:
>Thanks for all the good answers.
>
>On Thu, Dec 18, 2014 at 3:25 AM, Jared Yates
><email(at)jaredyates.com> wrote:
>Is this a case where a pair of wires could be crimped together in a
>single ring terminal?
I've worked as a direct employee of 4 airframe companies
and indirectly with a dozen others. I've observed no
consistency in the rules-of-thumb adopted by the aviation
community for configuring or limiting the mechanical
architecture of terminal stacks on studs.
When I've encountered company documents setting forth
requirements, no explanation was offered to help
anyone understand why that particular policy was
put in force . . . the documents were so old that
the authors were retired or dead. There was nobody
to ask. Nonetheless, given that (1) they had been in place
and enforced for decades and (2) no recorded problems
having root cause with the practice, then
the requirement must be golden.
Obviously, every stud is good for one terminal and
20 terminals probably wouldn't fit . . . so someplace
between 1 and 20, there must be an optimal number. In
any case, the flower of wire-petals leaving the stud needs
to fit without placing forceful interference between
terminals. With the right terminals on small wires, one
could imagine getting 8 wires to share the stud.
I have seen a large cluster of wires stacked on a
stud long enough to accommodate a spacer between
two clusters. Worked good, lasted a long time but
this wasn't on an airplane.
One's personal quest for rational policy has to be
founded in two sciences. (1) Compression forces for the
purpose of obtaining gas-tight interfaces and (2) reverence
for the inherent vulnerability of threaded fasteners
to succumb to vibration . . . the bottom of every thread
is a stress-riser.
There is a huge window of opportunity between the
requirements for compression loads that achieve
gas-tightness and stress limits imposed by hanging
mass on the end of a bending moment excited by local
vibration.
Bottom line is that as long as the stud is long
enough to fully penetrate the nut and the wires
are not all 2AWG, risks are very low. If the
cluster fits and you've got 1-1/2 threads protruding
from the nut, you're probably good to go.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Ken Ryan <keninalaska(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | crowbar placement in system |
I notice in the Z diagrams that the crowbar seems to be placed in the
system downstream from the bus. Since we are trying to protect against over
voltage from the alternator, it seems more sensible to place it between the
alternator output and the battery. Is there a reason it's not done that
way? (such as nuisance trips)
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Jeff Luckey <jluckey(at)pacbell.net> |
| Subject: | Re: crowbar placement in system |
Remember that the Crowbar's mission is to blow the breaker that feeds the regulator
thus shutting-down the alternator. Therefore it needs to be placed on the
load side of the regulator breaker.
-Jeff
On Thursday, December 18, 2014 4:11 PM, Ken Ryan wrote:
I notice in the Z diagrams that the crowbar seems to be placed in the system downstream
from the bus. Since we are trying to protect against over voltage from
the alternator, it seems more sensible to place it between the alternator output
and the battery. Is there a reason it's not done that way? (such as nuisance
trips)
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Ken Ryan <keninalaska(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: crowbar placement in system |
Oops! I knew that! Been staring at schematics too long.
On Thu, Dec 18, 2014 at 3:28 PM, Jeff Luckey wrote:
>
> Remember that the Crowbar's mission is to blow the breaker that feeds the
> regulator thus shutting-down the alternator. Therefore it needs to be
> placed on the load side of the regulator breaker.
>
> -Jeff
>
>
> On Thursday, December 18, 2014 4:11 PM, Ken Ryan
> wrote:
>
>
> I notice in the Z diagrams that the crowbar seems to be placed in the
> system downstream from the bus. Since we are trying to protect against over
> voltage from the alternator, it seems more sensible to place it between the
> alternator output and the battery. Is there a reason it's not done that
> way? (such as nuisance trips)
>
>
> *
>
>
> *
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Jim Kale" <jimkale(at)roadrunner.com> |
| Subject: | stacking ring terminals on terminal post |
These discussions on how many connectors on a single bolt caused me to
recall an accident that a good friend was in. It was a large 46,000 lb.
Army Boeing CH-47 Chinook helicopter. The helicopter had 8 fuel boost pumps
distributed in 6 tanks to pump the fuel up to the engine driven pumps. The
helicopter was lost when both of the turbine engines flamed out due to fuel
starvation (not fuel exhaustion). All of the 8 boost pumps had the ground
wires connected to one bolt. The bolt did OK, but due to vibration, the
sheet metal it was anchored in failed and the bolt broke free of the
airframe mount and thus the ground was lost to all of the fuel pumps.
Boeing learned from that and soon had 4 ground bolts with the wires
distributed between them, and a connector bus between all 4 bolts. It was a
single point failure that had been overlooked by the design engineers.
History has shown us a few lessons where rather simple design features were
overlooked by very talented designers.
Bottom line, there is more to this question than just how many terminals may
be connected to one bolt.
I have seen several references to single point failures in these
discussions.
Food for thought.
Jim . . . .
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, December 18, 2014 2:40 PM
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: stacking ring terminals on terminal post
At 09:44 2014-12-18, you wrote:
Thanks for all the good answers.
On Thu, Dec 18, 2014 at 3:25 AM, Jared Yates > wrote:
Is this a case where a pair of wires could be crimped together in a single
ring terminal?
I've worked as a direct employee of 4 airframe companies
and indirectly with a dozen others. I've observed no
consistency in the rules-of-thumb adopted by the aviation
community for configuring or limiting the mechanical
architecture of terminal stacks on studs.
When I've encountered company documents setting forth
requirements, no explanation was offered to help
anyone understand why that particular policy was
put in force . . . the documents were so old that
the authors were retired or dead. There was nobody
to ask. Nonetheless, given that (1) they had been in place
and enforced for decades and (2) no recorded problems
having root cause with the practice, then
the requirement must be golden.
Obviously, every stud is good for one terminal and
20 terminals probably wouldn't fit . . . so someplace
between 1 and 20, there must be an optimal number. In
any case, the flower of wire-petals leaving the stud needs
to fit without placing forceful interference between
terminals. With the right terminals on small wires, one
could imagine getting 8 wires to share the stud.
I have seen a large cluster of wires stacked on a
stud long enough to accommodate a spacer between
two clusters. Worked good, lasted a long time but
this wasn't on an airplane.
One's personal quest for rational policy has to be
founded in two sciences. (1) Compression forces for the
purpose of obtaining gas-tight interfaces and (2) reverence
for the inherent vulnerability of threaded fasteners
to succumb to vibration . . . the bottom of every thread
is a stress-riser.
There is a huge window of opportunity between the
requirements for compression loads that achieve
gas-tightness and stress limits imposed by hanging
mass on the end of a bending moment excited by local
vibration.
Bottom line is that as long as the stud is long
enough to fully penetrate the nut and the wires
are not all 2AWG, risks are very low. If the
cluster fits and you've got 1-1/2 threads protruding
from the nut, you're probably good to go.
Bob . . .
<http://www.buildersbooks.com>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | stacking ring terminals on terminal post |
At 22:49 2014-12-18, you wrote:
These discussions on how many connectors on a single bolt caused me
to recall an accident that a good friend was in. It was a large
46,000 lb. Army Boeing CH-47 Chinook helicopter. The helicopter had
8 fuel boost pumps distributed in 6 tanks to pump the fuel up to the
engine driven pumps. The helicopter was lost when both of the
turbine engines flamed out due to fuel starvation (not fuel
exhaustion). All of the 8 boost pumps had the ground wires connected
to one bolt. The bolt did OK, but due to vibration, the sheet metal
it was anchored in failed and the bolt broke free of the airframe
mount and thus the ground was lost to all of the fuel pumps. Boeing
learned from that and soon had 4 ground bolts with the wires
distributed between them, and a connector bus between all 4
bolts. It was a single point failure that had been overlooked by the
design engineers.
History has shown us a few lessons where rather simple design
features were overlooked by very talented designers.
Bottom line, there is more to this question than just how many
terminals may be connected to one bolt.
I have seen several references to single point failures in these discussions.
Food for thought.
Jim . . . .
This illustrates the value of the FMEA. Don't suppose
or calculate anything . . . assume the worst down
to the fundamentals . . . the simple ideas.
All those books full of rules-of-thumb are the
top-layer attempt to avoid unhappy circumstances
that can arise from an inability to look down into
the layers of potential failure.
I don't recall ever reading some words on bonding
and/or limits to terminals on studs suggesting,
"Oh, by the way, make sure that the thing you're
bolting to isn't going to break/burn off as a
consequence of stresses not addressed by this
rule."
The universe runs on physics. A huge puzzle
of patterns that under ideal conditions, fit
together with permanence and functionality.
Most cases of a puzzle piece jammed into a
less-than-best-fit is of little or no
consequence. But sometimes, a 'hit' on the
extreme end of the bell curve can cause the
assembled puzzle to fall apart . . . and
it's always a surprise.
The artful component of our science is to be
curious, cognizant and competent observers
of how the most rudimentary of puzzle pieces
have been assembled in the past . . . as
a study in both success and failure. It's
this knowledge of lessons-learned that offer
foundation for future successes and minimizing
risks in new adventures.
In this endeavor, you cannot have too many
observers nor is any intellectual exploration
without value. This is how the potential for
unhappy surprises are first resolved intellectually
sitting at our keyboards . . . thus minimizing
the risk of surprise at 5,000 feet . . . or
on short final to the rocks.
See: http://tinyurl.com/mwjbzt3
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | How does the Ducatti rectifier/regulator work? |
| From: | "user9253" <fransew(at)gmail.com> |
A fellow RV-12 builder asked me this:
> From the the little that I have read concerning dynamos, they operate at full
output all the time as they have no field current controlling them.
> Does that mean that if one runs the strobes and landing light all the time, the
Ducati reg/rectifier will have less heat to dissipate through the cooling fins,
and perhaps stay cooler and last longer?
I do not know the answer, thus am asking the experts on the AeroElectric List.
How does the Rotax 912 rectifier/regulator work? Does it short out the dynamo
output to control voltage? Or does it add a series resistance to drop the output
voltage? Or what?
Thanks, Joe
--------
Joe Gores
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=435942#435942
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: How does the Ducatti rectifier/regulator work? |
At 13:51 2014-12-20, you wrote:
>
>A fellow RV-12 builder asked me this:
> > From the the little that I have read concerning dynamos, they
> operate at full output all the time as they have no field current
> controlling them.
> > Does that mean that if one runs the strobes and landing light all
> the time, the Ducati reg/rectifier will have less heat to dissipate
> through the cooling fins, and perhaps stay cooler and last longer?
>
>I do not know the answer, thus am asking the experts on the
>AeroElectric List. How does the Rotax 912 rectifier/regulator
>work? Does it short out the dynamo output to control voltage? Or
>does it add a series resistance to drop the output voltage? Or what?
>Thanks, Joe
>
>--------
Back 'in the day' when pm alternators were first being
added to small bikes, the electrical output on the order
of 5 amps did not offer a very challenging energy management
problem. Earliest regulators simply used an SCR triggered
on each of the alternator's half-cycle to simply short the
AC output when the waveform was 'high enough' . . . this
crude regulation philosophy caused the alternator to operated
in a max-power-output mode all the time . . . with excess
power being dissipated in the alternator's windings and
the SHUNT mode, rectifier/regulator's heat sink.
As the alternators go bigger and consumer design goals
for more sophisticated electrical systems grew, there
was a pretty popular shift to SERIES mode regulation.
The B&C R/R products have always used this philosophy.
The Ducatti regulators favored by Rotax were of this
general design as well . . .
http://aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Regulators/Rotax-Ducati_Rectifier-Regulator.jpg
There are more modern versions of this design that
use MOSFET transistors in the power control loop . . .
designs that dissipate much less power as heat.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: How does the Ducatti rectifier/regulator work? |
At 13:51 2014-12-20, you wrote:
A fellow RV-12 builder asked me this:
. . . From the the little that I have read concerning dynamos, they
operate at full output all the time as they have no field current
controlling them.
True, FULL output voltage, but not necessarily full
output POWER. It's the job of the rectifier regulator
to tailor the wild-frequency, wild-voltage AC into
some reasonably stable output at the desired voltage.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: How does the Ducatti rectifier/regulator work? |
| From: | "user9253" <fransew(at)gmail.com> |
I assume that the SCRs conduct at low voltage and shut off when the voltage on
terminal "C" reaches the set-point. And heat is generated due to the forward
voltage drop across the SCRs.
The battery symbol in the Rotax regulator/rectifier schematic looks upside down.
According to this forum:
http://www.edaboard.com/thread67699.html
The "E" in resistor values stands for ohms. Thus I interpret 2E2 to be 2.2 ohms.
Joe
--------
Joe Gores
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=435958#435958
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: How does the Ducatti rectifier/regulator work? |
At 18:43 2014-12-20, you wrote:
>
>Can we assume that 820E and 2E2 resistors in the schematic are 820
>ohm and 2R2 (2.2) ohm resistors?
>Ken
Yes . . .
Are you contemplating a DIY clone?
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | C&K <yellowduckduo(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: How does the Ducatti rectifier/regulator |
work?
On 21/12/2014 6:15 PM, Robert L. Nuckolls, III wrote:
>
>
> At 18:43 2014-12-20, you wrote:
>>
>> Can we assume that 820E and 2E2 resistors in the schematic are 820
>> ohm and 2R2 (2.2) ohm resistors?
>> Ken
>
> Yes . . .
>
> Are you contemplating a DIY clone?
>
Yes but not immediately.
I did a one off many years ago for the positive side of a wound field
alternator with a commercial IC that has worked out well. I'd like to
regulate the charging on some small equipment that is hard on batteries
and I also told myself that I'd roll my own if I ever need another John
Deere unit for the airplane. I like more temperature compensation than
commercial regulators incorporate (and my batteries seem to agree...)
Ken
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Weaver, Erich" <erich.weaver(at)urs.com> |
| Subject: | Power stabilizer wiring |
Rather than a standby battery I am installing a 4 amp rated 'Intelligent Power
Stabilizer' on my z-13/8 wired RV for brownout protection to one of my two EFIS
screens during startup. The EFIS draws 1 amp. The manual says to install a
12 amp fuse on the power inlet to the IPS unit and a second 5 amp inline fuse
on the wire providing power from the IPS to the secondary power inlet on the
EFIS. First question: the 12 amp fuse can just be on my main bus so no hassle
there but i would rather not have the 5 amp inline fuse buried behind the subpanel
with the IPS if its not absolutely necessary. Do I definitely need both
fuses for adequate protection?
Second question: Any reason the IPS can't be used as the sole source of power
to the EFIS rather than as backup? If I wired the IPS to the ebus I have the
backup alternator I can use should the primary fail. Maybe the IPS is not intended
for full time operation or perhaps it draws more current than practical
for the ebus?
Thanks
Erich
This e-mail and any attachments contain URS Corporation confidential information
that may be proprietary or privileged. If you receive this message in error
or are not the intended recipient, you should not retain, distribute, disclose
or use any of this information and you should destroy the e-mail and any attachments
or copies.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Jeff Luckey <jluckey(at)pacbell.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Power stabilizer wiring |
Eric wrote:
Second question: Any reason the IPS can't be used as the sole source of power
to the EFIS rather than as backup? ...
If the IPS is the sole source of power & it fails
then it takes-out your efis. Any component you
add to the critical path decreases reliability.
If you wire it as you described, then it helps
w/ brownout and if it fails it's no big deal.
-Jeff
On Sunday, December 21, 2014 4:42 PM, "Weaver, Erich" wrote:
Rather than a standby battery I am installing a 4 amp rated 'Intelligent Power
Stabilizer' on my z-13/8 wired RV for brownout protection to one of my two EFIS
screens during startup. The EFIS draws 1 amp. The manual says to install a
12 amp fuse on the power inlet to the IPS unit and a second 5 amp inline fuse
on the wire providing power from the IPS to the secondary power inlet on the
EFIS. First question: the 12 amp fuse can just be on my main bus so no hassle
there but i would rather not have the 5 amp inline fuse buried behind the subpanel
with the IPS if its not absolutely necessary. Do I definitely need both
fuses for adequate protection?
Second question: Any reason the IPS can't be used as the sole source of power
to the EFIS rather than as backup? If I wired the IPS to the ebus I have the
backup alternator I can use should the primary fail. Maybe the IPS is not intended
for full time operation or perhaps it draws more current than practical
for the ebus?
Thanks
Erich
This e-mail and any attachments contain URS Corporation confidential information
that may be proprietary or privileged. If you receive this message in error
or are not the intended recipient, you should not retain, distribute, disclose
or use any of this information and you should destroy the e-mail and any attachments
or copies.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Weaver, Erich" <erich.weaver(at)urs.com> |
| Subject: | Power stabilizer wiring |
I should have stated previously that the manufacturer has indicated that failure
of the IPS results in pass through of the bus voltage. Assuming that's true,
operation of the EFIS should continue unless I was in a brownout situation.
This e-mail and any attachments contain URS Corporation confidential information
that may be proprietary or privileged. If you receive this message in error
or are not the intended recipient, you should not retain, distribute, disclose
or use any of this information and you should destroy the e-mail and any attachments
or copies.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: How does the Ducatti rectifier/regulator |
work?
Yes but not immediately.
I did a one off many years ago for the positive side of a wound field
alternator with a commercial IC that has worked out well. I'd like
to regulate the charging on some small equipment that is hard on
batteries and I also told myself that I'd roll my own if I ever need
another John Deere unit for the airplane. I like more temperature
compensation than commercial regulators incorporate (and my batteries
seem to agree...)
Ken
Understand. If that project bubbles to the top of
your to-do list, lets talk. If you like, I could
perhaps contribute to your project with an etched circuit
board layout.
Keep an eye on developments in the rectifier/regulator
world for PM alternators. The Ducati design is now probably
pushing 40 years old and there's been a lot of new
ideas and products added to the mix in the interim.
I'm exploring some of the COTS options for a client
and may have some recommendations to share in the
not too distant future. Then there's those lithium
thingys getting a toe hold in the marketplace.
They're here to stay. They're not the ticking time-
bomb we've been let to imagine. BUT . . . they
are NOT lead-acid drop-ins. Every kid and his dog
wanted to get into the SVLA business wayyyyy back when
and those unable to perform were a brief flash on
the horizon. I suspect the lithium products will
bubble up and be filtered in the marketplace as
well. I'm working the 4th installment to the lithium
saga for Kitplanes.
I love this business . . . tomorrow . . . you can
do more for $less$ with better performance, lower
weight, smaller space than you can today. It's
exciting.
But just because the Ducati style is dated does
not mean that it's unserviceable or unworthy
of consideration for improvements. It's your
kitchen chef . . . variations on a theme may be
just what's needed to fit your design goals.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | SD8 output at 28V? |
| From: | "digidocs" <junk(at)dcarr.org> |
Hello Aeroelectric,
Does anyone have information about the SD8 output performance at 28V?
B&C are advertising a 28V version, but were unable to provide any data when I asked.
I also took Bob's 12.5V/13.8V output ratings at 3100 alternator RPM and built a
Thevenin equivalent circuit. That shows open circuit voltage of only ~20V.
Hopefully that's not an accurate way to model this device.
David
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=436011#436011
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Power stabilizer wiring |
At 18:33 2014-12-21, you wrote:
Rather than a standby battery I am installing a 4 amp
rated 'Intelligent Power Stabilizer' on my z-13/8 wired RV for
brownout protection to one of my two EFIS screens during startup. The
EFIS draws 1 amp. The manual says to install a 12 amp fuse on the
power inlet to the IPS unit and a second 5 amp inline fuse on the
wire providing power from the IPS to the secondary power inlet on the
EFIS. First question: the 12 amp fuse can just be on my main bus so
no hassle there but i would rather not have the 5 amp inline fuse
buried behind the subpanel with the IPS if its not absolutely
necessary. Do I definitely need both fuses for adequate protection?
Fuses should be part of your system for one reason
only . . . to protect wires and to prevent a failure
on one feeder from propagating into other systems. Hence
the common-bus/multiple-feeder architectures with individual
protection on each feeder.
If the manufacturer calls for a fuse in the output lead,
then it's very much worth your time and effort to inquire
as to the circumstances under which that fuse might
operate. Not being familiar with the design of his
product, we're in a poor position to conduct an FMEA.
I hope that his reply would state that the output fuse
is unnecessary.
If the device is rated at 4A output (56 watts) and
assuming at LEAST 80% efficiency then input demand
would be on the order of 75 watts. Under brown out
conditions (8 volts or so) the current TRANSIENT
would be on the order of 10A . . .so the 12A
protection call-out seems reasonable for a FULLY
loaded system.
Your system loads as installed will be approximately
1/4 rated max values so you have plenty of headroom in
terms of wire protection. 12A call-out is a bit funky
. . . go for 10A . . . a fuse you can actually buy.
Second question: Any reason the IPS can't be used as the sole source
of power to the EFIS rather than as backup? If I wired the IPS to
the ebus I have the backup alternator I can use should the primary
fail. Maybe the IPS is not intended for full time operation or
perhaps it draws more current than practical for the ebus?
Energy is energy is energy. These switchmode power supplies
are constant power systems meaning that as bus voltage falls,
INPUT current will rise to maintain a constant power at the
output terminals. Your 1A EFIS demand (14W) means normal bus
(14.5v) draw is about 1.3A, at end of life on battery only
ops (11v) the draw rises to about 1.5A. During brown out
transient of say 8v, the draw rises to 2.2A. So 10A
circuit protection from the bus seems quite adequate.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: SD8 output at 28V? |
At 12:49 2014-12-22, you wrote:
>
>Hello Aeroelectric,
>
>Does anyone have information about the SD8 output performance at 28V?
>
>B&C are advertising a 28V version, but were unable to provide any
>data when I asked.
>
>I also took Bob's 12.5V/13.8V output ratings at 3100 alternator RPM
>and built a Thevenin equivalent circuit. That shows open circuit
>voltage of only ~20V. Hopefully that's not an accurate way to model
>this device.
>
>David
Both 14 and 28v versions are wound by B&C. The
28v version would have more turns on it than
the 14v. The alternator's output is roughly
limited by the magnetics. This is a 100W alternator
frame so I would imagine that the 28v performance
for current is 1/2 that of the 14v version.
I'll be at B&C in then next few weeks . . .I'll
check for sure.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: SD8 output at 28V? |
| From: | "digidocs" <junk(at)dcarr.org> |
Bob,
That's really helpful information. I currently have the 14V version and B&C told
me that I could switch it to 28V by simply changing the regulator. It sounds
like that may not be the case. (no pun intended)
David
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=436018#436018
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Weaver, Erich" <erich.weaver(at)urs.com> |
| Subject: | Power stabilizer wiring |
I had a conversation with the manufacturer today. Given the low amp draw for my
specific use, he was comfortable with reducing the 12 amp fuse to 7.5 amp and
eliminating the downstream 5 amp fuse. Not sure a 7.5 amp fuse is readily
available, but will go with 10 if not. There is also no reason why the IPS can't
be used as the sole source of power to the EFIS. There are multiple redundant
paths built into the unit so that the power stabilizing capability could
essentially vaporize and the unit would default to passing through available
buss voltage, so there is very little risk of losing power to my EFIS.
I do like the fact that this unit is small and maintenance free, unlike a backup
battery that is more often used for this anti brownout purpose.
This e-mail and any attachments contain URS Corporation confidential information
that may be proprietary or privileged. If you receive this message in error
or are not the intended recipient, you should not retain, distribute, disclose
or use any of this information and you should destroy the e-mail and any attachments
or copies.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Bower, Bob" <Bob.Bower(at)hdrinc.com> |
| Subject: | N811HB analysis files |
Bob N. - In a recent post you referred us to http://www.aeroelectric.com/Re
ference_Docs/Accidents/N811HB_Feb2008_LA-IVp/ for study.
Many of the files in this folder are .wmv files, i.e. video files. Should t
hese files be PDF files? Thanks.
Bob Bower
RV-6A builder
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Jeff Luckey <jluckey(at)pacbell.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Power stabilizer wiring |
Erich,
You appear to be interested in design and analysis so you may be interested in
the attached document. It's a design where redundancy & brown-out prevention
were initial design criteria and baked-in from the beginning - therefore it does
not require bolting-on additional widgets. In addition it's surprisingly straight-forward.
-Jeff
On Monday, December 22, 2014 5:14 PM, "Weaver, Erich" wrote:
I had a conversation with the manufacturer today. Given the low amp draw for my
specific use, he was comfortable with reducing the 12 amp fuse to 7.5 amp and
eliminating the downstream 5 amp fuse. Not sure a 7.5 amp fuse is readily
available, but will go with 10 if not. There is also no reason why the IPS can't
be used as the sole source of power to the EFIS. There are multiple redundant
paths built into the unit so that the power stabilizing capability could
essentially vaporize and the unit would default to passing through available
buss voltage, so there is very little risk of losing power to my EFIS.
I do like the fact that this unit is small and maintenance free, unlike a backup
battery that is more often used for this anti brownout purpose.
This e-mail and any attachments contain URS Corporation confidential information
that may be proprietary or privileged. If you receive this message in error
or are not the intended recipient, you should not retain, distribute, disclose
or use any of this information and you should destroy the e-mail and any attachments
or copies.
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Power stabilizer wiring |
| From: | "user9253" <fransew(at)gmail.com> |
> Not sure a 7.5 amp fuse is readily available, . . .
Van's Aircraft sells fuses that glow when blown (if the circuit has a load).
Van's phone 503.678.6545
ES-00202 FUSE ATC 2 AMP (No glow) $0.40
ES-00203 FUSE ATC 3 AMP LIT $0.55
ES-00205 FUSE ATC 5 AMP LIT $0.55
ES-00207 FUSE ATC 7.5 AMP LIT $1.00
ES-00210 FUSE ATC 10 AMP LIT $0.85
ES-00230 FUSE ATC 30 AMP LIT $0.85
Joe
--------
Joe Gores
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=436043#436043
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: N811HB analysis files |
At 19:54 2014-12-22, you wrote:
>Bob N. ' In a recent post you referred us to
><http://www.aeroelectric.com/Reference_Docs/Accidents/N811HB_Feb2008_LA-IVp
/>http://www.aeroelectric.com/Reference_Docs/Accidents/N811HB_Feb2008_LA-IVp
/
>for study.
>Many of the files in this folder are .wmv files,
>i.e. video files. Should these files be PDF files? Thanks.
No, those are preliminary presentations that I prepared
for my client. I fabricated a table-top demonstrator to
show the Failure modes effects for the as-installed system
on the accident aircraft.
Those are 'rough' videos of the equipment and the concepts
to be demonstrated for the discovery phase of the case.
Depending on the course of the case development, I would have
produced refined versions with better equipment. As it was,
the case settled and courtroom presentations were unnecessary.
The work I produced demonstrated that the designers diddling
with proven recipes for success produced a system that WAS
GOING TO FAIL . . . it was just a matter of time.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: SD8 output at 28V? |
At 15:52 2014-12-22, you wrote:
>
>Bob,
>
>That's really helpful information. I currently have the 14V version
>and B&C told me that I could switch it to 28V by simply changing the
>regulator. It sounds like that may not be the case. (no pun intended)
Hmmmm . . . I am surprised at that. I'll explore
it further. I was involved in the SD-8 development
wasssyyyy back when . . . in fact, that alternator
was designed and produced at the request of Burt
Rutan to Bill Bainbridge. Burt was alarmed at the
heavy systems being installed on his designs and
he was hoping that B&C could rise to the challenge
of offering a 'tiny' system to run a few radios
for day/vfr operations.
November 23, 2014 - December 24, 2014
AeroElectric-Archive.digest.vol-mp