AeroElectric-Archive.digest.vol-om
July 04, 2018 - July 29, 2018
The actual hex-holes were way to small for
the numbers in evidence.
Don't know if that's changed/improved
but it's worth checking.
When the HF hydraulic tool proved
inadequate to the job, I soldered the
terminals on . . .
Works good, lasts a long time . . .
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Battery cables |
| From: | "Rocketman1988" <Rocketman(at)etczone.com> |
Bob,
That is exactly why I asked the question.
It seems as if the HF dies are the WIRE size, not the wire+connector. This makes
the dies FAR too small. I have had good luck with the HF crimper on 8 and
4 AWG wire by using dies that are two sizes larger, i.e. us the #4 die on #8 wire
and a #2 die on #4 wire. The crimps look as they should according to the
Temco website. I did a pull test on one of the #4 cables...I clamped it in a
vise an hung 270 lb from it with no movement...
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=481405#481405
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Battery cables |
| From: | Robert Reed <robertr237(at)att.net> |
Agreed that the HF dies were not as indicated, especially if using welding c
ables but ignored the indicated numbers and used the die that gave the crimp
ed connection that I needed.
Bob Reed
Sent from my iPhone
> On Jul 4, 2018, at 10:17 AM, Robert L. Nuckolls, III <nuckolls.bob@aeroele
ctric.com> wrote:
>
> At 05:24 AM 7/4/2018, you wrote:
>> Art,
>> I have a Harbor Freight set of hydraulic squeezers that work great for th
at. It has a big set of fittings for every size.
>>
>> Ron Burnett
>>
>
> Take a proposed 4 or 2 awg terminal with
> you when you go crimp-tool shopping at HF.
> I purchased one a few years ago where
> the numbers stamped on the die-sets had
> no practical relationship to reality.
> The actual hex-holes were way to small for
> the numbers in evidence.
>
> Don't know if that's changed/improved
> but it's worth checking.
>
> When the HF hydraulic tool proved
> inadequate to the job, I soldered the
> terminals on . . .
>
> Works good, lasts a long time . . .
>
>
> Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Charlie England <ceengland7(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Battery cables |
On Wed, Jul 4, 2018 at 10:17 AM, Robert L. Nuckolls, III <
nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> wrote:
> At 05:24 AM 7/4/2018, you wrote:
>
> Art,
> I have a Harbor Freight set of hydraulic squeezers that work great for
> that. It has a big set of fittings for every size.
>
> Ron Burnett
>
>
> Take a proposed 4 or 2 awg terminal with
> you when you go crimp-tool shopping at HF.
> I purchased one a few years ago where
> the numbers stamped on the die-sets had
> no practical relationship to reality.
> The actual hex-holes were way to small for
> the numbers in evidence.
>
> Don't know if that's changed/improved
> but it's worth checking.
>
> When the HF hydraulic tool proved
> inadequate to the job, I soldered the
> terminals on . . .
>
> Works good, lasts a long time . . .
>
>
> Bob . . .
>
I recently bought a similar (might be the same) hydraulic crimper from Jet
(not the Jet Tools people; this is just a reseller of far-East stuff).
https://jet.com/product/10-Ton-Hydraulic-Wire-Battery-Cable-Lug-Terminal-Crimper-Crimping-Tool-9-Dies/044de210e0e54490b3104f2933a8c4e9
I'd suggest trying this:
https://www.andersonpower.com/_global-assets/downloads/pdf/conversion.pdf
or do a search for 'metric to AWG conversion table'.
Mine makes not perfect looking, but quite serviceable crimps using this
type of conversion for the numbers stamped on the dies.
Charlie
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Battery cables |
| From: | John Tipton <jmtipton(at)btopenworld.com> |
Not so much as 'no practical relationship to reality' more of 'no practical r
elationship to AWG', I think the numbers relate to square mm or something li
ke that, there is a conversion guide somewhere, I'm sure it was put on here a
couple of years ago
John
Sent from my iPad
----x--O--x----
> On 4 Jul 2018, at 5:30 pm, Robert Reed wrote:
>
> Agreed that the HF dies were not as indicated, especially if using welding
cables but ignored the indicated numbers and used the die that gave the cri
mped connection that I needed.
>
> Bob Reed
> Sent from my iPhone
>
>> On Jul 4, 2018, at 10:17 AM, Robert L. Nuckolls, III <nuckolls.bob@aeroel
ectric.com> wrote:
>>
>> At 05:24 AM 7/4/2018, you wrote:
>>> Art,
>>> I have a Harbor Freight set of hydraulic squeezers that work great for t
hat. It has a big set of fittings for every size.
>>>
>>> Ron Burnett
>>>
>>
>> Take a proposed 4 or 2 awg terminal with
>> you when you go crimp-tool shopping at HF.
>> I purchased one a few years ago where
>> the numbers stamped on the die-sets had
>> no practical relationship to reality.
>> The actual hex-holes were way to small for
>> the numbers in evidence.
>>
>> Don't know if that's changed/improved
>> but it's worth checking.
>>
>> When the HF hydraulic tool proved
>> inadequate to the job, I soldered the
>> terminals on . . .
>>
>> Works good, lasts a long time . . .
>>
>>
>> Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Art Zemon <art(at)zemon.name> |
| Subject: | Difference Between TNC Connectors |
Folks,
I just discovered that Aircraft Spruce has much less expensive TNC
connectors than I had previously purchased... and I need to buy one more so
I want to know if I can use the cheap one. Are these equivalent, other than
one being weather sealed?
cheap: http://www.aircraftspruce.com/catalog/elpages/amphenol11-15370.php
expensive: http://www.aircraftspruce.com/catalog/elpages/edmo2255556.php
Thanks,
-- Art Z.
--
https://CheerfulCurmudgeon.com/
*"We do not see the world as it is. We see the world as we are."*
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | A R Goldman <argoldman(at)aol.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Difference Between TNC Connectors |
Art try Digikey
Tncs are quite cheap and are availble from major manufacturers
Digikey.com
Rich
Sent from my iPhone
> On Jul 4, 2018, at 6:32 PM, Art Zemon wrote:
>
> Folks,
>
> I just discovered that Aircraft Spruce has much less expensive TNC connect
ors than I had previously purchased... and I need to buy one more so I want t
o know if I can use the cheap one. Are these equivalent, other than one bein
g weather sealed?
>
> cheap: http://www.aircraftspruce.com/catalog/elpages/amphenol11-15370.php
>
> expensive: http://www.aircraftspruce.com/catalog/elpages/edmo2255556.php
>
> Thanks,
> -- Art Z.
>
> --
> https://CheerfulCurmudgeon.com/
>
> "We do not see the world as it is. We see the world as we are."
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Difference Between TNC Connectors |
| From: | Charlie England <ceengland7(at)gmail.com> |
On 7/4/2018 6:32 PM, Art Zemon wrote:
> Folks,
>
> I just discovered that Aircraft Spruce has much less expensive TNC
> connectors than I had previously purchased... and I need to buy one
> more so I want to know if I can use the cheap one. Are these
> equivalent, other than one being weather sealed?
>
> cheap: http://www.aircraftspruce.com/catalog/elpages/amphenol11-15370.php
>
> expensive: http://www.aircraftspruce.com/catalog/elpages/edmo2255556.php
>
> Thanks,
> -- Art Z.
>
> --
> https://CheerfulCurmudgeon.com/
>
> /"We do not see the world as it is. We see the world as we are."/
Check the specs on which cables each fits.
Lots of other options out there, though; for instance:
https://www.mouser.com/ProductDetail/Amphenol-RF/122372?qs=8wOOb4nECAsnC3SM1sAtlw%3d%3d
---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | FLYaDIVE <flyadive(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Difference Between TNC Connectors |
Art:
By design a TNC is weather sealed.
BUT! TNC was NOT designed with a Crimp.
They are SOLDER type.
I HATE crimp type. Too many problems and sharp edges.
And, why would you go to ACS for a standard off the shelf electronic item?
Barry
On Wed, Jul 4, 2018 at 7:32 PM, Art Zemon wrote:
> Folks,
>
> I just discovered that Aircraft Spruce has much less expensive TNC
> connectors than I had previously purchased... and I need to buy one more so
> I want to know if I can use the cheap one. Are these equivalent, other than
> one being weather sealed?
>
> cheap: http://www.aircraftspruce.com/catalog/elpages/amphenol11-15370.php
>
> expensive: http://www.aircraftspruce.com/catalog/elpages/edmo2255556.php
>
> Thanks,
> -- Art Z.
>
> --
> https://CheerfulCurmudgeon.com/
>
> *"We do not see the world as it is. We see the world as we are."*
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Art Zemon <art(at)zemon.name> |
| Subject: | Re: Difference Between TNC Connectors |
Barry,
I don't get to choose the connector; Trig did that when they built their
GPS. I chose to follow their recommendation for RG-400 coax. Then I
followed up on Charlie's suggestion. I read the specs more closely and I
found that
http://www.aircraftspruce.com/catalog/elpages/amphenol11-15369.php is the
right connector for RG-400. I like the $2.25 price so I'll buy it.
As for why buy from Aircraft Spruce, it comes down to convenience and cost,
especially if I can bundle the two dollar connector with an order for other
stuff and get free shipping. For a single two dollar part, I am not willing
to spend much time finding the "best" price.
-- Art Z.
--
https://CheerfulCurmudgeon.com/
*"We do not see the world as it is. We see the world as we are."*
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Difference Between TNC Connectors |
At 06:32 PM 7/4/2018, you wrote:
>Folks,
>
>I just discovered that Aircraft Spruce has much
>less expensive TNC connectors than I had
>previously purchased... and I need to buy one
>more so I want to know if I can use the cheap
>one. Are these equivalent, other than one being weather sealed?=C2
>
>cheap:=C2
><http://www.aircraftspruce.com/catalog/elpages/amphenol11-15370.php>http://
www.aircraftspruce.com/catalog/elpages/amphenol11-15370.php
>
>expensive:=C2
><http://www.aircraftspruce.com/catalog/elpages/edmo2255556.php>http://www.a
ircraftspruce.com/catalog/elpages/edmo2255556.php
shoot me your address and I'll send you
some. These are hex-crimp style for
RG58/141.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Chris <toaster73(at)embarqmail.com> |
| Subject: | A36 standby battery and relay |
Bob/List
I am kind of on the sidelines of troubleshooting an A36 Bonanza with a G1000 system.
The plane has a B&C standby alternator and cross tie relay that functions
related to engine rpm, best I can tell. The alternator doesn't seem to be charging
the battery - found the crimp under the protective boot on the alternator
output to be quite loose such that the wire pulled right out. Fixed that and
still the G1000 goes dark once the main bus is turned off and the backup bus
(2nd battery) is on. It seems as though the standby battery relay is not working.
The standby battery is new reading 24 volts. Getting that reading required
great contortions under the passenger side of the panel. Its a concord battery
with a cannon plug connection. The main question is where physically is the
relay for this battery - no one seems to know, even the helper on the Beech service
line did not know. We would like to get to this relay and see if it is
the culprit causing the panel to go dark when main power is off.
Thanks
Chris Lucas
RV-10
Aircam
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Chris <toaster73(at)embarqmail.com> |
| Subject: | G36 standby battery and relay |
Sorry its a 2007 G36.
----- Original Message -----
From: Chris <toaster73(at)embarqmail.com>
Subject: AeroElectric-List: A36 standby battery and relay
Bob/List
I am kind of on the sidelines of troubleshooting an A36 Bonanza with a G1000 system.
The plane has a B&C standby alternator and cross tie relay that functions
related to engine rpm, best I can tell. The alternator doesn't seem to be charging
the battery - found the crimp under the protective boot on the alternator
output to be quite loose such that the wire pulled right out. Fixed that and
still the G1000 goes dark once the main bus is turned off and the backup bus
(2nd battery) is on. It seems as though the standby battery relay is not working.
The standby battery is new reading 24 volts. Getting that reading required
great contortions under the passenger side of the panel. Its a concord battery
with a cannon plug connection. The main question is where physically is the
relay for this battery - no one seems to know, even the helper on the Beech service
line did not know. We would like to get to this relay and see if it is
the culprit causing the panel to go dark when main p!
ower is off.
Thanks
Chris Lucas
RV-10
Aircam
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Battery cables |
| From: | "Eric M. Jones" <emjones(at)charter.net> |
Don't forget the Perihelion Design Copper-Clad Aluminum cables. They save 1/2 the
weight of a copper cable.
--------
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=481440#481440
Attachments:
http://forums.matronics.com//files/copper_cables_164.pdf
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: A36 standby battery and relay |
At 11:49 AM 7/6/2018, you wrote:
>
>Bob/List
>I am kind of on the sidelines of troubleshooting an A36 Bonanza with
>a G1000 system. The plane has a B&C standby alternator and cross tie
>relay that functions related to engine rpm, best I can tell. The
>alternator doesn't seem to be charging the battery - found the crimp
>under the protective boot on the alternator output to be quite loose
>such that the wire pulled right out. Fixed that and still the G1000
>goes dark once the main bus is turned off and the backup bus (2nd
>battery) is on. It seems as though the standby battery relay is not
>working. The standby battery is new reading 24 volts. Getting that
>reading required great contortions under the passenger side of the
>panel. Its a concord battery with a cannon plug connection. The main
>question is where physically is the relay for this battery - no one
>seems to know, even the helper on the Beech service line did not
>know. We would like to get to this relay and see if it is the
>culprit causing the panel to go dark when main power is off.
Do you have the Beech maintenance data on the airplane?
Those books pretty much show where everything is at and
includes wiring diagrams that show how its all wired
up. Have standby alternator operations been reviewed
per the POH? It's been ten years since I saw those
drawings and they are fuzzy at best and may even have
been modified. The way we USED to put them in, the
s/b alternator and battery were independent of each
other. The s/b alternator should be able to boost
the main bus with the main battery on whether or
not any auxiliary batteries were present.
If you don't have the books, you're looking for
a black cat in a coal mine at midnight.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Battery cables |
At 10:53 AM 7/4/2018, you wrote:
>
>
>Bob,
>
>That is exactly why I asked the question.
>
>It seems as if the HF dies are the WIRE size, not the
>wire+connector. This makes the dies FAR too small.
Yup . . . They've not fixed it and they've
had 10 years to do it!
>I have had good luck with the HF crimper on 8 and 4 AWG wire by
>using dies that are two sizes larger, i.e. us the #4 die on #8 wire
>and a #2 die on #4 wire. The crimps look as they should according
>to the Temco website. I did a pull test on one of the #4 cables...I
>clamped it in a vise an hung 270 lb from it with no movement...
I've got access to CNC production . . . I've
pondered the notion of offering properly sized
dies for that tool. The hydraulics seem to be
fine . . . only the die designers are suffering
a short between the headphones.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Battery cables |
| From: | Charlie England <ceengland7(at)gmail.com> |
On 7/6/2018 2:02 PM, Robert L. Nuckolls, III wrote:
> At 10:53 AM 7/4/2018, you wrote:
>>
>>
>> Bob,
>>
>> That is exactly why I asked the question.
>>
>> It seems as if the HF dies are the WIRE size, not the
>> wire+connector. This makes the dies FAR too small.
>
> Yup . . . They've not fixed it and they've
> had 10 years to do it!
>
>> I have had good luck with the HF crimper on 8 and 4 AWG wire by using
>> dies that are two sizes larger, i.e. us the #4 die on #8 wire and a
>> #2 die on #4 wire. The crimps look as they should according to the
>> Temco website. I did a pull test on one of the #4 cables...I clamped
>> it in a vise an hung 270 lb from it with no movement...
>
> I've got access to CNC production . . . I've
> pondered the notion of offering properly sized
> dies for that tool. The hydraulics seem to be
> fine . . . only the die designers are suffering
> a short between the headphones.
>
> Bob . . .
>
The dies are stamped for metric wire sizes. I sent a message on 7-4-18
detailing it, with a link to metric>AWG conversions. Perhaps it didn't
make it through, but it's in the archives at:
http://www.matronics.com/searching/getmsg_script.cgi?INDEX=143869992?KEYS=battery_cables?LISTNAME=AeroElectric?HITNUMBER=2?SERIAL=12445510791?SHOWBUTTONS=YES
Charlie
---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Chris <toaster73(at)embarqmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: A36 standby battery and relay |
Bob/List
I am kind of on the sidelines of troubleshooting an A36 Bonanza with a
G1000 system. The plane has a B&C standby alternator and cross tie
relay that functions related to engine rpm, best I can tell. The
alternator doesn't seem to be charging the battery - found the crimp
under the protective boot on the alternator output to be quite loose such
that the wire pulled right out. Fixed that and still the G1000 goes dark
once the main bus is turned off and the backup bus (2nd battery) is on.
It seems as though the standby battery relay is not working. The standby
battery is new reading 24 volts. Getting that reading required great
contortions under the passenger side of the panel. Its a concord battery
with a cannon plug connection. The main question is where physically is
the relay for this battery - no one seems to know, even the helper on the
Beech service line did not know. We would like to get to this relay and
see if it is the culprit causing the panel to go dark when main power is
off.
Do you have the Beech maintenance data on the airplane?
Those books pretty much show where everything is at and
includes wiring diagrams that show how its all wired
up. Have standby alternator operations been reviewed
per the POH? It's been ten years since I saw those
drawings and they are fuzzy at best and may even have
been modified. The way we USED to put them in, the
s/b alternator and battery were independent of each
other. The s/b alternator should be able to boost
the main bus with the main battery on whether or
not any auxiliary batteries were present.
If you don't have the books, you're looking for
a black cat in a coal mine at midnight.
Bob . . .They book part is being worked... more info to come...
-Chris
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | FLYaDIVE <flyadive(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: A36 standby battery and relay |
Chris:
Bypass the relay. Turn off the MAIN Master - Supply backup battery voltage
to the connection where the backup should be connecting to the G1000. If
all works than - Keep LQQKing at the backup battery relay. If it does not
work, start looking elsewhere.
Barry
On Fri, Jul 6, 2018 at 2:58 PM, Robert L. Nuckolls, III <
nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> wrote:
> At 11:49 AM 7/6/2018, you wrote:
>
>
> Bob/List
> I am kind of on the sidelines of troubleshooting an A36 Bonanza with a
> G1000 system. The plane has a B&C standby alternator and cross tie relay
> that functions related to engine rpm, best I can tell. The alternator
> doesn't seem to be charging the battery - found the crimp under the
> protective boot on the alternator output to be quite loose such that the
> wire pulled right out. Fixed that and still the G1000 goes dark once the
> main bus is turned off and the backup bus (2nd battery) is on. It seems as
> though the standby battery relay is not working. The standby battery is new
> reading 24 volts. Getting that reading required great contortions under the
> passenger side of the panel. Its a concord battery with a cannon plug
> connection. The main question is where physically is the relay for this
> battery - no one seems to know, even the helper on the Beech service line
> did not know. We would like to get to this relay and see if it is the
> culprit causing the panel to go dark when main power is off.
>
>
> Do you have the Beech maintenance data on the airplane?
> Those books pretty much show where everything is at and
> includes wiring diagrams that show how its all wired
> up. Have standby alternator operations been reviewed
> per the POH? It's been ten years since I saw those
> drawings and they are fuzzy at best and may even have
> been modified. The way we USED to put them in, the
> s/b alternator and battery were independent of each
> other. The s/b alternator should be able to boost
> the main bus with the main battery on whether or
> not any auxiliary batteries were present.
>
> If you don't have the books, you're looking for
> a black cat in a coal mine at midnight.
>
>
> Bob . . .
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Z-13/8 Failure Question |
| From: | "BMC_Dave" <bmcdave85(at)gmail.com> |
Been pouring through the forums recently, lots of great info and I've been able
to answer most of my own questions so far. I'm curious about a particular failure
since I'm designing for a SDS EI/EFI plane, perhaps I don't fully understand
how the LR-3 module works.
In Z-13/8 if the battery contactor fails, exceedingly rare and probably with some
warning prior to being critical, is there any notification that such a failure
has occurred? Any indication the battery has been disconnected from the main
ALT?
I'll be switching the ECU and injectors off the main battery bus. So if what I'm
thinking is true I won't get any indication I'm running the engine only off
battery power until it stops. An unappealing prospect...
Also, looking at the reference figures online are these Z-figures the most recent?
I ask because it seems the wiring for the main ALT in Z-13 doesn't include
the LR-3 module, I have to look at Z-12 for that. Not hard to modify for the
combined module, just wondering if there is a Z-13 version out there that includes
this. Thanks!
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=481447#481447
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Charlie England <ceengland7(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Z-13/8 Failure Question |
On Fri, Jul 6, 2018 at 5:01 PM, BMC_Dave wrote:
>
> Been pouring through the forums recently, lots of great info and I've been
> able to answer most of my own questions so far. I'm curious about a
> particular failure since I'm designing for a SDS EI/EFI plane, perhaps I
> don't fully understand how the LR-3 module works.
>
> In Z-13/8 if the battery contactor fails, exceedingly rare and probably
> with some warning prior to being critical, is there any notification that
> such a failure has occurred? Any indication the battery has been
> disconnected from the main ALT?
>
> I'll be switching the ECU and injectors off the main battery bus. So if
> what I'm thinking is true I won't get any indication I'm running the engine
> only off battery power until it stops. An unappealing prospect...
>
> Also, looking at the reference figures online are these Z-figures the most
> recent? I ask because it seems the wiring for the main ALT in Z-13 doesn't
> include the LR-3 module, I have to look at Z-12 for that. Not hard to
> modify for the combined module, just wondering if there is a Z-13 version
> out there that includes this. Thanks!
>
>
> z-13 is 'on a budget'. the Ford regulator is tens of dollars instead of
hundreds of dollars. :-) If you're going to use the LR-3, then just draw
it and its accessories in place of the Ford regulator. If you're keeping
the Ford regulator, just add an inexpensive low voltage detector/indicator
to the battery bus. Or, if you have an EFIS and/or engine monitor, it
should be able to announce undervoltage due to loss of alternator power
(which is the actual concern, right?).
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Z-13/8 Failure Question |
| From: | "BMC_Dave" <bmcdave85(at)gmail.com> |
ceengland7(at)gmail.com wrote:
> z-13 is 'on a budget'. the Ford regulator is tens of dollars instead of hundreds
of dollars. :-) If you're going to use the LR-3, then just draw it and its
accessories in place of the Ford regulator. If you're keeping the Ford regulator,
just add an inexpensive low voltage detector/indicator to the battery bus.
Or, if you have an EFIS and/or engine monitor, it should be able to announce
undervoltage due to loss of alternator power (which is the actual concern, right?).
Ah, I get the schematic now. Though the B&C website "All Electric On A Budget"
includes the LR-3... and a 60A main ALT.
Yeah I'll have dual EFIS/MFDs but they'll be off the e-buss, well one will at least,
and would be seeing the ALT voltage from there with the BAT contact open.
I assume from their perspective nothing would change when the BAT is disconnected,
though I'm likely misunderstanding.
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=481449#481449
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Z-13/8 Failure Question |
| From: | "user9253" <fransew(at)gmail.com> |
Many, if not most, alternators will keep working if the battery is disconnected.
Electrical loads draw their current from the source with the highest voltage.
Since the alternator puts out a higher voltage than the battery does, everything
including the alternator field is powered by the alternator. If the battery
is disconnected, then its stabilizing affect is lost. The voltage from
the alternator might vary about plus or minus a volt. A symptom of battery contactor
failure could be unstable voltage. If the E-Bus switch is normally turned
on, then another symptom of contactor failure is a drop in voltage between
0.5 and 1 volt (across the diode).
If the E-Bus is still connected to the battery, then its voltage might remain
stable. But the voltage on the main power bus could be unstable with the battery
disconnected.
Battery contactors do not fail very often.
--------
Joe Gores
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=481450#481450
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Z-13/8 Failure Question |
| From: | "BMC_Dave" <bmcdave85(at)gmail.com> |
user9253 wrote:
> Many, if not most, alternators will keep working if the battery is disconnected.
Electrical loads draw their current from the source with the highest voltage.
Since the alternator puts out a higher voltage than the battery does, everything
including the alternator field is powered by the alternator. If the
battery is disconnected, then its stabilizing affect is lost. The voltage from
the alternator might vary about plus or minus a volt. A symptom of battery
contactor failure could be unstable voltage. If the E-Bus switch is normally
turned on, then another symptom of contactor failure is a drop in voltage between
0.5 and 1 volt (across the diode).
> If the E-Bus is still connected to the battery, then its voltage might remain
stable. But the voltage on the main power bus could be unstable with the battery
disconnected.
> Battery contactors do not fail very often.
This is all consistent with my assumptions. So indeed it is possible to have the
battery contactor fail, have nothing on the e-buss or main buss side notice,
and keep chugging along until your engine suddenly quits (because your entire
ignition and fuel delivery system is dependent on the battery buss). Is this
correct?
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=481452#481452
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Z-13/8 Failure Question |
| From: | Charlie England <ceengland7(at)gmail.com> |
On 7/6/2018 6:35 PM, BMC_Dave wrote:
>
>
> user9253 wrote:
>> Many, if not most, alternators will keep working if the battery is disconnected.
Electrical loads draw their current from the source with the highest voltage.
Since the alternator puts out a higher voltage than the battery does, everything
including the alternator field is powered by the alternator. If the
battery is disconnected, then its stabilizing affect is lost. The voltage from
the alternator might vary about plus or minus a volt. A symptom of battery
contactor failure could be unstable voltage. If the E-Bus switch is normally
turned on, then another symptom of contactor failure is a drop in voltage between
0.5 and 1 volt (across the diode).
>> If the E-Bus is still connected to the battery, then its voltage might remain
stable. But the voltage on the main power bus could be unstable with the
battery disconnected.
>> Battery contactors do not fail very often.
>
> This is all consistent with my assumptions. So indeed it is possible to have
the battery contactor fail, have nothing on the e-buss or main buss side notice,
and keep chugging along until your engine suddenly quits (because your entire
ignition and fuel delivery system is dependent on the battery buss). Is this
correct?
If you don't have anything on the battery bus that will detect loss of
alternator power, then just add low voltage detection to the battery
bus. Having said that, I believe that Ross has said SDS' new system,
still in development, will have low voltage annunciation and auto
switching to a backup battery. Have you asked about that feature?
Charlie
---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Z-13/8 Failure Question |
| From: | "user9253" <fransew(at)gmail.com> |
Not necessarily. Since you have two EFISs, monitor the E-Bus voltage with one
and the main bus with the other. If the voltage drops by even 1/2 volt, then
land. Lithium batteries are different than lead acid. Lithium batteries maintain
their voltage until almost dead. If the engine is electrically dependent,
then any abnormal voltage should be reason to land and troubleshoot on the ground.
--------
Joe Gores
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=481454#481454
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Z-13/8 Failure Question |
| From: | "user9253" <fransew(at)gmail.com> |
If you want to back up the battery contactor, the attached drawing is one way.
The small relay is disabled during engine cranking to prevent overloading its contacts.
I am not necessarily recommending this circuit, just offering it as an option.
--------
Joe Gores
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=481455#481455
Attachments:
http://forums.matronics.com//files/contactor_bypass_502.jpg
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Z-13/8 Failure Question |
| From: | "user9253" <fransew(at)gmail.com> |
My 6-year-old Odyssey failed open while flying. The result was the same as if
the battery contactor failed.
--------
Joe Gores
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=481456#481456
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Z-13/8 Failure Question |
| From: | "BMC_Dave" <bmcdave85(at)gmail.com> |
Definitely not looking to add another contactor. I suppose you could set up the
efis to monitor engine bus, but why not just hook the LR-3 to it instead? Then
instead of just telling us the alternator is working it also tells us if it's
charging the battery. Reduced part counts is always nice too...
That would render any low voltage warnings from SDS unnecessary.
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=481457#481457
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Z-13/8 Failure Question |
| From: | "user9253" <fransew(at)gmail.com> |
There was a recent discussion on VansAirforce about electrical architecture for
EFI with lots of opinions and suggestions.
http://www.vansairforce.com/community/showthread.php?t=151435
--------
Joe Gores
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=481458#481458
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Roger <rnjcurtis(at)charter.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Z-13/8 Failure Question |
My 6-year-old Odyssey failed open while flying. The result was the same as
if the battery contactor failed.
--------
Joe Gores
I believe that it would not be quite the same thing. If you have an elect
rically dependent engine, in your case, the alternator power would back fee
d through the contactor to the battery bus and keep the engine running as l
ong as you didn=99t try to draw more current than the alternator can
supply.
Roger
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Z-13/8 Failure Question |
| From: | "user9253" <fransew(at)gmail.com> |
Right you are Roger. Luckily my Rotax 912ULS engine has its own independent ignition
system and engine driven fuel pump.
--------
Joe Gores
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=481460#481460
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Z-13/8 Failure Question |
| From: | "BMC_Dave" <bmcdave85(at)gmail.com> |
user9253 wrote:
> There was a recent discussion on VansAirforce about electrical architecture for
EFI with lots of opinions and suggestions.
> http://www.vansairforce.com/community/showthread.php?t=151435
I appreciate that. I am still interested in the answer to my question about this
specific architecture though.
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=481461#481461
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | A R Goldman <argoldman(at)aol.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Difference Between TNC Connectors |
Not so sure that i would agree
The main difference between the B and the T is that the Bnc is a Bayonet typ
e connection and the Tnc is a Threaded connection. Although both can probabl
y be gotten in a weather proof variety this is not the major characteristic o
f either
Both are available in crimp on
Rich
Sent from my iPhone
> On Jul 5, 2018, at 9:50 AM, FLYaDIVE wrote:
>
> Art:
>
> By design a TNC is weather sealed.
> BUT! TNC was NOT designed with a Crimp.
> They are SOLDER type.
> I HATE crimp type. Too many problems and sharp edges.
> And, why would you go to ACS for a standard off the shelf electronic item?
>
>
> Barry
>
>> On Wed, Jul 4, 2018 at 7:32 PM, Art Zemon wrote:
>> Folks,
>>
>> I just discovered that Aircraft Spruce has much less expensive TNC connec
tors than I had previously purchased... and I need to buy one more so I want
to know if I can use the cheap one. Are these equivalent, other than one be
ing weather sealed?
>>
>> cheap: http://www.aircraftspruce.com/catalog/elpages/amphenol11-15370.php
>>
>> expensive: http://www.aircraftspruce.com/catalog/elpages/edmo2255556.php
>>
>> Thanks,
>> -- Art Z.
>>
>> --
>> https://CheerfulCurmudgeon.com/
>>
>> "We do not see the world as it is. We see the world as we are."
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Sebastien <cluros(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Sequence for bringing alternators on line. |
I was out at the aircraft today programming checklists and limits, had the
alternator switch in the main position with the engine not running and
noticed a 7 amp draw which seemed excessive for what was on. Turned the
alternator switch to off and the draw went to 3 amps. Put my hand on the
alternator and it was hot to the touch. Alternator is a Lamar with internal
regulator. Is it normal for a non-turning alternator to be drawing 4 amps?
If so then I think we'll leave it off until after start and turn it off
before shutdown.
On Wed, Jun 13, 2018 at 1:10 PM, Sebastien wrote:
> The starter contactor is a B&C S702 and SD-8 relay is included in the PMOV
> kit so I think the diode is built in as well.
>
> The E-123 relay is not necessary in the current setup but this system was
> originally designed for P-Mags and the start switch was going to be an
> S2000 button. I'm guessing that the S2000 needed the relay and when it was
> replaced with an ACS switch the relay was left in for later conversion.
>
> Thank you all for the replies, I'll just leave the alternator switch on
> Main all the time since there's no advantage to turning it off for engine
> start. Once the aircraft is through its test phase we plan on testing the
> SD-8 on an every 4 months schedule.
>
> On Wed, Jun 13, 2018 at 6:22 AM, Robert L. Nuckolls, III <
> nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> wrote:
>
>> At 09:07 PM 6/12/2018, you wrote:
>>
>>
>> The two relays and starter contactor should all have diodes just like the
>> battery contactor does. Connect banded end of diodes to positive.
>> Can the start switch handle the start contactor coil current? Or is
>> the E-123 Relay necessary?
>>
>>
>> The ACS/Bendix/Gerdes key switch will handle
>> the automotive starter contacter that's fitted
>> with a supression diode. Many (like the B&C
>> S702) have the diode built in. If in doubt,
>> install a second one . . . two are better
>> than none. The buffer relay is not necessary
>> but doesn't hurt anything . . . if left in
>> add the diode to it too as Joe suggests.
>>
>>
>> Bob . . .
>>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Z-13/8 Failure Question |
| From: | C&K <yellowduckduo(at)gmail.com> |
For my EFI with dual alternators configured similar to Z-14, I have both
alternators connected to the battery side of the contactors. Seemed
reasonable to me since each of my alts are disconnected when their
respective alternator switch is turned off. The main one via an
overvoltage disconnect contactor and the second smaller one via a 40 amp
relay. ie. they will both charge even if the "battery" contactor is off.
My EIS monitors the left battery buss and the EIS is itself powered by
the main distribution buss so immediate notification occurs if an alt
drops offline. If the battery contactor opens I do lose the EIS and the
warnings but then the dead EIS is the warning. The EIS is not essential
for me. Even if the main alternator stopped charging or the main battery
failed on the same flight I can run on the second alternator and battery
indefinitely albeit without the EIS. I have hand held nav and comm
backups and I have one switched cig lighter outlet powered from the
other battery buss. It can power handheld devices or I can plug in a $4.
voltmeter that is sold for monitoring automotive electrical systems. Now
that I no longer have any vacuum powered instruments I would have to
look at adding a second power source for the EIS and avionics if I still
did any IFR flying.
As others have said, you definitely need something that immediately
notifies you that the battery buss voltage is below normal charging
voltage. Mine trigger if the alternator is not maintaining it at greater
than 13.5 volts.
Ken
On 06/07/2018 6:01 PM, BMC_Dave wrote:
>
> Been pouring through the forums recently, lots of great info and I've been able
to answer most of my own questions so far. I'm curious about a particular failure
since I'm designing for a SDS EI/EFI plane, perhaps I don't fully understand
how the LR-3 module works.
>
> In Z-13/8 if the battery contactor fails, exceedingly rare and probably with
some warning prior to being critical, is there any notification that such a failure
has occurred? Any indication the battery has been disconnected from the
main ALT?
>
> I'll be switching the ECU and injectors off the main battery bus. So if what
I'm thinking is true I won't get any indication I'm running the engine only off
battery power until it stops. An unappealing prospect...
>
> Also, looking at the reference figures online are these Z-figures the most recent?
I ask because it seems the wiring for the main ALT in Z-13 doesn't include
the LR-3 module, I have to look at Z-12 for that. Not hard to modify for the
combined module, just wondering if there is a Z-13 version out there that includes
this. Thanks!
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=481447#481447
>
>
> .
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Sequence for bringing alternators on line. |
| From: | C&K <yellowduckduo(at)gmail.com> |
My ND is the same.
I turn it on just before startup and off just after shutdown.
Ken
On 07/07/2018 1:18 AM, Sebastien wrote:
> I was out at the aircraft today programming checklists and limits, had
> the alternator switch in the main position with the engine not running
> and noticed a 7 amp draw which seemed excessive for what was on.
> Turned the alternator switch to off and the draw went to 3 amps. Put
> my hand on the alternator and it was hot to the touch. Alternator is a
> Lamar with internal regulator. Is it normal for a non-turning
> alternator to be drawing 4 amps? If so then I think we'll leave it off
> until after start and turn it off before shutdown.
>
> On Wed, Jun 13, 2018 at 1:10 PM, Sebastien > wrote:
>
> The starter contactor is a B&C S702 and SD-8 relay is included in
> the PMOV kit so I think the diode is built in as well.
>
> The E-123 relay is not necessary in the current setup but this
> system was originally designed for P-Mags and the start switch was
> going to be an S2000 button. I'm guessing that the S2000 needed
> the relay and when it was replaced with an ACS switch the relay
> was left in for later conversion.
>
> Thank you all for the replies, I'll just leave the alternator
> switch on Main all the time since there's no advantage to turning
> it off for engine start. Once the aircraft is through its test
> phase we plan on testing the SD-8 on an every 4 months schedule.
>
> On Wed, Jun 13, 2018 at 6:22 AM, Robert L. Nuckolls, III
> > wrote:
>
> At 09:07 PM 6/12/2018, you wrote:
>> >
>>
>> The two relays and starter contactor should all have diodes
>> just like the battery contactor does. Connect banded end of
>> diodes to positive.
>> Can the start switch handle the start contactor coil
>> current? Or is the E-123 Relay necessary?
>
> The ACS/Bendix/Gerdes key switch will handle
> the automotive starter contacter that's fitted
> with a supression diode. Many (like the B&C
> S702) have the diode built in. If in doubt,
> install a second one . . . two are better
> than none. The buffer relay is not necessary
> but doesn't hurt anything . . . if left in
> add the diode to it too as Joe suggests.
>
>
> Bob . . .
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Rocketman1988" <Rocketman(at)etczone.com> |
I am using a Z-14 based system.
I have a question on the alternator B leads.
Is there a advantage/disadvantage to connecting them to the BAT side of the contactor
rather than the switched side? It appears that you could still isolate
the battery from the alternator using the alternator field switch and in the
event of a failed open contractor, the alternator could still feed the battery...
Just wondering...
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=481467#481467
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Z-* Question |
| From: | Bill Watson <Mauledriver(at)nc.rr.com> |
I'm thinking that why would one want the alt to feed the Batt in the
case of a failed contactor - the rest of the system is offline at that
point, no?
On 7/7/2018 9:45 AM, Rocketman1988 wrote:
>
> I am using a Z-14 based system.
>
> I have a question on the alternator B leads.
>
> Is there a advantage/disadvantage to connecting them to the BAT side of the contactor
rather than the switched side? It appears that you could still isolate
the battery from the alternator using the alternator field switch and in the
event of a failed open contractor, the alternator could still feed the battery...
>
> Just wondering...
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=481467#481467
>
>
---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Z-13/8 Failure Question |
At 05:01 PM 7/6/2018, you wrote:
>
>Been pouring through the forums recently, lots of great info and
>I've been able to answer most of my own questions so far. I'm
>curious about a particular failure since I'm designing for a SDS
>EI/EFI plane, perhaps I don't fully understand how the LR-3 module works.
The LR3C alternator controller is an adjustable
linear regulator combined with crowbar over voltage
protection and low voltage warning.
>In Z-13/8 if the battery contactor fails, exceedingly rare and
>probably with some warning prior to being critical, is there any
>notification that such a failure has occurred? Any indication the
>battery has been disconnected from the main ALT?
No. You probably won't be aware of a battery contactor
failure until you're on the ground and just happen
to shut alternator(s) down first . . . or attempt
a preflight for your next sortie.
>I'll be switching the ECU and injectors off the main battery bus. So
>if what I'm thinking is true I won't get any indication I'm running
>the engine only off battery power until it stops. An unappealing prospect...
Add lv warning to the battery bus . . .
https://goo.gl/sNBCja
You would hook such a gizmo to the downstream
side of one of the engine accessory switches
such that the lv warn gets powered down with
the engine.
>Also, looking at the reference figures online are these Z-figures
>the most recent? I ask because it seems the wiring for the main ALT
>in Z-13 doesn't include the LR-3 module, I have to look at Z-12 for
>that. Not hard to modify for the combined module, just wondering if
>there is a Z-13 version out there that includes this. Thanks!
The Z figures are ARCHITECTURE drawings, not wire books
nor are they intended to drive decisions for selection of specific
components. One might use any combination of ov/lv/regulator
in lieu of the LR3 and vise-versa.
Battery contactor failure in flight is exceedingly rare.
They nearly always annunciate impending failure during
an engine start. But be attentive to the FIRST signs
of fussiness . . . I had a renter on 1K1 that would
go rap on his Cherokee battery contactor with the handle
of a screwdriver with the master switch ON . . . seems
that this shade tree mechanic's move gave him better
starts. We moved off the airport before the contactor
went TU so I don't know how long the work-around serviced
his intentions to go flying.
Contactors I've replaced had been in service years . . .
sometimes decades. Teardown inspections showed that
the devices were pretty beat up. Whisky barrel contactors
are best mounted cap down . . . with a small vent/drain
hole added to the hi-point of the cap.
Works good . . . lasts a long time . . .
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Z-* Question |
| From: | Roger Curtis <rnjcurtis(at)charter.net> |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________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Carlos Trigo <trigo(at)mail.telepac.pt> |
| Subject: | Re: Sequence for bringing alternators on line. |
Sebastien
That is correct.
Once I forgot my alternator switch On for around half na hour, and then fou
nd the alternator very, very hot, and the battery almost depleted.
Carlos
Enviado do meu iPhone
No dia 07/07/2018, =C3-s 06:18, Sebastien escreveu:
> I was out at the aircraft today programming checklists and limits, had the
alternator switch in the main position with the engine not running and noti
ced a 7 amp draw which seemed excessive for what was on. Turned the alternat
or switch to off and the draw went to 3 amps. Put my hand on the alternator a
nd it was hot to the touch. Alternator is a Lamar with internal regulator. I
s it normal for a non-turning alternator to be drawing 4 amps? If so then I t
hink we'll leave it off until after start and turn it off before shutdown.
>
>> On Wed, Jun 13, 2018 at 1:10 PM, Sebastien wrote:
>> The starter contactor is a B&C S702 and SD-8 relay is included in the PMO
V kit so I think the diode is built in as well.
>>
>> The E-123 relay is not necessary in the current setup but this system was
originally designed for P-Mags and the start switch was going to be an S200
0 button. I'm guessing that the S2000 needed the relay and when it was repla
ced with an ACS switch the relay was left in for later conversion.
>>
>> Thank you all for the replies, I'll just leave the alternator switch on M
ain all the time since there's no advantage to turning it off for engine sta
rt. Once the aircraft is through its test phase we plan on testing the SD-8 o
n an every 4 months schedule.
>>
>>> On Wed, Jun 13, 2018 at 6:22 AM, Robert L. Nuckolls, III <nuckolls.bob@a
eroelectric.com> wrote:
>>> At 09:07 PM 6/12/2018, you wrote:
>>>>
>>>> The two relays and starter contactor should all have diodes just like t
he battery contactor does. Connect banded end of diodes to positive.
>>>> Can the start switch handle the start contactor coil current? Or is t
he E-123 Relay necessary?
>>>
>>> The ACS/Bendix/Gerdes key switch will handle
>>> the automotive starter contacter that's fitted
>>> with a supression diode. Many (like the B&C
>>> S702) have the diode built in. If in doubt,
>>> install a second one . . . two are better
>>> than none. The buffer relay is not necessary
>>> but doesn't hurt anything . . . if left in
>>> add the diode to it too as Joe suggests.
>>>
>>>
>>> Bob . . .
>>>
>>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Z-* Question |
| From: | "Rocketman1988" <Rocketman(at)etczone.com> |
That was my thought, too. If the contactor were to fail OPEN, the alternator would
still be able to feed the battery. The battery buss would then be powered
as long as the engine was running.
You also retain the ability to isolated the battery from the alternator using the
field switch.
It seems like a viable change to the Z-* systems. I posted the question because
the Z-* schematics were drawn with the alternator feeding the switched side
of the contactor. There must have been a reason...
Maybe Bob can weigh in...am I missing something?
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=481472#481472
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Sequence for bringing alternators on line. |
At 12:18 AM 7/7/2018, you wrote:
>I was out at the aircraft today programming checklists and limits,
>had the alternator switch in the main position with the engine not
>running and noticed a 7 amp draw which seemed excessive for what was
>on. Turned the alternator switch to off and the draw went to 3 amps.
>Put my hand on the alternator and it was hot to the touch.
>Alternator is a Lamar with internal regulator. Is it normal for a
>non-turning alternator to be drawing 4 amps? If so then I think
>we'll leave it off until after start and turn it off before shutdown.
Battery on, alternator on, engine not running.
Regulator says alternator output is too low and
responds by applying full battery voltage to the
field . . . bus voltage remains low because
the engine is not running.
Field warms up . . . but not dangerously so.
Downside is significant, unnecessary load on
the battery during battery only ground ops.
Using the S700-2-10 master switch helps avoid
this condition.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | FLYaDIVE <flyadive(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Sequence for bringing alternators on line. |
Sebastien:
Now knowing your system but taking a SWAG...
1 - Master relays draw between 1 to 2 Amps just to close.
2 - Do you have an old style T&B? If so you are looking at another 0.25 to
0.5 Amps.
3 - What other items do you have that may have KEEP-ALIVE circuits?
4 - If the Field of the alternator is wired incorrectly the field will draw
all the time and that would be about
12 V / 4 Ohms = 3 Amps or 12 V / 6 Ohms = 2 Amps.
Either way that put you right in the area of what you are seeing.
Barry
On Sat, Jul 7, 2018 at 1:18 AM, Sebastien wrote:
> I was out at the aircraft today programming checklists and limits, had the
> alternator switch in the main position with the engine not running and
> noticed a 7 amp draw which seemed excessive for what was on. Turned the
> alternator switch to off and the draw went to 3 amps. Put my hand on the
> alternator and it was hot to the touch. Alternator is a Lamar with internal
> regulator. Is it normal for a non-turning alternator to be drawing 4 amps?
> If so then I think we'll leave it off until after start and turn it off
> before shutdown.
>
> On Wed, Jun 13, 2018 at 1:10 PM, Sebastien wrote:
>
>> The starter contactor is a B&C S702 and SD-8 relay is included in the
>> PMOV kit so I think the diode is built in as well.
>>
>> The E-123 relay is not necessary in the current setup but this system was
>> originally designed for P-Mags and the start switch was going to be an
>> S2000 button. I'm guessing that the S2000 needed the relay and when it was
>> replaced with an ACS switch the relay was left in for later conversion.
>>
>> Thank you all for the replies, I'll just leave the alternator switch on
>> Main all the time since there's no advantage to turning it off for engine
>> start. Once the aircraft is through its test phase we plan on testing the
>> SD-8 on an every 4 months schedule.
>>
>> On Wed, Jun 13, 2018 at 6:22 AM, Robert L. Nuckolls, III <
>> nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> wrote:
>>
>>> At 09:07 PM 6/12/2018, you wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> The two relays and starter contactor should all have diodes just like
>>> the battery contactor does. Connect banded end of diodes to positive.
>>> Can the start switch handle the start contactor coil current? Or is
>>> the E-123 Relay necessary?
>>>
>>>
>>> The ACS/Bendix/Gerdes key switch will handle
>>> the automotive starter contacter that's fitted
>>> with a supression diode. Many (like the B&C
>>> S702) have the diode built in. If in doubt,
>>> install a second one . . . two are better
>>> than none. The buffer relay is not necessary
>>> but doesn't hurt anything . . . if left in
>>> add the diode to it too as Joe suggests.
>>>
>>>
>>> Bob . . .
>>>
>>
>>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | FLYaDIVE <flyadive(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Sequence for bringing alternators on line. |
Oh, Sebastien:
Human nature being what it is... There have been MANY a Power Loss issue
by pilots starting on Just the Master and Forgetting to turn the Alternator
ON.
Really reeks hell on the radio and especially with planes with electrical
re-tracts.
Barry
On Sat, Jul 7, 2018 at 1:18 AM, Sebastien wrote:
> I was out at the aircraft today programming checklists and limits, had the
> alternator switch in the main position with the engine not running and
> noticed a 7 amp draw which seemed excessive for what was on. Turned the
> alternator switch to off and the draw went to 3 amps. Put my hand on the
> alternator and it was hot to the touch. Alternator is a Lamar with internal
> regulator. Is it normal for a non-turning alternator to be drawing 4 amps?
> If so then I think we'll leave it off until after start and turn it off
> before shutdown.
>
> On Wed, Jun 13, 2018 at 1:10 PM, Sebastien wrote:
>
>> The starter contactor is a B&C S702 and SD-8 relay is included in the
>> PMOV kit so I think the diode is built in as well.
>>
>> The E-123 relay is not necessary in the current setup but this system was
>> originally designed for P-Mags and the start switch was going to be an
>> S2000 button. I'm guessing that the S2000 needed the relay and when it was
>> replaced with an ACS switch the relay was left in for later conversion.
>>
>> Thank you all for the replies, I'll just leave the alternator switch on
>> Main all the time since there's no advantage to turning it off for engine
>> start. Once the aircraft is through its test phase we plan on testing the
>> SD-8 on an every 4 months schedule.
>>
>> On Wed, Jun 13, 2018 at 6:22 AM, Robert L. Nuckolls, III <
>> nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> wrote:
>>
>>> At 09:07 PM 6/12/2018, you wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> The two relays and starter contactor should all have diodes just like
>>> the battery contactor does. Connect banded end of diodes to positive.
>>> Can the start switch handle the start contactor coil current? Or is
>>> the E-123 Relay necessary?
>>>
>>>
>>> The ACS/Bendix/Gerdes key switch will handle
>>> the automotive starter contacter that's fitted
>>> with a supression diode. Many (like the B&C
>>> S702) have the diode built in. If in doubt,
>>> install a second one . . . two are better
>>> than none. The buffer relay is not necessary
>>> but doesn't hurt anything . . . if left in
>>> add the diode to it too as Joe suggests.
>>>
>>>
>>> Bob . . .
>>>
>>
>>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Z-* Question |
| From: | "user9253" <fransew(at)gmail.com> |
If the alternator B lead connects directly to the battery and the battery contactor
fails, then how does the alternator field get powered? The alternator quits.
Now the main power bus has lost both sources of power. It is better to
wire the aircraft with a proven, time tested design.
If there is smoke in the cockpit or if a forced landing is imminent, the pilot
may want to shut off all electrical power at the source. It is not desirable
to have the "B" lead arcing and sparking when gasoline is leaking after accident
impact.
--------
Joe Gores
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=481478#481478
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Z-* Question |
| From: | "Rocketman1988" <Rocketman(at)etczone.com> |
Well, the alternator could get power from the battery buss...
Anyway, I am using a modified Z-14 for use with EFII systems. The essential buss
will be powered from both batteries through a schottky diode bridge...
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=481482#481482
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Sequence for bringing alternators on line. |
At 01:23 PM 7/7/2018, you wrote:
>Oh,=C2 Sebastien:
>
>Human nature being what it is...=C2 There have
>been MANY a Power Loss issue by pilots starting
>on Just the Master and Forgetting to turn the Alternator ON.
>Really reeks hell on the radio and especially
>with planes with electrical re-tracts.
If an airplane were fitted with but one
annunciation of electrical system condition,
I'd go for the low voltage warning light.
Like the battery ammeter of old, it's
one device that gives you the most
information about system condition
in a single instrument . . . albeit
a bit tricky to interpret for some
conditions . . . also easy to ignore.
A single, flashing light that operates
below 13.0 volts is the modern and
more attention getting alternative.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Sequence for bringing alternators on line. |
| From: | John Tipton <jmtipton(at)btopenworld.com> |
For those of you who have the 'PlanePower' (internally regulated, externally
controlled) alternator (likes RVs) have the option of fitting the optional '
Alternator out' light, indicating no alternator output or alternator 'F' lea
d switch not closed.
John
Sent from my iPad
----x--O--x----
> On 8 Jul 2018, at 3:42 pm, Robert L. Nuckolls, III <nuckolls.bob@aeroelect
ric.com> wrote:
>
> At 01:23 PM 7/7/2018, you wrote:
>> Oh,=C3=82 Sebastien:
>>
>> Human nature being what it is...=C3=82 There have been MANY a Power Loss
issue by pilots starting on Just the Master and Forgetting to turn the Alte
rnator ON.
>> Really reeks hell on the radio and especially with planes with electrical
re-tracts.
>
> If an airplane were fitted with but one
> annunciation of electrical system condition,
> I'd go for the low voltage warning light.
> Like the battery ammeter of old, it's
> one device that gives you the most
> information about system condition
> in a single instrument . . . albeit
> a bit tricky to interpret for some
> conditions . . . also easy to ignore.
>
> A single, flashing light that operates
> below 13.0 volts is the modern and
> more attention getting alternative.
>
>
==========================
==========================
==========================
==========================
==========================
==========================
======================
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Sebastien <cluros(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Sequence for bringing alternators on line. |
In this case, forgetting would be pretty impossible. Dynon Skyview system
with audio warnings and Bob's light. I'd have to forget to turn it on, skip
the checklist item to check voltage, fail to see the Dynon low voltage
warning, and ignore the light. A pilot that could manage that has bigger
problems than a dead battery.
Is this normal behaviour for all alternators or just internally regulated
ones or otherwise alternator specific. It's the first time I've noticed a
big draw from having the alternator on with the engine off.
On Sun, Jul 8, 2018, 7:49 AM Robert L. Nuckolls, III <
nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> wrote:
> At 01:23 PM 7/7/2018, you wrote:
>
> Oh,=C3=82 Sebastien:
>
> Human nature being what it is...=C3=82 There have been MANY a Power Loss
issue
> by pilots starting on Just the Master and Forgetting to turn the Alternat
or
> ON.
> Really reeks hell on the radio and especially with planes with electrical
> re-tracts.
>
>
> If an airplane were fitted with but one
> annunciation of electrical system condition,
> I'd go for the low voltage warning light.
> Like the battery ammeter of old, it's
> one device that gives you the most
> information about system condition
> in a single instrument . . . albeit
> a bit tricky to interpret for some
> conditions . . . also easy to ignore.
>
> A single, flashing light that operates
> below 13.0 volts is the modern and
> more attention getting alternative.
>
>
> Bob . . .
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Z-13/8 Failure Question |
| From: | "BMC_Dave" <bmcdave85(at)gmail.com> |
nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelect wrote:
> At 05:01 PM 7/6/2018, you wrote:
>
> >
> > Been pouring through the forums recently, lots of great info and I've been
able to answer most of my own questions so far. I'm curious about a particular
failure since I'm designing for a SDS EI/EFI plane, perhaps I don't fully understand
how the LR-3 module works.
>
> The LR3C alternator controller is an adjustable
> linear regulator combined with crowbar over voltage
> protection and low voltage warning.
>
>
>
> > In Z-13/8 if the battery contactor fails, exceedingly rare and probably with
some warning prior to being critical, is there any notification that such a
failure has occurred? Any indication the battery has been disconnected from the
main ALT?
>
> No. You probably won't be aware of a battery contactor
> failure until you're on the ground and just happen
> to shut alternator(s) down first . . . or attempt
> a preflight for your next sortie.
>
>
>
> > I'll be switching the ECU and injectors off the main battery bus. So if what
I'm thinking is true I won't get any indication I'm running the engine only
off battery power until it stops. An unappealing prospect...
>
> Add lv warning to the battery bus . . .
>
> https://goo.gl/sNBCja
>
> You would hook such a gizmo to the downstream
> side of one of the engine accessory switches
> such that the lv warn gets powered down with
> the engine.
>
>
> > Also, looking at the reference figures online are these Z-figures the most
recent? I ask because it seems the wiring for the main ALT in Z-13 doesn't include
the LR-3 module, I have to look at Z-12 for that. Not hard to modify for
the combined module, just wondering if there is a Z-13 version out there that
includes this. Thanks!
>
> The Z figures are ARCHITECTURE drawings, not wire books
> nor are they intended to drive decisions for selection of specific
> components. One might use any combination of ov/lv/regulator
> in lieu of the LR3 and vise-versa.
>
> Battery contactor failure in flight is exceedingly rare.
> They nearly always annunciate impending failure during
> an engine start. But be attentive to the FIRST signs
> of fussiness . . . I had a renter on 1K1 that would
> go rap on his Cherokee battery contactor with the handle
> of a screwdriver with the master switch ON . . . seems
> that this shade tree mechanic's move gave him better
> starts. We moved off the airport before the contactor
> went TU so I don't know how long the work-around serviced
> his intentions to go flying.
>
> Contactors I've replaced had been in service years . . .
> sometimes decades. Teardown inspections showed that
> the devices were pretty beat up. Whisky barrel contactors
> are best mounted cap down . . . with a small vent/drain
> hole added to the hi-point of the cap.
>
> Works good . . . lasts a long time . . .
>
>
>
> Bob . . .
Awesome, that about covers my concerns. Thanks!
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=481493#481493
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Z-* Question |
At 11:38 AM 7/7/2018, you wrote:
>
>
>That was my thought, too. If the contactor were to fail OPEN, the
>alternator would still be able to feed the battery. The battery
>buss would then be powered as long as the engine was running.
>
>You also retain the ability to isolated the battery from the
>alternator using the field switch.
I advise caution about 'tweaking' the z-figures
based on some notions of dealing with failures,
especially rare ones, that require crew to
(1) notice that a failure has occurred, (2) diagnose
the failure and (3) take low risk remedial action.
Be especially wary of the possibility that a
tweak may create a new, unconsidered failure
mode.
The first duty of crew is fly the airplane,
navigate to a low risk termination of flight,
communicate in your 'spare' time and LEAVE THE
TOOLBOX on the ground.
The Z-figures evolved out of nearly a century
of lessons learned. In 20 years of sifting
and adapting here on the List, the architectures
have demonstrated low risk performance while
minimizing the need to diagnose in flight . . .
I recall how a perfectly good L1011 full of passengers
was flown into the Florida swamps by a crew distracted with
diagnosis on a burned out light bulb while
warning squawks and beeps were going on all
around them.
These discussions are GOOD exercises that go to
achieving understanding of how a system works
along with confidence in having minimized risk
while REDUCING pilot workload when things do
go TU.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Z-* Question |
| From: | "BMC_Dave" <bmcdave85(at)gmail.com> |
Appears to be the same question I raised here: http://forum.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?t=16770059
I get the cautions about making changes, but would this one not be prudent?
I understand contactor failures are rare, but it is also said they wear pretty
rough in-service. So why not remove a possible failure mode where you don't realize
something is wrong until your engine quits?
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=481520#481520
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Z-* Question |
At 11:09 AM 7/10/2018, you wrote:
>
>Appears to be the same question I raised here:
>http://forum.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?t=16770059
>
>I get the cautions about making changes, but would this one not be prudent?
>
>I understand contactor failures are rare, but it is also said they
>wear pretty rough in-service. So why not remove a possible failure
>mode where you don't realize something is wrong until your engine quits?
Okay, recite the narrative for any particular failure.
I presume we're talking about Z-14. How would any
single failure put engine ops at risk?
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Z-* Question |
| From: | "BMC_Dave" <bmcdave85(at)gmail.com> |
nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelect wrote:
> At 11:09 AM 7/10/2018, you wrote:
>
> >
> > Appears to be the same question I raised here: http://forum.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?t=16770059 (http://forum.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?t=16770059)
> >
> > I get the cautions about making changes, but would this one not be prudent?
> >
> > I understand contactor failures are rare, but it is also said they wear pretty
rough in-service. So why not remove a possible failure mode where you don't
realize something is wrong until your engine quits?
>
> Okay, recite the narrative for any particular failure.
> I presume we're talking about Z-14. How would any
> single failure put engine ops at risk?
>
>
> Bob . . .
I amended that because while I may have been thinking about it in my post I didn't
actually discuss it. In any case, referring to Z-14 say the battery contactor
opens in flight. Now the main battery bus is disconnected from the alternator,
and in this case you have no alternative means to connect it to either alternator,
so hopefully flight-critical systems aren't dependent on it.
Additionally, you have no warnings that this has occured.
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=481526#481526
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Z-* Question |
| From: | C&K <yellowduckduo(at)gmail.com> |
On 10/07/2018 6:24 PM, BMC_Dave wrote:
>
>
> nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelect wrote:
>> At 11:09 AM 7/10/2018, you wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Appears to be the same question I raised here: http://forum.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?t=16770059 (http://forum.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?t=16770059)
>>>
>>> I get the cautions about making changes, but would this one not be prudent?
>>>
>>> I understand contactor failures are rare, but it is also said they wear pretty
rough in-service. So why not remove a possible failure mode where you don't
realize something is wrong until your engine quits?
>> Okay, recite the narrative for any particular failure.
>> I presume we're talking about Z-14. How would any
>> single failure put engine ops at risk?
>>
>>
>> Bob . . .
>
> I amended that because while I may have been thinking about it in my post I didn't
actually discuss it. In any case, referring to Z-14 say the battery contactor
opens in flight. Now the main battery bus is disconnected from the alternator,
and in this case you have no alternative means to connect it to either
alternator, so hopefully flight-critical systems aren't dependent on it.
>
> Additionally, you have no warnings that this has occured.
Actually the low battery bus warning should activate as soon as the
battery stopped charging.
However I want the alternator to keep charging even if the battery
contactor is opened by accident or intent. And I want the alternator
charging voltage and the overvoltage protection to apply to the battery
buss with minimal resistance in the sense circuit to the VR circuit. I
want the engine to keep running if the battery goes open circuit. So I
do consider it prudent (but not essential) to connect the alternator as
directly as possible to the battery for my electrically dependent engine.
Ken
Ken
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Z-* Question |
>>> .
>>
>>I amended that because while I may have been thinking about it in
>>my post I didn't actually discuss it. In any case, referring to
>>Z-14 say the battery contactor opens in flight. Now the main
>>battery bus is disconnected from the alternator, and in this case
>>you have no alternative means to connect it to either alternator,
>>so hopefully flight-critical systems aren't dependent on it.
Z-14's bus loads have quad redundant
power sources. Every feeder in the
system can get power from multiple
sources. Flight critical loads can be
shared between two systems such that
no single failure puts the flight
at risk.
>>Additionally, you have no warnings that this has occured.
>Actually the low battery bus warning should activate as soon as the
>battery stopped charging.
>
>However I want the alternator to keep charging even if the battery
>contactor is opened by accident or intent. And I want the
>alternator charging voltage and the overvoltage protection to apply
>to the battery buss with minimal resistance in the sense circuit to
>the VR circuit. I want the engine to keep running if the battery
>goes open circuit. So I do consider it prudent (but not essential)
>to connect the alternator as directly as possible to the battery for
>my electrically dependent engine.
What are your engine loads?
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Z-* Question |
| From: | "BMC_Dave" <bmcdave85(at)gmail.com> |
yellowduckduo(at)gmail.co wrote:
> On 10/07/2018 6:24 PM, BMC_Dave wrote:
>
> >
> >
> >
> > nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelect wrote:
> > > At 11:09 AM 7/10/2018, you wrote:
> > >
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> Appears to be the same question I raised here: http://forum.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?t=16770059 (http://forum.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?t=16770059)
> > >>
> > >> I get the cautions about making changes, but would this one not be prudent?
> > >>
> > >> I understand contactor failures are rare, but it is also said they wear
pretty rough in-service. So why not remove a possible failure mode where you
don't realize something is wrong until your engine quits?
> > > Okay, recite the narrative for any particular failure.
> > > I presume we're talking about Z-14. How would any
> > > single failure put engine ops at risk?
> > >
> > >
> > > Bob . . .
> >
> > I amended that because while I may have been thinking about it in my post
I didn't actually discuss it. In any case, referring to Z-14 say the battery contactor
opens in flight. Now the main battery bus is disconnected from the alternator,
and in this case you have no alternative means to connect it to either
alternator, so hopefully flight-critical systems aren't dependent on it.
> >
> > Additionally, you have no warnings that this has occured.
> > Actually the low battery bus warning should activate as soon as the
> >
>
> battery stopped charging.
>
> However I want the alternator to keep charging even if the battery
> contactor is opened by accident or intent. And I want the alternator
> charging voltage and the overvoltage protection to apply to the battery
> buss with minimal resistance in the sense circuit to the VR circuit. I
> want the engine to keep running if the battery goes open circuit. So I
> do consider it prudent (but not essential) to connect the alternator as
> directly as possible to the battery for my electrically dependent engine.
>
> Ken
> Ken
I don't see anything on the architecture drawing that would warn you that the main
battery bus has been disconnected from the alternator(s)
nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelect wrote:
>
> Z-14's bus loads have quad redundant
> power sources. Every feeder in the
> system can get power from multiple
> sources. Flight critical loads can be
> shared between two systems such that
> no single failure puts the flight
> at risk.
>
>
> Bob . . .
On Z14P, if the battery contactor opens then anything on the main battery bus will
run until the 17AH main battery dies, right? If you have things like say,
an electronic ignition, or electric fuel pump, that are required for flight you'd
chug along completely unaware of the disconnect until your engine died, correct?
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=481541#481541
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "bobnoffs" <icubob(at)gmail.com> |
hi all,
in the past a crowbar would stop the current from an overvoltage source quick
enough to prevent avionics damage.
is that really needed any more?
i have a honda [viking] engine with auto accessories. i don't hear of cars blowing
out their glass dashboards.
when i asked b and c about a 'crowbar' they said theirs was only recommended for
a permanent magnet alternator.
what are others doing with auto alternators?
thanks
bob noffs
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=481549#481549
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Z-* Question |
| From: | C&K <yellowduckduo(at)gmail.com> |
>I don't see anything on the architecture drawing that would warn you
that the main battery bus has been disconnected from the alternator(s)
Dave
I think this thread is a worthwhile discussion but I'm not sure exactly
where our miscommunication is.
I had assumed that we all agreed that it was essential to add a means of
incorporating immediate notification if the battery is not charging for
an EFI engine.
To me that means monitoring of the battery buss if the battery buss is
powering the EFI.
There are several ways of doing that over and above anything shown on a
Z figure. But all the low voltage warning devices are expected to
activate when the voltage drops below about 13.5 volts which will happen
as soon as the alternator goes offline.
Don't know if it is a factor for this conversation but folks flying with
a carb, mags, and vacuum instruments will think of low voltage warning
as being important for the avionics buss especially if IFR. Folks with
an electrically dependent engine like me will contend that it is more
important to monitor the battery buss directly. Most of the electrically
dependent engines that I've seen so far are automotive conversions that
often are VFR only so again the battery buss tends to be the important
thing to monitor.
Ken
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Z-* Question |
| From: | "user9253" <fransew(at)gmail.com> |
Chances are that a failed battery contactor will result in unstable alternator
output voltage that will set off an alarm in the EFIS.
If a failed battery contactor is such a big concern, why not put a relay in parallel
with it?
If low battery voltage is a concern, why not install a voltmeter or low voltage
warning?
The chances of making a forced landing for some reason are much greater than a
battery contactor failing in flight. Wouldn't it be better to have the ability
to shut off all electrical power at the source to minimize the chances of a
a spark igniting leaking fuel?
If there is smoke in the cockpit, it is desired to be able to shut off all electrical
power at the source. Keep always-hot wires as short as possible.
--------
Joe Gores
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=481552#481552
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Z-* Question |
>
>
>On Z14P, if the battery contactor opens then anything on the main
>battery bus will run until the 17AH main battery dies, right? If you
>have things like say, an electronic ignition, or electric fuel pump,
>that are required for flight you'd chug along completely unaware of
>the disconnect until your engine died, correct?
Yes . . . unless you put low voltage monitoring
on the battery . . . easy to do. But if engine
dependency on fuel pressure and ignition is
addressed by redundant systems, why are they
all running from one battery?
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Z-* Question |
| From: | Kelly McMullen <kellym(at)aviating.com> |
I am also curious about the concern about the battery contactor. In 40+
years of aircraft owning and piloting I have experienced exactly one
battery contactor develop higher than desired resistance, causing
starter performance issues, but it never failed. For it to open implies
that the energy holding the contactor closed is somehow lost. You would
either need the wire providing the ground to close the contactor to
fail, or the coil in the contactor to suddenly develop an open.
I can see one failing to close when master switch is activated, but
having one fail after closing seems to be a very low risk event.
Kelly
On 7/11/2018 7:25 AM, Robert L. Nuckolls, III wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Z14P, if the battery contactor opens then anything on the main
>> battery bus will run until the 17AH main battery dies, right? If you
>> have things like say, an electronic ignition, or electric fuel pump,
>> that are required for flight you'd chug along completely unaware of
>> the disconnect until your engine died, correct?
>
> Yes . . . unless you put low voltage monitoring
> on the battery . . . easy to do. But if engine
> dependency on fuel pressure and ignition is
> addressed by redundant systems, why are they
> all running from one battery?
>
> Bob . . .
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
At 06:42 AM 7/11/2018, you wrote:
>
>hi all,
> in the past a crowbar would stop the current from an overvoltage
> source quick enough to prevent avionics damage.
> is that really needed any more?
OV protection is a legacy component of virtually
all voltage regulators for aviation. You have two
approaches to vetting component reliability: (1) Analyze
or demonstrate component failure rates on the
or of 1 in 10 to the 9th flight hours, i.e. never
fails or (2) ASSUME that it will fail and
mitigate that failure down to a low-risk maintenance
event.
> i have a honda [viking] engine with auto accessories. i don't hear
> of cars blowing out their glass dashboards.
> when i asked b and c about a 'crowbar' they said theirs was only
> recommended for a permanent magnet alternator.
> what are others doing with auto alternators?
Plane Power modifies the automotive alternators
to derive field excitation from a source external
to the alternator. Same with B&C.
PP retains the built in regulator . . . for a time
they added crowbar ov protection externally. Don't
know what they do now. But even if they don't provide
ov protection, it can be easily added to the field
supply feeder. B&C's controllers for their automotive
adaptations have ov protection built in . . . their
PM product installations include/recommend the
crowbar ov protection device which COULD be used
on any other system that is not otherwise fitted
with ov protection.
Emacs!
But if you have a candidate alternator regulator
that you have reason to believe it never fails
then you're certainly free to forego ov protaection.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Ken Ryan <keninalaska(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Z-* Question |
With the battery contactor working properly, the voltage at the battery
will be "charging voltage" approx. 14 volts. When the battery contactor
fails open, the charge will be removed and the voltage at the battery will
instantly drop to "battery voltage" approx 13 volts. Therefore, if you are
monitoring your voltage at the battery, you will be instantly notified of
the contactor failure
On Tue, Jul 10, 2018 at 6:33 PM BMC_Dave wrote:
>
>
> yellowduckduo(at)gmail.co wrote:
> > On 10/07/2018 6:24 PM, BMC_Dave wrote:
> >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelect wrote:
> > > > At 11:09 AM 7/10/2018, you wrote:
> > > >
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >> Appears to be the same question I raised here:
> http://forum.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?t=16770059 (
> http://forum.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?t=16770059)
> > > >>
> > > >> I get the cautions about making changes, but would this one not
> be prudent?
> > > >>
> > > >> I understand contactor failures are rare, but it is also said
> they wear pretty rough in-service. So why not remove a possible failure
> mode where you don't realize something is wrong until your engine quits?
> > > > Okay, recite the narrative for any particular failure.
> > > > I presume we're talking about Z-14. How would any
> > > > single failure put engine ops at risk?
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Bob . . .
> > >
> > > I amended that because while I may have been thinking about it in my
> post I didn't actually discuss it. In any case, referring to Z-14 say the
> battery contactor opens in flight. Now the main battery bus is disconnected
> from the alternator, and in this case you have no alternative means to
> connect it to either alternator, so hopefully flight-critical systems
> aren't dependent on it.
> > >
> > > Additionally, you have no warnings that this has occured.
> > > Actually the low battery bus warning should activate as soon as the
> > >
> >
> > battery stopped charging.
> >
> > However I want the alternator to keep charging even if the battery
> > contactor is opened by accident or intent. And I want the alternator
> > charging voltage and the overvoltage protection to apply to the battery
> > buss with minimal resistance in the sense circuit to the VR circuit. I
> > want the engine to keep running if the battery goes open circuit. So I
> > do consider it prudent (but not essential) to connect the alternator as
> > directly as possible to the battery for my electrically dependent engine.
> >
> > Ken
> > Ken
>
>
> I don't see anything on the architecture drawing that would warn you that
> the main battery bus has been disconnected from the alternator(s)
>
>
> nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelect wrote:
> >
> > Z-14's bus loads have quad redundant
> > power sources. Every feeder in the
> > system can get power from multiple
> > sources. Flight critical loads can be
> > shared between two systems such that
> > no single failure puts the flight
> > at risk.
> >
> >
> > Bob . . .
>
>
> On Z14P, if the battery contactor opens then anything on the main battery
> bus will run until the 17AH main battery dies, right? If you have things
> like say, an electronic ignition, or electric fuel pump, that are required
> for flight you'd chug along completely unaware of the disconnect until your
> engine died, correct?
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=481541#481541
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Z-* Question |
| From: | "BMC_Dave" <bmcdave85(at)gmail.com> |
nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelect wrote:
>
> >
> >
> >
> > On Z14P, if the battery contactor opens then anything on the main battery
bus will run until the 17AH main battery dies, right? If you have things like
say, an electronic ignition, or electric fuel pump, that are required for flight
you'd chug along completely unaware of the disconnect until your engine died,
correct?
>
> Yes . . . unless you put low voltage monitoring
> on the battery . . . easy to do. But if engine
> dependency on fuel pressure and ignition is
> addressed by redundant systems, why are they
> all running from one battery?
>
>
> Bob . . .
That's the point, in Z14 they don't appear to be, correct?
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=481559#481559
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Z-* Question |
| From: | "BMC_Dave" <bmcdave85(at)gmail.com> |
It almost feels like I'm being intentionally gaslit, I'll try again. We're addressing
the OPs use of Z14 and his concern about why the alternator isn't on the
battery bus side of the contactor. Additionally, the current architecture doesn't
include any LV warning on the battery bus side.
So as it is drawn currently drawn in Z14, running an electrically dependent engine
is dangerous because you have a single point of failure (the contactor) and
zero indication anything is wrong until your engine dies and you have no means
to turn it back on...
Yes, we discussed adding a LV warning to the battery bus.... in other threads about
other architecture drawings. It's a good idea, you should probably do that,
or similar like putting the LR-3 LV sense on the battery bus instead.
I've heard many times about how contactor failures are rare, once followed immediately
by a description of how hard they wear and steps that can be taken to
mitigate that... Point is this single point of failure is easy to side-step with
out adding anything to the system. The reluctance to do so is confusing and
no one seems to want to explain why.
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=481560#481560
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Charlie England <ceengland7(at)gmail.com> |
On 7/11/2018 6:42 AM, bobnoffs wrote:
>
> hi all,
> in the past a crowbar would stop the current from an overvoltage source quick
enough to prevent avionics damage.
> is that really needed any more?
> i have a honda [viking] engine with auto accessories. i don't hear of cars
blowing out their glass dashboards.
> when i asked b and c about a 'crowbar' they said theirs was only recommended
for a permanent magnet alternator.
> what are others doing with auto alternators?
> thanks
> bob noffs
>
I think their answer was framed in the assumption that you're using only
their products. The B&C regulators for conventional alternators have
overvoltage protection built into them.
I've read 'rumors on the interwebs' that the latest auto tech often
builds voltage regulation into the vehicle's system computer, that
controls virtually everything else in the vehicle, too. Not a big deal
to build in overvoltage protection too, in that environment. It's
unlikely that the Viking is using the stock auto controller (pray that
it doesn't; too many 'protections' in auto controllers that can kill you
in an a/c).
I've run my dirt-simple RV-4 without OV protection for a long time, but
with expensive avionics in the -7 I'm building, I *will* have OV protection.
Charlie
---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Making your own fuseable links |
| From: | "JOHN TIPTON" <jmtipton(at)btopenworld.com> |
Hi Guys
Where can you get the 'SILICONE COVERED FIBREGLASS SLEEVING' to make your own fuseable
links
Regard: John
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=481564#481564
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Ken Ryan <keninalaska(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Z-* Question |
If you "solve" the "problem" by moving the alternator feed wire to the
battery side of the contactor, then you create a separate problem (one many
would consider more serious) in that you will have nullified the ability to
cut off all current by simply moving the master switch.
On Wed, Jul 11, 2018 at 7:40 AM BMC_Dave wrote:
>
> It almost feels like I'm being intentionally gaslit, I'll try again. We're
> addressing the OPs use of Z14 and his concern about why the alternator
> isn't on the battery bus side of the contactor. Additionally, the current
> architecture doesn't include any LV warning on the battery bus side.
>
> So as it is drawn currently drawn in Z14, running an electrically
> dependent engine is dangerous because you have a single point of failure
> (the contactor) and zero indication anything is wrong until your engine
> dies and you have no means to turn it back on...
>
> Yes, we discussed adding a LV warning to the battery bus.... in other
> threads about other architecture drawings. It's a good idea, you should
> probably do that, or similar like putting the LR-3 LV sense on the battery
> bus instead.
>
> I've heard many times about how contactor failures are rare, once followed
> immediately by a description of how hard they wear and steps that can be
> taken to mitigate that... Point is this single point of failure is easy to
> side-step with out adding anything to the system. The reluctance to do so
> is confusing and no one seems to want to explain why.
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=481560#481560
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Z-* Question |
| From: | "user9253" <fransew(at)gmail.com> |
> The reluctance to do so is confusing and no one seems to want to explain why.
I explained why. If the alternator "B" lead is connected directly to the battery,
then that "B" lead is always hot no matter if the field switch is on or off.
That always hot wire is more likely to cause an incident than a failed contactor.
The Z figures just show the basic power layout. They are not meant to show every
electrical circuit in an airplane. Notice that there is no radio or EFIS
on the Z figure. It is up to the builder to wire his plane to make it safe.
If you want a low voltage warning, then install it. If there is only one ignition
system, then provide it with two sources of power via diodes or switches.
Just do not make changes that create a new danger.
--------
Joe Gores
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=481566#481566
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Z-* Question |
| From: | "BMC_Dave" <bmcdave85(at)gmail.com> |
kenryan wrote:
> If you "solve" the "problem" by moving the alternator feed wire to the battery
side of the contactor, then you create a separate problem (one many would consider
more serious) in that you will have nullified the ability to cut off all
current by simply moving the master switch.
>
> On Wed, Jul 11, 2018 at 7:40 AM BMC_Dave wrote:
>
>
> >
> > It almost feels like I'm being intentionally gaslit, I'll try again. We're
addressing the OPs use of Z14 and his concern about why the alternator isn't
on the battery bus side of the contactor. Additionally, the current architecture
doesn't include any LV warning on the battery bus side.
> >
> > So as it is drawn currently drawn in Z14, running an electrically dependent
engine is dangerous because you have a single point of failure (the contactor)
and zero indication anything is wrong until your engine dies and you have no
means to turn it back on...
> >
> > Yes, we discussed adding a LV warning to the battery bus.... in other threads
about other architecture drawings. It's a good idea, you should probably do
that, or similar like putting the LR-3 LV sense on the battery bus instead.
> >
> > I've heard many times about how contactor failures are rare, once followed
immediately by a description of how hard they wear and steps that can be taken
to mitigate that... Point is this single point of failure is easy to side-step
with out adding anything to the system. The reluctance to do so is confusing
and no one seems to want to explain why.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Read this topic online here:
> >
> > http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=481560#481560 (http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=481560#481560)
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ==========
> > -
> > Electric-List" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List
> > ==========
> > FORUMS -
> > eferrer" target="_blank">http://forums.matronics.com
> > ==========
> > WIKI -
> > errer" target="_blank">http://wiki.matronics.com
> > ==========
> > b Site -
> > -Matt Dralle, List Admin.
> > rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/contribution
> > ==========
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
No it doesn't. Moving the alternator feed line to the battery side of the contactor
doesn't change how the Main DC Pwr Master Switch turns off the alternator
(by opening the ALT FLD circuit).
user9253 wrote:
>
> I explained why. If the alternator "B" lead is connected directly to the battery,
then that "B" lead is always hot no matter if the field switch is on or
off.
Electrically, how is having the B lead after the contactor different than having
it before the contactor if the contactor is closed? Should the contactor open,
and your B lead is on the battery side, this would have the same effect as
opening the ALT field circuit, thereby shutting off the alternator. Unless I'm
radically misunderstanding how alternators work...
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=481568#481568
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Sebastien <cluros(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Z-* Question |
Dave, you are correct that if the alternator is off, that wire will not be
powered by the alternator. It WILL be powered by the battery because you
have connected it directly to the battery right?
On Wed, Jul 11, 2018, 1:59 PM BMC_Dave wrote:
>
>
> kenryan wrote:
> > If you "solve" the "problem" by moving the alternator feed wire to the
> battery side of the contactor, then you create a separate problem (one many
> would consider more serious) in that you will have nullified the ability to
> cut off all current by simply moving the master switch.
> >
> > On Wed, Jul 11, 2018 at 7:40 AM BMC_Dave wrote:
> >
> >
> > >
> > > It almost feels like I'm being intentionally gaslit, I'll try again.
> We're addressing the OPs use of Z14 and his concern about why the
> alternator isn't on the battery bus side of the contactor. Additionally,
> the current architecture doesn't include any LV warning on the battery bus
> side.
> > >
> > > So as it is drawn currently drawn in Z14, running an electrically
> dependent engine is dangerous because you have a single point of failure
> (the contactor) and zero indication anything is wrong until your engine
> dies and you have no means to turn it back on...
> > >
> > > Yes, we discussed adding a LV warning to the battery bus.... in other
> threads about other architecture drawings. It's a good idea, you should
> probably do that, or similar like putting the LR-3 LV sense on the battery
> bus instead.
> > >
> > > I've heard many times about how contactor failures are rare, once
> followed immediately by a description of how hard they wear and steps that
> can be taken to mitigate that... Point is this single point of failure is
> easy to side-step with out adding anything to the system. The reluctance to
> do so is confusing and no one seems to want to explain why.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Read this topic online here:
> > >
> > > http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=481560#481560 (
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=481560#481560)
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ==========
> > > -
> > > Electric-List" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">
> http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List
> > > ==========
> > > FORUMS -
> > > eferrer" target="_blank">http://forums.matronics.com
> > > ==========
> > > WIKI -
> > > errer" target="_blank">http://wiki.matronics.com
> > > ==========
> > > b Site -
> > > -Matt Dralle, List Admin.
> > > rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">
> http://www.matronics.com/contribution
> > > ==========
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
>
>
> No it doesn't. Moving the alternator feed line to the battery side of the
> contactor doesn't change how the Main DC Pwr Master Switch turns off the
> alternator (by opening the ALT FLD circuit).
>
>
> user9253 wrote:
> >
> > I explained why. If the alternator "B" lead is connected directly to
> the battery, then that "B" lead is always hot no matter if the field switch
> is on or off.
>
>
> Electrically, how is having the B lead after the contactor different than
> having it before the contactor if the contactor is closed? Should the
> contactor open, and your B lead is on the battery side, this would have the
> same effect as opening the ALT field circuit, thereby shutting off the
> alternator. Unless I'm radically misunderstanding how alternators work...
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=481568#481568
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Z-* Question |
| From: | "Rocketman1988" <Rocketman(at)etczone.com> |
I do not see the Z-14 as dangerous as drawn for my EFII aircraft. The ECUs can
be split between the busses, the fuel pumps can be split and the injector supply
will be come from a buss powered by both batteries through a diode bridge.
There is no possible way to make any system 100% reliable; if you drill down far
enough, you can't always find a serious failure that will compromise the system.
The point is risk mitigation...
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=481571#481571
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Making your own fuseable links |
At 11:32 AM 7/11/2018, you wrote:
>
>
>Hi Guys
>
>Where can you get the 'SILICONE COVERED FIBREGLASS SLEEVING' to make
>your own fuseable links
>
>Regard: John
>
https://goo.gl/uuWsgi
Where are you using a fusible link?
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Z-* Question |
At 10:34 AM 7/11/2018, you wrote:
>
>It almost feels like I'm being intentionally gaslit, I'll try again.
>We're addressing the OPs use of Z14 and his concern about why the
>alternator isn't on the battery bus side of the contactor.
So the b-lead is 'cold' when the master switch is OFF
> Additionally, the current architecture doesn't include any LV
> warning on the battery bus side.
Because in-flight contactor failure rates are very
low. But if one wishes to 'cover' that possibility,
lv warning on a battery-bus fed appliance would
provide the hedge.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Z-* Question |
| From: | "BMC_Dave" <bmcdave85(at)gmail.com> |
cluros(at)gmail.com wrote:
> Dave, you are correct that if the alternator is off, that wire will not be powered
by the alternator. It WILL be powered by the battery because you have connected
it directly to the battery right?
>
>
Ahhh, I see it now thanks. Yeah that's true, though I'm not positive on the placement
of these things in relation to each other. If going to the starter contactor
is a whole lot different than going to the bat side of the battery contactor.
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=481573#481573
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Z-* Question |
> >
> > Yes . . . unless you put low voltage monitoring
> > on the battery . . . easy to do. But if engine
> > dependency on fuel pressure and ignition is
> > addressed by redundant systems, why are they
> > all running from one battery?
> >
> >
> > Bob . . .
>
>
>That's the point, in Z14 they don't appear to be, correct?
Correct. I have shown primary systems on main battery,
secondary on the aux battery . . . hence even loss
of one battery contactor does not present an
intractable hazzard to comfortable termination
of flight. I have been assuming (possibly incorrectly)
that there was some feature of this discussion that
absolutely depended on energy from a single
battery bus for continued flight.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Z-* Question |
| From: | "BMC_Dave" <bmcdave85(at)gmail.com> |
Rocketman1988 wrote:
> I do not see the Z-14 as dangerous as drawn for my EFII aircraft. The ECUs can
be split between the busses, the fuel pumps can be split and the injector supply
will be come from a buss powered by both batteries through a diode bridge.
>
> There is no possible way to make any system 100% reliable; if you drill down
far enough, you can't always find a serious failure that will compromise the system.
The point is risk mitigation...
Fair enough, I just see the architecture as-drawn to have a pretty serious single
point of failure for electronically dependent engines. As it can occur with
no notice to the pilot that something has happened, and no way to provide power
to the bits that need it once your engine shuts off. The reluctance to acknowledge
this is perplexing.
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=481576#481576
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Sebastien <cluros(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Z-* Question |
The starter contactor is on the other side of the battery contactor. With
the battery contactor off, no battery power to the starter contactor, no
battery power to the b lead.
On Wed, Jul 11, 2018, 2:46 PM BMC_Dave wrote:
>
>
> cluros(at)gmail.com wrote:
> > Dave, you are correct that if the alternator is off, that wire will not
> be powered by the alternator. It WILL be powered by the battery because you
> have connected it directly to the battery right?
> >
> >
>
>
> Ahhh, I see it now thanks. Yeah that's true, though I'm not positive on
> the placement of these things in relation to each other. If going to the
> starter contactor is a whole lot different than going to the bat side of
> the battery contactor.
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=481573#481573
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Z-* Question |
| From: | C&K <yellowduckduo(at)gmail.com> |
If one incorporates the Z-24 OVP protection for internal VR
alternators, that OVP contactor or relay disconnects the battery from
the B lead if the alternator is turned off.
Ken
On 11/07/2018 2:15 PM, Sebastien wrote:
> Dave, you are correct that if the alternator is off, that wire will
> not be powered by the alternator. It WILL be powered by the battery
> because you have connected it directly to the battery right?
>
> On Wed, Jul 11, 2018, 1:59 PM BMC_Dave > wrote:
>
> >
>
>
> kenryan wrote:
> > If you "solve" the "problem" by moving the alternator feed wire
> to the battery side of the contactor, then you create a separate
> problem (one many would consider more serious) in that you will
> have nullified the ability to cut off all current by simply moving
> the master switch.
> >
> > On Wed, Jul 11, 2018 at 7:40 AM BMC_Dave wrote:
> >
> >
> > >
> > > It almost feels like I'm being intentionally gaslit, I'll try
> again. We're addressing the OPs use of Z14 and his concern about
> why the alternator isn't on the battery bus side of the contactor.
> Additionally, the current architecture doesn't include any LV
> warning on the battery bus side.
> > >
> > > So as it is drawn currently drawn in Z14, running an
> electrically dependent engine is dangerous because you have a
> single point of failure (the contactor) and zero indication
> anything is wrong until your engine dies and you have no means to
> turn it back on...
> > >
> > > Yes, we discussed adding a LV warning to the battery bus....
> in other threads about other architecture drawings. It's a good
> idea, you should probably do that, or similar like putting the
> LR-3 LV sense on the battery bus instead.
> > >
> > > I've heard many times about how contactor failures are rare,
> once followed immediately by a description of how hard they wear
> and steps that can be taken to mitigate that... Point is this
> single point of failure is easy to side-step with out adding
> anything to the system. The reluctance to do so is confusing and
> no one seems to want to explain why.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Read this topic online here:
> > >
> > > http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=481560#481560
> (http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=481560#481560)
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ==========
> > > -
> > > Electric-List" rel="noreferrer"
> target="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List
> > > ==========
> > > FORUMS -
> > > eferrer" target="_blank">http://forums.matronics.com
> > > ==========
> > > WIKI -
> > > errer" target="_blank">http://wiki.matronics.com
> > > ==========
> > > b Site -
> > > -Matt Dralle, List Admin.
> > > rel="noreferrer"
> target="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/contribution
> > > ==========
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
>
>
> No it doesn't. Moving the alternator feed line to the battery side
> of the contactor doesn't change how the Main DC Pwr Master Switch
> turns off the alternator (by opening the ALT FLD circuit).
>
>
> user9253 wrote:
> >
> > I explained why. If the alternator "B" lead is connected
> directly to the battery, then that "B" lead is always hot no
> matter if the field switch is on or off.
>
>
> Electrically, how is having the B lead after the contactor
> different than having it before the contactor if the contactor is
> closed? Should the contactor open, and your B lead is on the
> battery side, this would have the same effect as opening the ALT
> field circuit, thereby shutting off the alternator. Unless I'm
> radically misunderstanding how alternators work...
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=481568#481568
>
>
> ==========
> -
> Electric-List" rel="noreferrer noreferrer"
> target="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List
> ==========
> FORUMS -
> eferrer noreferrer" target="_blank">http://forums.matronics.com
> ==========
> WIKI -
> errer noreferrer" target="_blank">http://wiki.matronics.com
> ==========
> b Site -
> -Matt Dralle, List Admin.
> rel="noreferrer noreferrer"
> target="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/contribution
> ==========
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Z-* Question |
| From: | "BMC_Dave" <bmcdave85(at)gmail.com> |
So the reasoning is that having an always-hot B lead is more dangerous than the
single point failure of the battery contactor? If I'm finally getting that point?
Is sparking of a severed B lead the only concern, or is there something else about
having the alternator always hot that is no bueno? How long is that 10 AWG
run from the AUX ALT?
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=481579#481579
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Z-* Question |
At 01:47 PM 7/11/2018, you wrote:
>
>
>Rocketman1988 wrote:
> > I do not see the Z-14 as dangerous as drawn for my EFII
> aircraft. The ECUs can be split between the busses, the fuel pumps
> can be split and the injector supply will be come from a buss
> powered by both batteries through a diode bridge.
> >
> > There is no possible way to make any system 100% reliable; if you
> drill down far enough, you can't always find a serious failure that
> will compromise the system. The point is risk mitigation...
>
>
>Fair enough, I just see the architecture as-drawn to have a pretty
>serious single point of failure for electronically dependent
>engines. As it can occur with no notice to the pilot that something
>has happened, and no way to provide power to the bits that need it
>once your engine shuts off. The reluctance to acknowledge this is perplexing.
I don't think anyone is failing to acknowledge
anything. You have hypothesized a suite
of hardware that is not illustrated in Z-14.
As published, Z-14 purports to show that
redundant systems can improve on system
reliability by feeding them from separate
power systems . . . where it has been
judged that no single failure puts the
aircraft at risk.
If some primary component is not backed
up with a secondary -and- assuming that it
has only one feed point for power,
Z-14 offers no advice and the system
may benefit from some adjustments.
If an alternator feed is moved to the
battery (like 100% of cars) then the
regulator supply and voltage sense
must also be moved to the battery side
of the contactor as well. From a
performance perspective, there's nothing
wrong with it . . . and it would mitigate
the failed contactor scenario.
The only down side is that the b-lead
is hot all the time. This has post
crash safety implications and maintenance
implications (be sure to unhook battery(-)
before turning wrenches under the cowl
just like you do on your car.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Z-* Question |
| From: | "user9253" <fransew(at)gmail.com> |
If you look in the very bottom left corner of Z-14 at the aux battery bus, there
are secondary ignition and secondary fuel pump fuses. So there is no single
point of failure. If the main battery completely shorts out and dies, the engine
keeps running because it will get electricity from the aux battery and aux
alternator.
It might be confusing because the aux bus is drawn with part of it horizontal
and part of it vertical.
--------
Joe Gores
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=481582#481582
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Z-* Question |
| From: | "Rocketman1988" <Rocketman(at)etczone.com> |
BMC_Dave wrote:
>
> Rocketman1988 wrote:
> > I do not see the Z-14 as dangerous as drawn for my EFII aircraft. The ECUs
can be split between the busses, the fuel pumps can be split and the injector
supply will be come from a buss powered by both batteries through a diode bridge.
> >
> > There is no possible way to make any system 100% reliable; if you drill down
far enough, you can't always find a serious failure that will compromise the
system. The point is risk mitigation...
>
>
> Fair enough, I just see the architecture as-drawn to have a pretty serious single
point of failure for electronically dependent engines. As it can occur with
no notice to the pilot that something has happened, and no way to provide power
to the bits that need it once your engine shuts off. The reluctance to acknowledge
this is perplexing.
Ok, where specifically is the issue? The essentials will be powered by a buss
supplied by BOTH batteries through a diode bridge. So:
one contractor fails > engine keeps running
one alternator fails > engine keeps running
one battery fails > engine keeps running
If the essentials include a fuel pump and ECU then:
two alternators and 1 battery fail > engine keeps running.
I have intentionally left the EFIS and radios from this discussion, focusing on
only the engine.
Short of a combined multiple failure > engine keeps running.
Please explain your how the Z-14 as drawn has a single point of failure...
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=481583#481583
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Z-* Question |
| From: | "BMC_Dave" <bmcdave85(at)gmail.com> |
Rocketman1988 wrote:
>
> BMC_Dave wrote:
> >
> > Rocketman1988 wrote:
> > > I do not see the Z-14 as dangerous as drawn for my EFII aircraft. The ECUs
can be split between the busses, the fuel pumps can be split and the injector
supply will be come from a buss powered by both batteries through a diode bridge.
> > >
> > > There is no possible way to make any system 100% reliable; if you drill down
far enough, you can't always find a serious failure that will compromise the
system. The point is risk mitigation...
> >
> >
> > Fair enough, I just see the architecture as-drawn to have a pretty serious
single point of failure for electronically dependent engines. As it can occur
with no notice to the pilot that something has happened, and no way to provide
power to the bits that need it once your engine shuts off. The reluctance to
acknowledge this is perplexing.
>
>
> Ok, where specifically is the issue? The essentials will be powered by a buss
supplied by BOTH batteries through a diode bridge. So:
>
> one contractor fails > engine keeps running
> one alternator fails > engine keeps running
> one battery fails > engine keeps running
>
> If the essentials include a fuel pump and ECU then:
>
> two alternators and 1 battery fail > engine keeps running.
>
> I have intentionally left the EFIS and radios from this discussion, focusing
on only the engine.
>
> Short of a combined multiple failure > engine keeps running.
>
> Please explain your how the Z-14 as drawn has a single point of failure...
Battery contactor fails, engine keeps running... until?
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=481585#481585
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Z-* Question |
| From: | "BMC_Dave" <bmcdave85(at)gmail.com> |
user9253 wrote:
> If you look in the very bottom left corner of Z-14 at the aux battery bus, there
are secondary ignition and secondary fuel pump fuses. So there is no single
point of failure. If the main battery completely shorts out and dies, the
engine keeps running because it will get electricity from the aux battery and
aux alternator.
> It might be confusing because the aux bus is drawn with part of it horizontal
and part of it vertical.
Aren't those two separate buses?
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=481586#481586
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Z-* Question |
| From: | Charlie England <ceengland7(at)gmail.com> |
On 7/11/2018 3:04 PM, BMC_Dave wrote:
>
>
> user9253 wrote:
>> If you look in the very bottom left corner of Z-14 at the aux battery bus, there
are secondary ignition and secondary fuel pump fuses. So there is no single
point of failure. If the main battery completely shorts out and dies, the
engine keeps running because it will get electricity from the aux battery and
aux alternator.
>> It might be confusing because the aux bus is drawn with part of it horizontal
and part of it vertical.
>
> Aren't those two separate buses?
>
Yes; driving two separate engine controllers (ignitions). If the main
contactor fails, and you fly the plane to main battery depletion, the
2nd engine controller keeps the engine running. You'll surely know you
have a problem the next time you try to start the plane, even if you've
managed to miss all the signs up to that point.
As everyone keeps saying, the Z figures are templates; *not* finished
schematics that can't be adjusted to fit individual needs. If you're
running a single ignition controller, fed by the battery bus, and if,
overall, you like Z-14 for your purposes, then add low voltage
monitoring to the battery bus. Wouldn't that solve your issue of
undetected contactor failure? If you like moving the B lead to the
battery bus, then add a contactor to the B lead so it can be interrupted
when the a/c is powered down (crash & maintenance protection). Or, if
you're comfortable with the B lead being always hot, and you're aware of
the implications, then hook it up that way, and move your high/low
voltage protection/monitoring to the battery bus.
Charlie
---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Z-* Question |
At 03:04 PM 7/11/2018, you wrote:
>
>
>user9253 wrote:
> > If you look in the very bottom left corner of Z-14 at the aux
> battery bus, there are secondary ignition and secondary fuel pump
> fuses. So there is no single point of failure. If the main
> battery completely shorts out and dies, the engine keeps running
> because it will get electricity from the aux battery and aux alternator.
> > It might be confusing because the aux bus is drawn with part of
> it horizontal and part of it vertical.
>
Figure 17-5 in the 'Connection is accompanied by
a narrative describing the philosophy behind
Z-14.
The idea was to craft two, independent systems
that could be used in tandem for some flight
conditions:
Emacs!
A cross-feed contactor could be closed during engine
cranking to offer better starter performance. All
normal ops are conducted with the cross-feed open.
If an alternator is lost, the cross-feed contactor
can be closed to share power offered by the remaining
alternator. A feeder off any of the four busses has
access to four power sources. This means that no
endurance bus is needed.
When electrically dependent power plants are
fitted with redundant sub-systems, then those
pairs are distributed between the two battery
busses.
With the exception of battery contactor loss, it is
exceedingly unlikely that any battery bus becomes
un-powered . . . and only after that battery
is depleted.
The only time that condition elevates risk is when a
non-redundant power plant subsystem is powered from
that bus.
This discussion underscores the value of doing
the load analysis for various flight conditions
combined with the FMEA to ensure power
distribution to accessories needed for comfortable
termination of flight.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | James Kale <jimkale(at)roadrunner.com> |
Different alternators have different failure mode. I recently saw a friends
Cessna 172 after it suffered some sort of over voltage condition. If. I had
not seen it, I would not have believed the damage. Every electrical component
was fried. The insulation on every wire was burned. I did not know an
alternator was capable of that sort of damage. I do know a crowbar would have
Prevented it though. Like I said, if I had not personally seen the damage
I would not have believed how bad it was. Every wire and electrical component
in the airplane had to be replaced. It is possible that not all alternators
are capable of that sort of failure mode. But it sure opened my eyes and I
would not want to have been on board when it occurred. Jim Kale, Enterprise,
AL
Sent from my iPhone
> On Jul 11, 2018, at 10:45 AM, Charlie England wrote:
>
>
>> On 7/11/2018 6:42 AM, bobnoffs wrote:
>>
>> hi all,
>> in the past a crowbar would stop the current from an overvoltage source quick
enough to prevent avionics damage.
>> is that really needed any more?
>> i have a honda [viking] engine with auto accessories. i don't hear of cars
blowing out their glass dashboards.
>> when i asked b and c about a 'crowbar' they said theirs was only recommended
for a permanent magnet alternator.
>> what are others doing with auto alternators?
>> thanks
>> bob noffs
>>
> I think their answer was framed in the assumption that you're using only their
products. The B&C regulators for conventional alternators have overvoltage protection
built into them.
>
> I've read 'rumors on the interwebs' that the latest auto tech often builds voltage
regulation into the vehicle's system computer, that controls virtually everything
else in the vehicle, too. Not a big deal to build in overvoltage protection
too, in that environment. It's unlikely that the Viking is using the stock
auto controller (pray that it doesn't; too many 'protections' in auto controllers
that can kill you in an a/c).
>
> I've run my dirt-simple RV-4 without OV protection for a long time, but with
expensive avionics in the -7 I'm building, I *will* have OV protection.
>
> Charlie
>
> ---
> This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
> https://www.avast.com/antivirus
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Making your own fuseable links |
| From: | "JOHN TIPTON" <jmtipton(at)btopenworld.com> |
Hi Bob
Your answer relates to the Z11 wiring we are using: specifically the Endurance
Bus feed, the diagram shows a live feed to a Fuse Block (Main Battery Bus), then
a 7 amp fuse to the Endurance Buss switch, then to to Endurance Bus.
We are doing without the the main Battery Bus as not required, now this leaves
us without the 7 amp protection, so I was going to put a 'fusible link' at the
Battery Contactor - incidently we are using 14AWG (because we have it, we do
not have any 16AWG).
I need to make up a 18AWG fusible Link
John
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=481597#481597
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | bob noffs <icubob(at)gmail.com> |
well, i guess i should wire in a crowbar. seems like it should be pretty
straight forward to have it break the circuit to the field. i will take a
look in bob's book for ideas and go from there.
thanks everyone for the advice.
bob noffs
On Wed, Jul 11, 2018 at 10:54 PM, James Kale wrote
:
> jimkale(at)roadrunner.com>
>
> Different alternators have different failure mode. I recently saw a
> friend=99s Cessna 172 after it suffered some sort of over voltage c
ondition.
> If. I had not seen it, I would not have believed the damage. Every
> electrical component was fried. The insulation on every wire was burned
.
> I did not know an alternator was capable of that sort of damage. I do kn
ow
> a crowbar would have Prevented it though. Like I said, if I had not
> personally seen the damage I would not have believed how bad it was. Eve
ry
> wire and electrical component in the airplane had to be replaced. It is
> possible that not all alternators are capable of that sort of failure
> mode. But it sure opened my eyes and I would not want to have been on
> board when it occurred. Jim Kale, Enterprise, AL
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> > On Jul 11, 2018, at 10:45 AM, Charlie England
> wrote:
> >
> ceengland7(at)gmail.com>
> >
> >> On 7/11/2018 6:42 AM, bobnoffs wrote:
> >>
> >> hi all,
> >> in the past a crowbar would stop the current from an overvoltage
> source quick enough to prevent avionics damage.
> >> is that really needed any more?
> >> i have a honda [viking] engine with auto accessories. i don't hear of
> cars blowing out their glass dashboards.
> >> when i asked b and c about a 'crowbar' they said theirs was only
> recommended for a permanent magnet alternator.
> >> what are others doing with auto alternators?
> >> thanks
> >> bob noffs
> >>
> > I think their answer was framed in the assumption that you're using onl
y
> their products. The B&C regulators for conventional alternators have
> overvoltage protection built into them.
> >
> > I've read 'rumors on the interwebs' that the latest auto tech often
> builds voltage regulation into the vehicle's system computer, that contro
ls
> virtually everything else in the vehicle, too. Not a big deal to build in
> overvoltage protection too, in that environment. It's unlikely that the
> Viking is using the stock auto controller (pray that it doesn't; too many
> 'protections' in auto controllers that can kill you in an a/c).
> >
> > I've run my dirt-simple RV-4 without OV protection for a long time, but
> with expensive avionics in the -7 I'm building, I *will* have OV protecti
on.
> >
> > Charlie
> >
> > ---
> > This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
> > https://www.avast.com/antivirus
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
===========
===========
===========
===========
===========
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
At 05:45 AM 7/12/2018, you wrote:
>well, i guess i should wire in a crowbar. seems like it should be
>pretty straight forward to have it break the circuit to the field. i
>will take a look in bob's book for ideas and go from there.
The crowbar ov protection module can be added to
any system wherein alternator field power is
taken through a typical 5A breaker. The
module is wired from field supply line to
ground at any point downstream of that
breaker. You can find examples in the Z-figures.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Making your own fuseable links |
At 04:58 AM 7/12/2018, you wrote:
>
>
>Hi Bob
>
>Your answer relates to the Z11 wiring we are using: specifically the
>Endurance Bus feed, the diagram shows a live feed to a Fuse Block
>(Main Battery Bus), then a 7 amp fuse to the Endurance Buss switch,
>then to to Endurance Bus.
>
>We are doing without the the main Battery Bus as not required, now
>this leaves us without the 7 amp protection, so I was going to put a
>'fusible link' at the Battery Contactor - incidently we are using
>14AWG (because we have it, we do not have any 16AWG).
>
>I need to make up a 18AWG fusible Link
I'd just move the 30A in-line alternate feed
fuseholder over to the battery, eliminate
the battery bus, mount the alternate feed
relay adjacent to the battery contactor.
Use the in-line fuseholder to 'jumper'
between the alternate feed relay and
battery contactor.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Z-* Question |
| From: | "jonlaury" <jonlaury(at)impulse.net> |
BMC_Dave wrote:
> It almost feels like I'm being intentionally gaslit, I'll try again. ... (snip)
For the etymologically curious:
"The original (meaning) stems from 1938 stage play Gas Light and the dimming of
the gas lights in the house that happened when the husband was using the gas
lights in the flat above while searching for the jewels belonging to a woman whom
he had murdered. The wife correctly notices the dimming lights and discusses
it with her husband, but he insists that she merely imagined a change in the
level of illumination."
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=481608#481608
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Mike Nellis <mike(at)bmnellis.com> |
| Subject: | Non Aviation electrical conponent question |
I'm working on a commercial microwave oven in one of my restaurants. One
of the fuses blows when the start button is depressed. There are 2
magnetron tubes, one fan and 2 capacitors and 2 diodes.
I still have more troubleshooting to do but i was curious if someone could
tell me the purpose of the diodes in the picture. Both diodes are checking
bad on my Greenlee Meter (model DM-60).
https://photos.app.goo.gl/JKPdZ5u1VStbfrdk8
On Thu, Jul 12, 2018, 10:34 jonlaury wrote:
>
>
> BMC_Dave wrote:
> > It almost feels like I'm being intentionally gaslit, I'll try again. ...
> (snip)
>
>
> For the etymologically curious:
>
> "The original (meaning) stems from 1938 stage play Gas Light and the
> dimming of the gas lights in the house that happened when the husband was
> using the gas lights in the flat above while searching for the jewels
> belonging to a woman whom he had murdered. The wife correctly notices the
> dimming lights and discusses it with her husband, but he insists that she
> merely imagined a change in the level of illumination."
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=481608#481608
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Making your own fuseable links |
| From: | "JOHN TIPTON" <jmtipton(at)btopenworld.com> |
Hi Bob
It's obvious that I do not have the latest version of Z11 (mine being rev:M) as
the drawing does not include any '30A in-line alternate feed
fuseholder' or the 'alternate feed relay' which you mention.
What 'revision' are we on now and can you give me a link please
Regards: John
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=481610#481610
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Charles Plumery <barber_seville(at)msn.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Z-* Question |
Charles Boyer and ?
Sent from my iPad
> On Jul 12, 2018, at 11:39 AM, jonlaury wrote:
>
>
>
> BMC_Dave wrote:
>> It almost feels like I'm being intentionally gaslit, I'll try again. ... (snip)
>
>
> For the etymologically curious:
>
> "The original (meaning) stems from 1938 stage play Gas Light and the dimming
of the gas lights in the house that happened when the husband was using the gas
lights in the flat above while searching for the jewels belonging to a woman
whom he had murdered. The wife correctly notices the dimming lights and discusses
it with her husband, but he insists that she merely imagined a change in
the level of illumination."
>
>
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> https://nam02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fforums.matronics.com%2Fviewtopic.php%3Fp%3D481608%23481608&data=02%7C01%7C%7Cc8f107a61dfc4cacec1608d5e80db1de%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C636670067865728097&sdata=g3E%2BbEL8ywC8tvRTOM1NaSlCrQ3qahsT0hWFxabZ260%3D&reserved=0
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Non Aviation electrical conponent question |
| From: | "user9253" <fransew(at)gmail.com> |
I did a google search for "microwave diode purpose" without quotes. The diode
(rectifier) and the capacitor function together to effectively double the already-high
voltage. This is called a voltage-doubler circuit.
The google search results have links to testing diodes.
Since your microwave has two identical circuits, you could switch parts between
the two circuits to determine which is bad.
--------
Joe Gores
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=481613#481613
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Non Aviation electrical conponent question |
| From: | "user9253" <fransew(at)gmail.com> |
This Youtube video says that microwave high voltage diodes can not be checked the
normal way. The video shows how to do it using a 9 volt battery and meter.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?vlrKf2PdVA
--------
Joe Gores
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=481614#481614
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Making your own fuseable links |
| From: | "user9253" <fransew(at)gmail.com> |
Here is a link to Bob's electrical drawings.
http://www.aeroelectric.com/PPS/Adobe_Architecture_Pdfs/
--------
Joe Gores
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=481615#481615
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Mike Nellis <mike(at)bmnellis.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Non Aviation electrical conponent question |
Thank you Joe, that was helpful. Both diodes tested vood so ill keep on
checking on why one of the 15a fuses to one of the HV power aupplies keeps
blowing.
Mike
On Thu, Jul 12, 2018, 14:08 user9253 wrote:
>
> This Youtube video says that microwave high voltage diodes can not be
> checked the normal way. The video shows how to do it using a 9 volt
> battery and meter.
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?vlrKf2PdVA
>
> --------
> Joe Gores
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=481614#481614
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Z-* Question |
| From: | "jonlaury" <jonlaury(at)impulse.net> |
barber_seville(at)msn.com wrote:
> Charles Boyer and ?
>
>
Ingrid Bergman
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=481626#481626
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Making your own fuseable links |
| From: | "JOHN TIPTON" <jmtipton(at)btopenworld.com> |
Hi Bob
I can see where we are now with Z11 rev: P (thank you user9253-Joe Gores for the
link), I'm sticking with Rev: M (no 30 amp in-line fuse or or E-Bus alternate
feed relay) - so it's a fusible link off the live side of the Battery contactor
Regards: John
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=481630#481630
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Making your own fuseable links |
At 07:19 AM 7/13/2018, you wrote:
>
>
>Hi Bob
>
>I can see where we are now with Z11 rev: P (thank you user9253-Joe
>Gores for the link), I'm sticking with Rev: M (no 30 amp in-line
>fuse or or E-Bus alternate feed relay) - so it's a fusible link off
>the live side of the Battery contactor
>
>Regards: John
>
>
Wouldn't do that myself but as you wish . . .
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Making your own fuseable links |
>
> Wouldn't do that myself but as you wish . . .
Got a private email seeking clarification of what
was correctly perceived as a terse reply. My
apologies.
Recall that the legacy 'rule of thumb' for always
hot feeders in TC aircraft suggested they
be protected at not more than 5A. This HAD to
be a rule of thumb . . . cause the 5A figure
was a constant whether we were talking about
28 vs. 14v and breakers vs. fuses.
I've asked if analysis was offered for mitigating
potential energy dissipation that drove
the 5A figure . . . nobody I knew was aware of
any such study.
Nonetheless, FMEA deliberations confirmed the
notion that such wires SHOULD be of some limited
ability to conduct post-crash energy.
So for the Z-figures, we adopted 7A in fuses
and 5A in breakers in 14v systems.
The 7A fuse seemed to give good coverage for
most boost pumps and electronic ignition systems
of the time. A little later on, the Endurance
Bus came along. At that time, it was possible
to craft an endurance load that did not exceed
the 7A-rule for always hot feeders.
At some later time, Z-13/8 came along which offered
an opportunity to support e-bus/battery bus loads
up to and including 10A. We also had builders
wanting to support e-bus loads in excess of 10A.
At this time, the e-bus alternate feed relay was
added to become a mini-battery contactor that supported
only e-bus loads. At that time, protection of that
feed path was boosted to 15A . . . and COULD be
larger still.
This because crash safety for the feed path
changed from ALWAYS HOT protected at 7A to
CREW CONTROLLED with no practical limit.
Emacs!
If one does not require a battery bus
but with 'larger' e-bus loads, then the alternate
feed relay is still recommended. The relay
is mounted close to the battery contactor
hence a short jumper between the two devices.
That jumper is easily fabricated with an
in-line fuse holder. the in-line fuse is MANY
times faster than a fusible link.
As we've discussed quite a few times over the
years, fusible links behave more like current
limiters . . . very slow compared to fuses.
They are not recommended for in situations
other than those illustrated in the Z-figures.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | SOLID STATE RELAY |
| From: | "user9253" <fransew(at)gmail.com> |
My RV-12 has removable wings. There are limit switches on the 2 pins that lock
the wings in place.
Originally the limit switches were wired to a form C relay. If the relay was energized,
the start circuit was enabled.
If the relay was not energized, the start circuit was disabled and the normally
closed relay contacts turned on a LED warning light.
Not satisfied with leaving well enough alone, I replaced the relay with MOSFET
transistors. Below is a picture of the circuit.
--------
Joe Gores
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=481643#481643
Attachments:
http://forums.matronics.com//files/solid_state_relay_210.jpg
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: SOLID STATE RELAY |
| From: | "user9253" <fransew(at)gmail.com> |
After posting the schematic, I realized that the 2K2 resistor on the right side
is not needed.
--------
Joe Gores
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=481644#481644
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: B&C switches |
| From: | "blues750" <den_beaulieu(at)yahoo.com> |
blues750 wrote:
> --------
>
Agreed . . .
Here's the real one https://goo.gl/qf9ihL (https://goo.gl/qf9ihL)
[/quote]
Getting ready to do the wiring this week with the above items and diagram. Slight
fly in my ointment here, hence I'm looking for some guidance. I need to pick
up power for the MANL30. Drawing has power source coming from Battery Contactor.
I do not have such!! I am using the EFII Bus Manager which runs the
Alt and batteries through two switched relays for powering my busses. The primary
bus relay is rated up to 40A and the endurance bus relay for 30A. Thinking
I need to tap into the power off the primary bus. Any agreement or disagreement
regarding this? Attached is a pic of the power distribution from the Bus
Manager.
Thanks for any insight Dave
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=481649#481649
Attachments:
http://forums.matronics.com//files/pwr_distribution_131.jpg
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: B&C switches |
| From: | "user9253" <fransew(at)gmail.com> |
In case of smoke in the cockpit or imminent forced landing, the pilot should be
able to shut off all power as close to the source (batteries) as possible.
--------
Joe Gores
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=481650#481650
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: B&C switches |
At 02:14 PM 7/15/2018, you wrote:
>
>
>blues750 wrote:
> > --------
> >
>
> Agreed . . .
>
> Here's the real one https://goo.gl/qf9ihL (https://goo.gl/qf9ihL)
>
> [/quote]
>
>Getting ready to do the wiring this week with the above items and
>diagram. Slight fly in my ointment here, hence I'm looking for some
>guidance. I need to pick up power for the MANL30. Drawing has
>power source coming from Battery Contactor. I do not have such!! I
>am using the EFII Bus Manager which runs the Alt and batteries
>through two switched relays for powering my busses. The primary bus
>relay is rated up to 40A and the endurance bus relay for
>30A. Thinking I need to tap into the power off the primary
>bus. Any agreement or disagreement regarding this? Attached is a
>pic of the power distribution from the Bus Manager.
> Thanks for any insight Dave
Dug up this drawing on the FFII bus manager
Emacs!
I'm mystified as to the rational for this architecture.
It has always hot b-leads to both alternators. With
this configuration, you could drive the MANL pump
limiter to the main bus . . . but I'm not sure the
relay inside the EFII is well suited to the
task. Alternatively, you could tie it to BATTERY(+)
and leave it hot all the time too.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Question for Bob |
| From: | "Rocketman1988" <Rocketman(at)etczone.com> |
Bob
I am using the Z-14 for a template.
I have looked at the sketch of the aft mounted batteries, as I am building an RV-10
with an electrically dependent engine.
I would like to have the Main and Aux Battery busses located forward instead of
aft. My thought would be to run two large cables from the aft batteries to the
forward busses, and small, short wires to the loads. The sketch you made would
require many long small wires and two short large wires. As an aside, the
c/b s would then be located aft, as well.
My question is, would running two large cables forward be viable?
If so, what AWG wire would you recommend? #8, #6, #4 ? The loads should not exceed
25 -30 A.
Thanks.
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=481658#481658
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Question for Bob |
| From: | Bill Watson <Mauledriver(at)nc.rr.com> |
I think you'll find most other Z-14 10's configured the way you are
describing. Mine certainly is.
On 7/16/2018 11:45 AM, Rocketman1988 wrote:
>
> Bob
>
> I am using the Z-14 for a template.
>
> I have looked at the sketch of the aft mounted batteries, as I am building an
RV-10 with an electrically dependent engine.
>
> I would like to have the Main and Aux Battery busses located forward instead
of aft. My thought would be to run two large cables from the aft batteries to
the forward busses, and small, short wires to the loads. The sketch you made
would require many long small wires and two short large wires. As an aside,
the c/b s would then be located aft, as well.
>
> My question is, would running two large cables forward be viable?
>
> If so, what AWG wire would you recommend? #8, #6, #4 ? The loads should not
exceed 25 -30 A.
>
> Thanks.
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=481658#481658
>
>
---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Question for Bob |
| From: | "Rocketman1988" <Rocketman(at)etczone.com> |
So what size wire did you run from the aft battery to the forward buss?
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=481660#481660
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Question for Bob |
Bob
I am using the Z-14 for a template. I have looked at the sketch of the
aft mounted batteries, as I am building an RV-10 with an electrically
dependent engine.
I would like to have the Main and Aux Battery busses located forward instead
of aft. My thought would be to run two large cables from the aft batteries
to the forward busses, and small, short wires to the loads.
A 'battery bus' is an always hot structure mounted
close to a battery that drives feeders protected
by (1) crash-friendly fuses (7A) or breakers (5A)
-OR- (2) crew-controlled feeders with added relays/
contactors when 5-7A robustness is insufficient.
Once separated from the battery, it's some other
kind of bus . . . you pick the name. Legacy design
philosophy calls for a mini-contactor or relay to manage
the feeder to that bus. This drives reliability
of that bus down when the contactor is added.
Not recommended for powering accessories that
benefit by getting power from a REAL battery bus.
The sketch you made would require many long small wires
and two short large wires.
How many is 'many'? What are the anticipated feeders?
What do they power and what are their protection levels?
As an aside, the c/b s would then be located aft, as well.
Yup, that's how battery busses are . . . on every airplane
I've worked with . . .
My question is, would running two large cables forward be viable?
If so, what AWG wire would you recommend? #8, #6, #4 ? The loads
should not exceed 25 -30 A.
This is a departure from legacy design philosophies
which begs validation with new FMEAs . . . the results
of which may not be attractive.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Question for Bob |
| From: | "Rocketman1988" <Rocketman(at)etczone.com> |
Bob
Thanks for the insight.
I am using electronic fuel injection and ignition. So the coil packs, a fuel pump
p, and an ECU need to be on a buss powered by both batteries...and the c/b
s need to be accessible, i.e. not aft of the baggage compartment.
It appears that I will need to accept the two additional contactors to feed the
forward busses, as the required power will exceed 10 amps...
Would you recommend a continuous duty contactor or a relay between the battery
and the load?
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=481667#481667
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Question for Bob |
At 03:14 PM 7/16/2018, you wrote:
>
>
>Bob
>
>Thanks for the insight.
>
>I am using electronic fuel injection and ignition. So the coil
>packs, a fuel pump p, and an ECU need to be on a buss powered by
>both batteries...and the c/b s need to be accessible, i.e. not aft
>of the baggage compartment.
>
>It appears that I will need to accept the two additional
>contactors to feed the forward busses, as the required power will
>exceed 10 amps...
>
>Would you recommend a continuous duty contactor or a relay between
>the battery and the load?
>
>
Can you post a sketch of the proposed constellation
of feeders?
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Question for Bob |
| From: | "Rocketman1988" <Rocketman(at)etczone.com> |
Bob
This is just a simple drawing with reference to the Z-14.
The feeders to the "hot" busses are the ones in question. In the RV-10, the 3
contactors are located in the aft fuselage, while I would like the busses to be
located forward, with c/b s accessible from the control seat.
Those two wires would each be around 10 feet long...
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=481674#481674
Attachments:
http://forums.matronics.com//files/rv_10_electrical_v10_182.jpg
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Charlie England <ceengland7(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Question for Bob |
Just a heads-up, your diode symbols are for zener diodes. I doubt that's
what you intend to use, and it could confuse an avionics tech in the future.
On Mon, Jul 16, 2018 at 5:21 PM, Rocketman1988
wrote:
> Rocketman(at)etczone.com>
>
> Bob
>
> This is just a simple drawing with reference to the Z-14.
>
> The feeders to the "hot" busses are the ones in question. In the RV-10,
> the 3 contactors are located in the aft fuselage, while I would like the
> busses to be located forward, with c/b s accessible from the control seat.
>
> Those two wires would each be around 10 feet long...
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=481674#481674
>
>
> Attachments:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com//files/rv_10_electrical_v10_182.jpg
>
>
Virus-free.
www.avast.com
<#DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Question for Bob |
| From: | Kelly McMullen <kellym(at)aviating.com> |
As the builder of a -10, with good old 1960 mags and electrical layout,
I can tell you that you really don't want more battery behind the
baggage compartment than necessary. You either have a PITA panel to
remove, or you have to modify the panel to make an access door...and
most information indicates that panel is structural, so you have to use
some care in modifying it. If you have a battery of suitable weight in
the rear to match the original plans, then you could put something light
weight like an EarthX up on the firewall. It would save you a lot of
heavy duty cabling.
On 7/16/2018 3:21 PM, Rocketman1988 wrote:
>
> Bob
>
> This is just a simple drawing with reference to the Z-14.
>
> The feeders to the "hot" busses are the ones in question. In the RV-10, the
3 contactors are located in the aft fuselage, while I would like the busses to
be located forward, with c/b s accessible from the control seat.
>
> Those two wires would each be around 10 feet long...
>
>
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=481674#481674
>
>
>
>
> Attachments:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com//files/rv_10_electrical_v10_182.jpg
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Question for Bob |
| From: | "Rocketman1988" <Rocketman(at)etczone.com> |
Sorry about the Zener symbol. The diagram was just sketched out give me something
to look at...I never intended on posting it but I did so, as Bob asked...
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=481678#481678
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: B&C switches |
| From: | "blues750" <den_beaulieu(at)yahoo.com> |
Thanks Bob, I get nervous when you get "mystified"... my setup is a dual battery,
with single PMA alternator The alternator runs thru a 40A ANL then to a
common terminal with Batt #1 to the Main bus relay, and the #2 battery runs to
the Essential (endurance) bus relay. The EarthX batteries have onboard battery
management (BMS) for battery "issues", and I have the B&C OVP module for the
alternator, along with cockpit disconnect switch. I went with the EFII Bus
Manager as a way to help with my system wiring during my design phase. Pros and
Cons are always ready to be heard by me...only way I can consider improvements
for the next time or as needed. I did go ahead and start wiring for the hydraulic
pump with items from the "care" package you sent. Decided to tap power
directly from the #1 battery, thru the MANL to the relays which are all located
on the engine firewall forward. About a 8" run from the positive terminal
to the MANL, and 6" run to the relays, and plenty of convenient grounding tabs!
I've attached a pic for comments. Thanks for everyone's interest and insight...very
much appreciated! Dave
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=481680#481680
Attachments:
http://forums.matronics.com//files/manl_and_relays_180.jpg
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Question for Bob |
| From: | "user9253" <fransew(at)gmail.com> |
The alternator fuses should be physically located at the other end of the "B" leads
near the battery contactors. The fuses protect the batteries. The alternator
is self current limiting.
--------
Joe Gores
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=481681#481681
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Question for Bob |
At 05:21 PM 7/16/2018, you wrote:
>
>
>Bob
>
>This is just a simple drawing with reference to the Z-14.
>
>The feeders to the "hot" busses are the ones in question. In the
>RV-10, the 3 contactors are located in the aft fuselage, while I
>would like the busses to be located forward, with c/b s accessible
>from the control seat.
>
>Those two wires would each be around 10 feet long...
No, I need to see a schematic of your bus
structure and a description of what wires
take power from each bus to its respective
load.
This is the information necessary to do FMEA.
Words may occasionally suffice but a schematic
is the universal language that offers clarity
above all words.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Question for Bob |
>Date: Mon, 16 Jul 2018 20:59:53 -0500
>To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
>From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com>
>Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: Question for Bob
>
>At 05:21 PM 7/16/2018, you wrote:
>>
>>
>>Bob
>>
>>This is just a simple drawing with reference to the Z-14.
Okay, I'm getting your thread confused with the
project using the EFII 'bus controller' . . . let
me back up.
>>The feeders to the "hot" busses are the ones in question. In the
>>RV-10, the 3 contactors are located in the aft fuselage, while I
>>would like the busses to be located forward, with c/b s accessible
>>from the control seat.
>>
>>Those two wires would each be around 10 feet long...
Yes, so now we need to consider the effects of
a failure of one of those relays.
Normally, we would like to have redundant systems
that do not depend on both used-to-be-a-battery
bus powered up.
A battery bus is generally the most reliable source
in the airplane . . . nothing between it and the battery.
Now we've got a piece of hardware there that capable
of killing the whole bus. The consequences of that
are best deduced before first flight . . . not after.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Jared Yates <email(at)jaredyates.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Alternator Noise When Touching Metal Airframe Grounds |
I got to spend more time today on the audio problem. I replaced the
alternator, because I had a spare hanging around, and because it seemed
like the old one wasn't working as well.
Before the swap, at idle RPM I would see something like 25 amps as it
recharged the battery. Now I'm seeing 45 at the same RPM. Once the battery
was topped up after the cranking and the alternator was back into its 10A
range, the noise is gone. So it seems that I was only getting the noise
when the alternator was working hard, but because the old alternator was
always working hard, I was always getting the noise.
I'd still love to figure out how to fix the audio system so that it would
not be victimized, but at least for now it seems like the antagonist is
fixed.
On Tue, Jul 3, 2018 at 2:03 PM, Jared Yates wrote:
> I've confirmed that the noise is present regardless of whether the ANR is
> on or off. I have not yet been able to round up a plain headset to try. My
> troubleshooting is a little slow at the moment because I'm only getting to
> the airplane once a week. If there is a floating ground somewhere in the
> audio system, are there any hints about where I might try looking for it?
>
> I have another alternator to try, and hope to have time to do that on
> Friday.
>
> On Tue, Jun 19, 2018 at 2:27 PM, Roger wrote:
>
>> Is the noise still present when the ANR is turned off?
>>
>>
>>
>> Roger
>>
>>
>>
>> At 09:36 AM 6/19/2018, you wrote:
>>
>> Good suggestion, thanks. So far all 4 lemo sets are the same. I have a
>> dual plug version of the same bose to try, and can do that and report back
>>
>>
>> Hmmmm . . . not sure I've got an accurate image
>> of the differences between 'lemo' and 'dual plug'.
>> Does this described the connectors at the end
>> of the headset cord . . . single mulit-pin as opposed
>> to "Y" plugs?
>>
>> To be significant, the test headset needs to
>> be a generic, non-electronic . . . but go
>> ahead and try the dual-plug Bose X too.
>>
>>
>>
>> Bob . . .
>>
>>
>>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: B&C switches |
At 08:54 PM 7/16/2018, you wrote:
>
>Thanks Bob, I get nervous when you get "mystified"... my setup is
>a dual battery, with single PMA alternator The alternator runs thru
>a 40A ANL then to a common terminal with Batt #1 to the Main bus
>relay, and the #2 battery runs to the Essential (endurance) bus
>relay. The EarthX batteries have onboard battery management (BMS)
>for battery "issues", and I have the B&C OVP module for the
>alternator, along with cockpit disconnect switch. I went with the
>EFII Bus Manager as a way to help with my system wiring during my
>design phase. Pros and Cons are always ready to be heard by
>me...only way I can consider improvements for the next time or as
>needed. I did go ahead and start wiring for the hydraulic pump with
>items from the "care" package you sent. Decided to tap power
>directly from the #1 battery, thru the MANL to the relays which are
>all located on the engine firewall forward. About a 8" run from the
>positive terminal to the MANL, and 6" run to the relays, and plenty
>of convenient grounding tabs! I've attached a pic for
>comments. Thanks for everyone's interest and insight...very much
>appreciated! Dave
I understand . . . and no doubt the EFII
gizmo performs as advertised. But you've already
experienced a design conundrum with where to tie
your hydraulic pump feeder to the system.
Products like the ECII, EXP-Bus, etc all perform
as advertised in the designer's airplane and
probably most of his/her customers. But the problem
you're wrestling wasn't conceived by the designer
of the whiz-bang-box . . . further, the design
chooses to march to the beat of a different drum
when it comes to FMEA and legacy design goals
for aircraft.
This is why there are so many variations on a
theme in the z-figures. For TC single engine aircraft,
the wirebook for a C150 wasn't materially different
than for a C210. Even today, that line of aircraft
use a lot of common hardware. Cessna has their own
whiz-bang box
Emacs!
Even includes the ground power connector!
The difference between this whiz-bang-box and
the EFII is that the box was designed to condense
about 80 years of lessons learned into a labor
saving product that didn't introduce new risks
or radically modify normal and abnormal operating
instructions.
One would hope that producers of EXB-Bus, EFII
et. als. had some philosophy founded in good
FMEA outcomes while maximizing flexibility of
application for the greatest number of builders.
Sadly, I'm seeing little, if any, consideration
for such matters in these products.
This is why I am reluctant to suggest work-arounds
for problem like yours. Offering a personal band-aid
on a poorly designed accessory might easily be
mis-interpreted as some kind of agreement with
the design of the product. Suffice it to say that
there are good reasons why I would not be able to
qualify those products onto a TC aircraft under
the rules in place when I was last involved in
such things.
Having said all that, I'll suggest you locate your
MANL as close as practical to the EFII battery(+)
terminal and tie it in there. This will FUNCTION
but it's a really scuzzy band-aid.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: B&C switches |
| From: | "user9253" <fransew(at)gmail.com> |
Nothing lasts forever, including the newfangled electronic bus managers. When
something goes wrong, the whole box must be sent back to the manufacturer for
repair, if they are still in business. Compare that to conventional wiring when
a fuse blows. Yes, electrical knowledge is required to figure out why the
fuse blew. But the aircraft is still flyable without that one circuit, which
any mechanic can troubleshoot. Fuses are just as easy to install as the electronic
box and cost a whole lot less.
Being able to view the current draw of each circuit on the EFIS screen is a nice
feature. But wouldn't it be better to be looking out the windows and to do
troubleshooting when on the ground?
--------
Joe Gores
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=481691#481691
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Fwd: Re: Question for Bob |
| From: | "Rocketman1988" <Rocketman(at)etczone.com> |
Very true.
You posted a reply in another thread that stated battery contactor failures in
flight are exceedingly rare. Hypothetically, you could put a battery contactor
in the feed line to a forward buss. This contactor would be checked prior to
every flight, as the engine could not be started if there was a failure, and the
ability to isolate the battery is retained. Given that there would be two separate
feeders to that buss, the likelihood of both contactors failing simultaneously
would be quite small, leaving the buss powered in the event of a single
failure.
Thoughts?
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=481699#481699
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Fwd: Re: Question for Bob |
| From: | John Tipton <jmtipton(at)btopenworld.com> |
It's a pity that this topic didn't have a proper Thread/Subject line, for future
reference
John
Sent from my iPad
----x--O--x----
> On 17 Jul 2018, at 4:17 pm, Rocketman1988 wrote:
>
>
> Very true.
>
> You posted a reply in another thread that stated battery contactor failures in
flight are exceedingly rare. Hypothetically, you could put a battery contactor
in the feed line to a forward buss. This contactor would be checked prior to
every flight, as the engine could not be started if there was a failure, and
the ability to isolate the battery is retained. Given that there would be two
separate feeders to that buss, the likelihood of both contactors failing simultaneously
would be quite small, leaving the buss powered in the event of a single
failure.
>
> Thoughts?
>
>
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=481699#481699
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Ken Ryan <keninalaska(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: B&C switches |
Bob, I would love to hear actual specifics on precisely what aspects of the
EFII bus manager make it unsafe (or less safe) than your legacy drawings,
and more importantly, how the legacy drawings overcome the deficits of the
Bus Manager. Ken Ryan
On Mon, Jul 16, 2018 at 7:13 PM Robert L. Nuckolls, III <
nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> wrote:
> At 08:54 PM 7/16/2018, you wrote:
>
> den_beaulieu(at)yahoo.com>
>
> Thanks Bob, I get nervous when you get "mystified"... my setup is a dual
> battery, with single PMA alternator The alternator runs thru a 40A ANL
> then to a common terminal with Batt #1 to the Main bus relay, and the #2
> battery runs to the Essential (endurance) bus relay. The EarthX batteries
> have onboard battery management (BMS) for battery "issues", and I have the
> B&C OVP module for the alternator, along with cockpit disconnect switch. I
> went with the EFII Bus Manager as a way to help with my system wiring
> during my design phase. Pros and Cons are always ready to be heard by
> me...only way I can consider improvements for the next time or as needed.
> I did go ahead and start wiring for the hydraulic pump with items from the
> "care" package you sent. Decided to tap power directly from the #1
> battery, thru the MANL to the relays which are all located on the engine
> firewall forward. About a 8" run from the positive terminal to the MANL,
> and 6" run to the relays, and plenty of convenient grounding tabs! I've
> attached a pic for comments. Thanks for everyone's interest and
> insight...very much appreciated! Dave
>
>
> I understand . . . and no doubt the EFII
> gizmo performs as advertised. But you've already
> experienced a design conundrum with where to tie
> your hydraulic pump feeder to the system.
>
> Products like the ECII, EXP-Bus, etc all perform
> as advertised in the designer's airplane and
> probably most of his/her customers. But the problem
> you're wrestling wasn't conceived by the designer
> of the whiz-bang-box . . . further, the design
> chooses to march to the beat of a different drum
> when it comes to FMEA and legacy design goals
> for aircraft.
>
> This is why there are so many variations on a
> theme in the z-figures. For TC single engine aircraft,
> the wirebook for a C150 wasn't materially different
> than for a C210. Even today, that line of aircraft
> use a lot of common hardware. Cessna has their own
> whiz-bang box
>
> [image: Emacs!]
>
> Even includes the ground power connector!
>
> The difference between this whiz-bang-box and
> the EFII is that the box was designed to condense
> about 80 years of lessons learned into a labor
> saving product that didn't introduce new risks
> or radically modify normal and abnormal operating
> instructions.
>
> One would hope that producers of EXB-Bus, EFII
> et. als. had some philosophy founded in good
> FMEA outcomes while maximizing flexibility of
> application for the greatest number of builders.
> Sadly, I'm seeing little, if any, consideration
> for such matters in these products.
>
> This is why I am reluctant to suggest work-arounds
> for problem like yours. Offering a personal band-aid
> on a poorly designed accessory might easily be
> mis-interpreted as some kind of agreement with
> the design of the product. Suffice it to say that
> there are good reasons why I would not be able to
> qualify those products onto a TC aircraft under
> the rules in place when I was last involved in
> such things.
>
> Having said all that, I'll suggest you locate your
> MANL as close as practical to the EFII battery(+)
> terminal and tie it in there. This will FUNCTION
> but it's a really scuzzy band-aid.
>
> Bob . . .
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Ken Ryan <keninalaska(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: B&C switches |
Good point Joe, regarding future maintenance considerations. But that is
not a safety issue. Bob said that the Bus Manager is poorly designed in
that it appears to him that a proper FEMA analysis was not conducted. I'm
not arguing the point, but I do think such a statement should be
accompanied by the specifics that back up the opinion. (Much the same as if
someone declared Bob's OV module is poorly designed without providing any
specifics.) Incidentally, the "newfangled" OV module suffers a similar
problem of very limited availability.
On Tue, Jul 17, 2018 at 4:31 AM user9253 wrote:
>
> Nothing lasts forever, including the newfangled electronic bus managers.
> When something goes wrong, the whole box must be sent back to the
> manufacturer for repair, if they are still in business. Compare that to
> conventional wiring when a fuse blows. Yes, electrical knowledge is
> required to figure out why the fuse blew. But the aircraft is still
> flyable without that one circuit, which any mechanic can troubleshoot.
> Fuses are just as easy to install as the electronic box and cost a whole
> lot less.
> Being able to view the current draw of each circuit on the EFIS screen
> is a nice feature. But wouldn't it be better to be looking out the windows
> and to do troubleshooting when on the ground?
>
> --------
> Joe Gores
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=481691#481691
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Fwd: Re: Question for Bob |
| From: | "user9253" <fransew(at)gmail.com> |
Rocketman1988,
Your reasoning is valid. The chances of two contactors failing on a single flight
are infinitesimal. Infinitesimal is defined as the the amount an aircraft
carrier sinks in the water when a fly lands on its deck.
--------
Joe Gores
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=481703#481703
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: B&C switches |
At 07:26 AM 7/17/2018, you wrote:
>
>Nothing lasts forever, including the newfangled electronic bus
>managers. When something goes wrong, the whole box must be sent
>back to the manufacturer for repair, if they are still in
>business. Compare that to conventional wiring when a fuse
>blows. Yes, electrical knowledge is required to figure out why the
>fuse blew. But the aircraft is still flyable without that one
>circuit, which any mechanic can troubleshoot. Fuses are just as
>easy to install as the electronic box and cost a whole lot less.
> Being able to view the current draw of each circuit on the EFIS
> screen is a nice feature. But wouldn't it be better to be looking
> out the windows and to do troubleshooting when on the ground?
A good question. A friend of mine was offered a 'heck of
a deal" on a new hay baler. $thousands$ in discounts.
Emacs!
The dealer even brought it out and hooked it up to his
tractor some 55 miles from his dealership. I was astounded
at the complexity of this machine compared with the
20 year old JD bailer that was supposed to get retired.
This new machine had cables, sensors, actuators, electronic
control box and a long bundle of wires that routed up to
the cab of the tractor to communicate with a touch-screen
control panel.
The following day (with the dealer having gone home)
several hours were expended trying to figure out how
to get this marvel of agricultural technology to wake
up. It even got the attention of neighboring farmers
who had identical machines. Two days later, the dealer
was back and discovered that a particular but critical
cable assembly was not installed. After fixing that
error, the machine lit up, sang Dixie and said, "Lets
go roll up that hay."
The following week, my friend was loading a new
roll of netting when a cable assembly got tangled
in some moving part and got ripped out of the connector
and broke something else. Dealer came back and opined
that repairs would only take $3,000 worth of parts
and the 'good' news was that they were in stock in
Wichita . . . they would be in tomorrow.
A couple more days later, the machine was back in the
field spitting out thousand pound bales of feed.
Direct losses for the downtime were pretty impressive
not to mention indirect losses for delays in getting
feed out of the field before it got too dry.
I could not help but wonder if his old baler could
not have been refurbished for a whole lot less money.
Better yet, it uses technology that was well understood,
spare parts only 20 miles way and talents to repair
were in possession of the owner!
The fine art of striving for market success goes
far deeper than getting excited about having incorporated
the latest gee-whiz features. More than once, I've often
stared at the screen on my 'smart phone' wishing
I had more control over what it did well . . . and
being able to dump what I don't need (about 75% of
what's installed).
Someone once opined, "Sometimes the best way to
drive a nail is with a hammer."
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Electronic Bus Manager Versus Fuses & Breakers |
| From: | "user9253" <fransew(at)gmail.com> |
What I do not like to see is an electrically-challenged builder installing a bus
manager because he thinks that doing so will be easier than using fuses or circuit
breakers. I do not think it is any easier. On the other hand, if a builder
is knowledgeable about electronics and wants to have the latest and greatest
gizmos including a bus manager, then fine. To each his own. I prefer fuses
for simplicity and less cost and less weight. And fused circuits are easy
for me to troubleshoot. Sometimes the choice is not a matter of right or wrong,
but rather two or more ways to accomplish the goal, each being acceptable.
--------
Joe Gores
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=481705#481705
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Failure Mode Effects Analysis |
At 11:44 AM 7/17/2018, you wrote:
>Good point Joe, regarding future maintenance considerations. But
>that is not a safety issue. Bob said that the Bus Manager is poorly
>designed in that it appears to him that a proper FEMA analysis was
>not conducted. I'm not arguing the point, but I do think such a
>statement should be accompanied by the specifics that back up the
>opinion. (Much the same as if someone declared Bob's OV module is
>poorly designed without providing any specifics.) Incidentally, the
>"newfangled" OV module suffers a similar problem of very limited availability.
Conducting an FEMA is a process of considering the
consequences of perhaps hundreds of simple failures
with respect to:
1. How are the ways that this particular component
can fail?
2. How would this particular failure manifest in
terms of system performance?
3. Does the failure elevate risk for a comfortable
termination of flight?
4. How would the pilot become aware of that failure?
5. Is the system fitted with a means by which that
failure can be mitigated?
6. Is the failure pre-flight detectable? If not,
should a means for pre-flight testing or in-flight
annunciation be incorporated?
Deducing the answer to these questions for EVERY
part of an airplane allows the competent and
experienced observer to write a report that speaks
to the rational for sprinkling holy-water on
the collection of parts that make up a component
of the overall system. FMEA can and should be
applied to every part of a system whether a nut
and screw or a transistor in the EFCI. To be
sure there are few really critical parts but unless
they are identified and accounted for, the system
is burdened with unnecessary and perhaps catastrophic
risk.
The goal is to achieve a high level of confidence
that the system is failure tolerant. This means
that probable failures are either (1) insignificant
with respect to comfortable termination of flight
or (2) have backup plans that makes the failure
insignificant.
This is the foundation for my assertions that
there should be no reason that OBAM aircraft
should not be fitted with out-of-reach fuse
panels. The ultimate salute to the FAA requirement
for carrying spares for all 'critical' fuses
is to eliminate all critical fuses.
Crew awareness of failures is an important
part of the analysis. I.e. no high risk
failure should be allowed to go
un-noticed . . . ideally, annunciated
in flight or identified during pre-flight.
Beyond the FMEA, there are cost of ownership
issues. Some of which are obvious based on
lessons learned; others that won't manifest
until the marketplace has a chance to conduct
the real-life studies.
My concerns for devices like EFII, EXP-Bus
extend beyond FMEA to also cover cost-of-
ownership and abandonment of legacy design
goals.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Fwd: Re: Question for Bob |
| From: | "Rocketman1988" <Rocketman(at)etczone.com> |
As the OP, I wanted to ask Bob, specifically, a question. The title was meant to
do just that. I do, however, agree with you that there is a good discussion
goin on. Not sure if I can change the title, I will try...
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=481707#481707
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Fwd: Re: Question for Bob |
At 02:07 PM 7/17/2018, you wrote:
>
>
>As the OP, I wanted to ask Bob, specifically, a question. The title
>was meant to do just that. I do, however, agree with you that there
>is a good discussion goin on. Not sure if I can change the title, I will try...
Don't worry about it. "Thread creep" is a very
common phenomenon during such discussions. It's
exacerbated by my own scrambling of responses
when dealing with more than one thread. Thread
titles can be quickly obsoleted.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Cost effective technology |
At 07:26 AM 7/17/2018, you wrote:
>
>Nothing lasts forever, including the newfangled electronic bus
>managers. When something goes wrong, the whole box must be sent
>back to the manufacturer for repair, if they are still in
>business. Compare that to conventional wiring when a fuse
>blows. Yes, electrical knowledge is required to figure out why the
>fuse blew. But the aircraft is still flyable without that one
>circuit, which any mechanic can troubleshoot. Fuses are just as
>easy to install as the electronic box and cost a whole lot less.
> Being able to view the current draw of each circuit on the EFIS
> screen is a nice feature. But wouldn't it be better to be looking
> out the windows and to do troubleshooting when on the ground?
A good question. A friend of mine was offered a 'heck of
a deal" on a new hay baler. $thousands$ in discounts.
Emacs!
The dealer even brought it out and hooked it up to his
tractor some 55 miles from his dealership. I was astounded
at the complexity of this machine compared with the
20 year old JD bailer that was supposed to get retired.
This new machine had cables, sensors, actuators, electronic
control box and a long bundle of wires that routed up to
the cab of the tractor to communicate with a touch-screen
control panel.
The following day (with the dealer having gone home)
several hours were expended trying to figure out how
to get this marvel of agricultural technology to wake
up. It even got the attention of neighboring farmers
who had identical machines. Two days later, the dealer
was back and discovered that a particular but critical
cable assembly was not installed. After fixing that
error, the machine lit up, sang Dixie and said, "Lets
go roll up that hay."
The following week, my friend was loading a new
roll of netting when a cable assembly got tangled
in some moving part and got ripped out of the connector
and broke something else. Dealer came back and opined
that repairs would only take $3,000 worth of parts
and the 'good' news was that they were in stock in
Wichita . . . they would be in tomorrow.
A couple more days later, the machine was back in the
field spitting out thousand pound bales of feed.
Direct losses for the downtime were pretty impressive
not to mention indirect losses for delays in getting
feed out of the field before it got too dry.
I could not help but wonder if his old baler could
not have been refurbished for a whole lot less money.
Better yet, it uses technology that was well understood,
spare parts only 20 miles way and talents to repair
were in possession of the owner!
The fine art of striving for market success goes
far deeper than getting excited about having incorporated
the latest gee-whiz features. More than once, I've often
stared at the screen on my 'smart phone' wishing
I had more control over what it did well . . . and
being able to dump what I don't need (about 75% of
what's installed).
Someone once opined, "Sometimes the best way to
drive a nail is with a hammer."
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: B&C switches |
| From: | Charlie England <ceengland7(at)gmail.com> |
Ken,
There was a long discussion on this list about multiple single points of
failure in the Bus Manager device, and there have been several threads
on the VAF forum discussing multiple single points of failure in the
device. Here's one:
http://www.vansairforce.com/community/showthread.php?t=146753&highlight=bus+manager
Unfortunately, the VAF forum owner considers his profit margin more
important than the service his members supply (for free), so all the
images have disappeared. But you should be able to get some idea from
just the text in that thread. The response of Robert Paisley (face of
Bus Manager's parent company) is that 'there have been no failures so
far, so move along; nothing to see here'.
You can kludge stuff around it to make the total a/c system somewhat
less vulnerable to single failures in the Bus Manager taking down the
whole system, but why pay the big bucks, only to have to do that?
On 7/17/2018 11:44 AM, Ken Ryan wrote:
> Good point Joe, regarding future maintenance considerations. But that
> is not a safety issue. Bob said that the Bus Manager is poorly
> designed in that it appears to him that a proper FEMA analysis was not
> conducted. I'm not arguing the point, but I do think such a statement
> should be accompanied by the specifics that back up the opinion. (Much
> the same as if someone declared Bob's OV module is poorly designed
> without providing any specifics.) Incidentally, the "newfangled" OV
> module suffers a similar problem of very limited availability.
>
> On Tue, Jul 17, 2018 at 4:31 AM user9253 > wrote:
>
> >
>
> Nothing lasts forever, including the newfangled electronic bus
> managers. When something goes wrong, the whole box must be sent
> back to the manufacturer for repair, if they are still in
> business. Compare that to conventional wiring when a fuse blows.
> Yes, electrical knowledge is required to figure out why the fuse
> blew. But the aircraft is still flyable without that one circuit,
> which any mechanic can troubleshoot. Fuses are just as easy to
> install as the electronic box and cost a whole lot less.
> Being able to view the current draw of each circuit on the EFIS
> screen is a nice feature. But wouldn't it be better to be looking
> out the windows and to do troubleshooting when on the ground?
>
> --------
> Joe Gores
>
---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | FLYaDIVE <flyadive(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: B&C switches |
=8BStar Trek's Scotty =8Bsaid it best: The more complicated th
ey make it the
easier it is to destroy. OK, I'm not accurate in the quote, but you get
the idea.
Barry
PS
I'm NOT a Trek-ie!
On Tue, Jul 17, 2018 at 1:39 PM, Robert L. Nuckolls, III <
nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> wrote:
> At 07:26 AM 7/17/2018, you wrote:
>
>
> Nothing lasts forever, including the newfangled electronic bus managers.
> When something goes wrong, the whole box must be sent back to the
> manufacturer for repair, if they are still in business. Compare that to
> conventional wiring when a fuse blows. Yes, electrical knowledge is
> required to figure out why the fuse blew. But the aircraft is still
> flyable without that one circuit, which any mechanic can troubleshoot.
> Fuses are just as easy to install as the electronic box and cost a whole
> lot less.
> Being able to view the current draw of each circuit on the EFIS screen
> is a nice feature. But wouldn't it be better to be looking out the windo
ws
> and to do troubleshooting when on the ground?
>
>
> A good question. A friend of mine was offered a 'heck of
> a deal" on a new hay baler. $thousands$ in discounts.
>
> [image: Emacs!]
>
>
> The dealer even brought it out and hooked it up to his
> tractor some 55 miles from his dealership. I was astounded
> at the complexity of this machine compared with the
> 20 year old JD bailer that was supposed to get retired.
>
> This new machine had cables, sensors, actuators, electronic
> control box and a long bundle of wires that routed up to
> the cab of the tractor to communicate with a touch-screen
> control panel.
>
> The following day (with the dealer having gone home)
> several hours were expended trying to figure out how
> to get this marvel of agricultural technology to wake
> up. It even got the attention of neighboring farmers
> who had identical machines. Two days later, the dealer
> was back and discovered that a particular but critical
> cable assembly was not installed. After fixing that
> error, the machine lit up, sang Dixie and said, "Lets
> go roll up that hay."
>
> The following week, my friend was loading a new
> roll of netting when a cable assembly got tangled
> in some moving part and got ripped out of the connector
> and broke something else. Dealer came back and opined
> that repairs would only take $3,000 worth of parts
> and the 'good' news was that they were in stock in
> Wichita . . . they would be in tomorrow.
>
> A couple more days later, the machine was back in the
> field spitting out thousand pound bales of feed.
> Direct losses for the downtime were pretty impressive
> not to mention indirect losses for delays in getting
> feed out of the field before it got too dry.
>
> I could not help but wonder if his old baler could
> not have been refurbished for a whole lot less money.
> Better yet, it uses technology that was well understood,
> spare parts only 20 miles way and talents to repair
> were in possession of the owner!
>
> The fine art of striving for market success goes
> far deeper than getting excited about having incorporated
> the latest gee-whiz features. More than once, I've often
> stared at the screen on my 'smart phone' wishing
> I had more control over what it did well . . . and
> being able to dump what I don't need (about 75% of
> what's installed).
>
> Someone once opined, "Sometimes the best way to
> drive a nail is with a hammer."
>
> Bob . . .
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Cost effective technology |
| From: | "Rocketman1988" <Rocketman(at)etczone.com> |
Good story and you have a valid point, however, if no one ever tries to build a
better mousetrap, progress would stagnate.
This is an ongoing discussion everywhere, not just these forums. There are those
people who will ALWAYS do things one way because "that's the way its always
been done". Then there are people who will make changes and push the limits
because they think there is a better way.
Sure, the people pushing the limits are bound to have more issues but that is how
progress is made. There are many examples out there, including your hammer
and nail. If progress was stagnant, you would be using a rock to bash that nail
in... :D
If Van hadn't tried to build a better mousetrap, there would only be the Stits
Playboy.
The same can be said for fuel injection versus a carb.
The list goes on and on. Progress is an iterative process, with successes and
failures. Without this process, nothing changes, nothing gets better.
Point is, the people who want to try and make progress happen should not be chastised
for wanting to do so...and neither should the folks who are content with
age old ideas.
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=481726#481726
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Ernest Christley <echristley(at)att.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Cost effective technology |
I work as a software engineer.=C2- Last week, one of the engineers that i
s politically powerfully decided that a project written in C++ needed to be
re-engineered in Python.=C2- His argument was that the existing code had
become "too unwieldy".=C2- The project in question sat between one writt
en in Java and another written in C++.=C2- It was not a part that the cus
tomer would ever reference, or even see, directly.
All I had for said developer was chastisement (with a heavy dose of derisio
n for the managers that allowed for such a knuckleheaded decision....ooops.
sorry, Bob)
The point is, there is change that is progress (faster, cheaper, lighter, s
tronger, etc), and then there is nonsense posing as progress.=C2- Attempt
ing to chase some goal doesn't merit chatisement, but putting a product on
the market and claiming progress with none being demonstrable at least dese
rves to be called out for what it is.
On Wednesday, July 18, 2018 10:54 AM, Rocketman1988 <Rocketman@etczone.
com> wrote:
e.com>
Good story and you have a valid point, however, if no one ever tries to bui
ld a better mousetrap, progress would stagnate.
This is an ongoing discussion everywhere, not just these forums.=C2- Ther
e are those people who will ALWAYS do things one way because "that's the wa
y its always been done".=C2- Then there are people who will make changes
and push the limits because they think there is a better way.=C2-
Sure, the people pushing the limits are bound to have more issues but that
is how progress is made.=C2- There are many examples out there, including
your hammer and nail. If progress was stagnant, you would be using a rock
to bash that nail in... :D
If Van hadn't tried to build a better mousetrap, there would only be the St
its Playboy.
The same can be said for fuel injection versus a carb.
The list goes on and on.=C2- Progress is an iterative process, with succe
sses and failures.=C2- Without this process, nothing changes, nothing get
s better.
Point is, the people who want to try and make progress happen should not be
chastised for wanting to do so...and neither should the folks who are cont
ent with age old ideas.
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=481726#481726
-
S -
WIKI -
-
=C2- =C2- =C2- =C2- =C2- -Matt Dralle, List Admin.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Cost effective technology |
At 09:52 AM 7/18/2018, you wrote:
>
>
>Good story and you have a valid point, however, if no one
>ever tries to build a better mousetrap, progress would stagnate.
>
>This is an ongoing discussion everywhere, not just these forums.
>There are those people who will ALWAYS do things one way because
>"that's the way its always been done". Then there are people who
>will make changes and push the limits because they think there is
>a better way.
No argument there . . . and indeed, OBAM aviation is
a fine platform for advancing the state of the art.
But consider the difference in marketing approach
for the successes like Vans, Lancair, Dynon,
>The same can be said for fuel injection versus a carb.
Absolutely. Worked with a software/hardware guy
in Michigan a few years ago on some actuator programs
for TC aircraft. His 'hobby' was adapting/tailoring throttle
body fuel injection systems to other platforms
than automobiles. He had a good handle on a couple
of designs that were almost literally plug/n/play
on a wide range of engines including aircraft.
Without major mechanical changes to the engine
and very modest electrical requirements, he could
bring the benefits of real time mixture control,
easy starting, dynamic spark advance, adjustment
for OAT, etc. etc. to virtually any of the legacy
engines in aviation.
This was a TARGETED product with a deep history
in lessons-learned on all manner of I/C engines.
In other words, advancements to the state of the
art were readily demonstrable . . . including
csot of ownership. ALL components of the system
were under the watchful eye of internal diagnostics
and were BOLT ON PARTS. A product that Charles
Lindbergh could have bolted to the Spirit of St.
Louis and maintained it with little expense beyond
cost of parts.
Products like EXP-Bus are NOT user friendly for
either diagnostics or maintenance. The Bus Manager
offers some attractive marketing hype . . . 'fixes'
things that are not a problem while creating new
problems with FMEA.
>The list goes on and on. Progress is an iterative process, with
>successes and failures. Without this process, nothing changes,
>nothing gets better.
>
>Point is, the people who want to try and make progress happen should
>not be chastised for wanting to do so...and neither should the folks
>who are content with age old ideas.
You bet . . . but with caveats. Don't
bring it to market before it's cost/benefits
ratios are well understood. Don't introduce
new problems in a quest to mitigate old
problems. Don't INVENT new problems by claiming
to take care of 'emergencies' that are more
figment of the un-edcucated imagination than
real . . . especially when those conditions
were already mitigated down to 'non emergencies'
with legacy design goals.
When I designed something for an airplane in
Wichita, I had to present my ideas and solutions
to a panel of peers . . . usually several times . . .
and then test the crap out of it in the lab before
seeking blessings from test pilots. Then I had
to sell it to the FAA.
This process is difficult to mimic in OBAM aviation,
we don't have the infrastructure. But peer review
is easy, FMEA is easy, avoiding over hyped
marketing rhetoric is easy. None of these things
were applied to some of the products we've
been discussing.
So yes, I totally agree that new things should
be encouraged, aided and blessed with liberal
application of lessons learned and TARGETED
to a market that will realize a cost/benefit
improvement.
Pushing that hay baler into the hands of a very
self-sufficient, legacy farmer/rancher was a poor
marketing move.
A large corporate farming operation with a
factory trained maintenance staff looking after
dozens of balers would probably be just fine.
Pushing the mancine off on a guy that has run his ops
with a pair of pliers and a roll of baling wire
for 50 years was not a good move. that baler
did NOT improve his cost/benefits ratio . . .
in fact it COST him four or five thousand
dollars in expense and lost time. How
many of us have that kind of cash around
to meet and unexpected need?
To replace a switch in an EXP Bus takes hours,
unique tools and relatively rare talents.
To replace a toggle switch in an RV takes
a spin-tite, pair of needle nose pliers
and ten minutes.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Cost effective technology |
>The point is, there is change that is progress (faster, cheaper,
>lighter, stronger, etc), and then there is nonsense posing as
>progress. Attempting to chase some goal doesn't merit chatisement,
>but putting a product on the market and claiming progress with none
>being demonstrable at least deserves to be called out for what it is.
YES!
I'm mulling over a family of
alternator controllers that will not
be produced unless I can prove most
if not all of these benefits:
Lower manufacturing cost
More robust design
Lower parts counts
At least equal if not better performance
User friendly for operation, diagnostics,
repair, replacement.
GOLDEN FMEA
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Cost effective technology |
>The point is, there is change that is progress (faster, cheaper,
>lighter, stronger, etc), and then there is nonsense posing as
>progress. Attempting to chase some goal doesn't merit chatisement,
>but putting a product on the market and claiming progress with none
>being demonstrable at least deserves to be called out for what it is.
YES!
I'm mulling over a family of
alternator controllers that will not
be produced unless I can prove most
if not all of these benefits:
Lower manufacturing cost
More robust design
Lower parts counts
At least equal if not better performance
User friendly for operation, diagnostics,
repair, replacement.
GOLDEN FMEA
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Cost effective technology |
| From: | "tommyanjelo" <n.sovkutsan(at)kan.kg> |
Hello everyone, I'm from Kyrgyzstan, I'm building a Pietenpol, help me please.
Details of my problem in the letter, look it please: http://pietenpol.orgfree.com
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=481743#481743
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Cost effective technology |
| From: | "tommyanjelo" <n.sovkutsan(at)kan.kg> |
Hello everyone, I'm from Kyrgyzstan, I'm building a Pietenpol, help me please.
Details of my problem in the letter, look it please: http://pietenpol.orgfree.com
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=481745#481745
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
At 11:50 PM 7/18/2018, you wrote:
>
>Hello everyone, I'm from Kyrgyzstan, I'm building a Pietenpol, help
>me please.
>Details of my problem in the letter, look it please:
>http://pietenpol.orgfree.com
>
This posting does not come from a registered
subscriber to this list. IGNORE
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | <trigo(at)mail.telepac.pt> |
I also noticed that this was SCAM, but I should add that it is indeed very
ingenious..
Carlos
De: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
Em nome de Robert L.
Nuckolls, III
Enviada: Thursday, July 19, 2018 4:16 PM
Para: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
Assunto: AeroElectric-List: IGNORE
At 11:50 PM 7/18/2018, you wrote:
>
Hello everyone, I'm from Kyrgyzstan, I'm building a Pietenpol, help me
please.
Details of my problem in the letter, look it please:
http://pietenpol.orgfree.com
This posting does not come from a registered
subscriber to this list. IGNORE
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | MFJ-259B For sale |
I'm needing to upgrade my RF analysis hardware . . . so
it's time to retire some of my present tools. Here's
a one-owner, MFJ-259B that I've owned for about 12
years. It's barely been outside my shop. Just noticed
that the protective plastic on the LCD display is
still in place! Just replaced the batteries about two
weeks ago. The inside is as clean as the outside.
Emacs!
Before putting it up on eBay, I'm offering it to the
List at $150.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | MFJ-259B For sale, email me privately |
Oh yeah, interested parties can email me privately.
I'm needing to upgrade my RF analysis hardware . . . so
it's time to retire some of my present tools. Here's
a one-owner, MFJ-259B that I've owned for about 12
years. It's barely been outside my shop. Just noticed
that the protective plastic on the LCD display is
still in place! Just replaced the batteries about two
weeks ago. The inside is as clean as the outside.
Emacs!
Before putting it up on eBay, I'm offering it to the
List at $150.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | don van santen <donvansanten(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: MFJ-259B For sale |
Hi Bob, Is there a single unit available that covers most or all of the
aviation frequencies. I also have a nine year old one owner MFJ 259B and
would be interested in knowing what you plan to buy as a replacement..
Thanks Don.
On Thu, Jul 19, 2018, 19:21 Robert L. Nuckolls, III <
nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> wrote:
>
> I'm needing to upgrade my RF analysis hardware . . . so
> it's time to retire some of my present tools. Here's
> a one-owner, MFJ-259B that I've owned for about 12
> years. It's barely been outside my shop. Just noticed
> that the protective plastic on the LCD display is
> still in place! Just replaced the batteries about two
> weeks ago. The inside is as clean as the outside.
>
>
> [image: Emacs!]
>
> Before putting it up on eBay, I'm offering it to the
> List at $150.
>
> Bob . . .
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: MFJ-259B For sale |
At 09:29 PM 7/19/2018, you wrote:
>Hi Bob, Is there a single unit available that covers most or all of
>the aviation frequencies. I also have a nine year old one owner MFJ
>259B and would be interested in knowing what you plan to buy as a
>replacement.. Thanks Don.
https://goo.gl/Yp8GNn
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Matthew Schumacher <schu(at)schu.net> |
| Subject: | Voltage regulator wiring with fault indication. |
I've been trying to figure out why Bob doesn't show the "I" terminal
used in Z11. Looking further it seems there are multiple ways to wire a
ford regulator:
http://www.erareplicas.com/427man/wiring/alt.htm
So why not wire it the second way so that we have a alternator out
indication? Someone please tell me what I'm missing.
thanks,
schu
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Voltage regulator wiring with fault indication. |
At 11:59 AM 7/20/2018, you wrote:
>
>I've been trying to figure out why Bob doesn't
>show the "I" terminal used in Z11.=C2 Looking
>further it seems there are multiple ways to wire a ford regulator:
>
>http://www.erareplicas.com/427man/wiring/alt.htm
>
>So why not wire it the second way so that we
>have a alternator out indication?=C2 Someone please tell me what I'm
missing.
Waayyyyyy back when, the first alternators to go onto Cessna
single engine aircraft used the same regulator as the 1965
Ford passenger cars and an a similar alternator. In cars, the
alternator's AUX terminal (fed from the center tap of a "Y-wound"
alternator stator winding) was connected to the regulator's "S"
terminal. Back then "S" meant "stator". The "I" termnial was feed
from the "ignition" switch through a light bulb.
That little current flow through bulb would 'tickel' the alternator
field with juse enough current to present a volage at the
alternator's AUX terminal but ONLY if the alternator was
turning. Hence, this light spoke more to broken belts on
the engine than it did to loss of electrical functionality
of the alternator.
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Reference_Docs/Alternator_Data/Legacy_EM_Regulat
or_(Ford).pdf
When this decidedly automotive system was adapter to the airplane
at Cessna, the first systems went in like this:
Emacs!
Here, the "S" terminal became "switch" and the field
relay got power directly from the bus as opposed to the
AUX terminal. It no longer sensed rotation of the
alternator. The "I" terminal could have been used
to drive a light . . . but it was even less meaningful
than when used in cars . . . it would be dark any time
the field switch was ON whether or not the alternator
was actually producing power.
Electronic replacments for the electro-mechanical
regulators have modified functionality of the
"I" terminal somewhat . . . but it would take
some testing to understand it and incorporate
that functionality into your operations.
It's MUCH simpler and universally accurate to
incorporate ACTIVE NOTIFICATION OF LOW VOLTAGE.
This feature's utility is unambiguous. The
light CANNOT go dark unless the altenrator is
working.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Voltage regulator wiring with fault indication. |
| From: | Matthew Schumacher <schu(at)schu.net> |
On 7/20/18 12:08 PM, Robert L. Nuckolls, III wrote:
> At 11:59 AM 7/20/2018, you wrote:
>>
>>
>> I've been trying to figure out why Bob doesn't show the "I" terminal
>> used in Z11. Looking further it seems there are multiple ways to
>> wire a ford regulator:
>>
>> http://www.erareplicas.com/427man/wiring/alt.htm
>> <http://www.erareplicas.com/427man/wiring/alt.htm>
>>
>> So why not wire it the second way so that we have a alternator out
>> indication? Someone please tell me what I'm missing.
>
>
> It's MUCH simpler and universally accurate to
> incorporate ACTIVE NOTIFICATION OF LOW VOLTAGE.
> This feature's utility is unambiguous. The
> light CANNOT go dark unless the altenrator is
> working.
>
>
> Bob . . .
>
Thanks for the clarification. That helps a lot!
________________________________________________________________________________
This guy has posted the same thing on a couple different boards.
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=481778#481778
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: B&C switches |
| From: | "blues750" <den_beaulieu(at)yahoo.com> |
Great discussion and certainly worth consideration of the points alluded to here
and specifically mentioned on the VAF forum thread. I do believe if I ever
built another EAB airframe, I would be up to the challenge of doing the wiring
to cover my systems and intended usage with way more insight than what I had
prior to this first project. For now, my system is what it is, and the aircraft
will be operated with consideration for the fault/failure potential. The risk
I accept can be somewhat mitigated through thorough and particular attention
to maintenance, favorable flight conditions, conservative operational usage
and pilot training/proficiency. Eventually, I may even retrofit this airframe
with a different engine and/or panel which would allow me to redesign the electrical
system as well.
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=481781#481781
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | MANL's (current limiters) |
| From: | "blues750" <den_beaulieu(at)yahoo.com> |
Are MANL standard size, standard specs other than Amp rating? I have one and would
like to have one or two on hand, but really don't know how to source without
some sort of spec -- Thanks!
P.S. 'Lectric Bob if you read this, I am trying to match the one I received from
you in the care package recently. How do I spec it othe than Amps?
Cheers! Dave
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=481782#481782
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: MANL's (current limiters) |
At 10:38 PM 7/20/2018, you wrote:
>
>Are MANL standard size, standard specs other than Amp rating? I
>have one and would like to have one or two on hand, but really don't
>know how to source without some sort of spec -- Thanks!
>
>P.S. 'Lectric Bob if you read this, I am trying to match the one I
>received from you in the care package recently. How do I spec it
>othe than Amps?
>
The MANL series of limiters are commercial-off-the-shelf
products. They are made by virtually every top tier
line of suppliers but with different part/model numbers.
Here's a MIDI spec sheet from Littlefuse . . .
https://goo.gl/hiUBir
Bottom line is that unlike 'fuses' that are more
carefully crafted for thermal dynamics, these
critters are more like "fusible links" . . . they
are expected to clear hard faults (hundreds to
thousands of amps of fault current).
For our purposes, anything you can find with
an appropriate rating and 30MM hole spacing
will do fine. Most automotive applications call
for really fat rascals . . . 60 amps or more.
So Smiley Jack's Car Parts Emporium is problematic,
try these.
https://goo.gl/dXkrH4
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Cost effective technology |
At 10:08 PM 7/20/2018, you wrote:
Great discussion and certainly worth consideration of the points
alluded to here and specifically mentioned on the VAF forum
thread. I do believe if I ever built another EAB airframe, I would
be up to the challenge of doing the wiring to cover my systems and
intended usage with way more insight than what I had prior to this
first project.
Ohhh that we were born with hindsight . . . but
not all is lost. Your project is not 'crippled'
or even less 'safe' . . . you are 100x more likely
to experience a bad day in the cockpit for reasons
OTHER than having made a less than elegant design
decision on the electrics.
For now, my system is what it is, and the aircraft will be operated
with consideration for the fault/failure potential. The risk I
accept can be somewhat mitigated through thorough and particular
attention to maintenance, favorable flight conditions, conservative
operational usage and pilot training/proficiency. Eventually, I may
even retrofit this airframe with a different engine and/or panel
which would allow me to redesign the electrical system as well.
There you go! The understanding garnered from these
discussions will do more for reduction of risk
than all the advice in the world . . . advice
can be contradictory, mis-applied and/or just
plain wrong. Understanding is what lets you
sift the sands of the whole and save back
the nuggets of knowledge that keep the wheels
on your wagon (or should I say wings on your
airplane?).
I'm recalling some discussions we had here
on the list about some plug-n-play, gee-whizz
boxes nearly 20 years ago . . .
https://goo.gl/L1U42b
https://goo.gl/bMJVeL
There was a time that I was mulling over the
notion of offering a po' boys version of that
Cessna gee-whiz box I cited a few days ago . . .
but after sifting through the options and
identifying the ways my own path to electric
Nirvana failed to cover the kinds of options
addressed in the z-figures, I pitched the project.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Education is EXPENSIVE but information is FREE |
Had a request for recommendation on a beginner's
study text in electronics. Went on a netsearch
for a copy of my favorite teaching texts . . .
Electronics Fundamentals Circuits Devices and
Applications 8th Edition By David M Buchla
and Thomas L Floyd
and stumbled onto this website:
https://goo.gl/kJZ2Nf
Not only did it offer a .pdf copy of what I was
looking for . . .
https://goo.gl/Jad7Zk
. . . it seems that this repository offers
a huge selection of technical reference and teaching
texts. Check it out.
I'm going to put a copy on my Kindle. It never
hurts to review . . .
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Education is EXPENSIVE but information is FREE |
| From: | "Eric Page" <edpav8r(at)yahoo.com> |
Excellent find, Bob! For anyone who wants electronics study material in an online
format, check out these two sites:
https://www.electronics-tutorials.ws/
https://www.allaboutcircuits.com/textbook/
Ive found both to be well-written and comprehensive. The second site also features
a very active forum with a solid core of members who answer questions and
offer help with all manner of projects.
Eric
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=481794#481794
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Education is EXPENSIVE but information is |
FREE
At 06:44 PM 7/21/2018, Eric Page wrote:
>
>Excellent find, Bob! For anyone who wants
>electronics study material in an online format, check out these two sites:
>
>https://www.electronics-tutorials.ws/
>
>https://www.allaboutcircuits.com/textbook/
>
>I=99ve found both to be well-written and
>comprehensive. The second site also features a
>very active forum with a solid core of members
>who answer questions and offer help with all manner of projects.
>
>Eric
Thanks for those expansions. I'm a member but inactive
on all about circuits . . . spent some time there in the
past but there's only so much time I can devote to the
keyboard . . . the List is where I concentrate my efforts
now.
But yes, all about circuits is a really good place
to extend one's technical horizons!
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | aeroflash strobe repair |
| From: | C&K <yellowduckduo(at)gmail.com> |
I just had another aeroflash 151-0011 strobe power supply fail.
Interestingly it was the second one I've seen with an open 330K resistor
that was preventing triggering.
On 12 volts the unit would almost immediately charge up to 400 volts and
then shutdown until the voltage decayed.
On about 6 volts the unit would charge continuously to about 300 volts
and you could hear the trigger fire but the signal was not getting to
the white wire going to the flash tube.
Across the 330K resistor measured about 450K in circuit and it was in
fact open. It was the larger (1/2 watt) of the two 330K resistors that
failed.
Simple fix but of course the usual safety cautions of respecting high
voltage and capacitors applies. Mine self discharged quickly but yours
might not.
Ken
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: aeroflash strobe repair |
At 10:26 PM 7/21/2018, you wrote:
>
>I just had another aeroflash 151-0011 strobe power supply fail.
>Interestingly it was the second one I've seen with an open 330K
>resistor that was preventing triggering.
>On 12 volts the unit would almost immediately charge up to 400 volts
>and then shutdown until the voltage decayed.
>On about 6 volts the unit would charge continuously to about 300
>volts and you could hear the trigger fire but the signal was not
>getting to the white wire going to the flash tube.
>Across the 330K resistor measured about 450K in circuit and it was
>in fact open. It was the larger (1/2 watt) of the two 330K resistors
>that failed.
>Simple fix but of course the usual safety cautions of respecting
>high voltage and capacitors applies. Mine self discharged quickly
>but yours might not.
Good find. Thanks for sharing. I am mystified by
the failure of so high value of resistor. Was
it observably discolored or mechanically compromised?
1/2w was perhaps marginal. 300v/300k is one mil which
is 300 milliwatts. Was it a carbon comp?
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: aeroflash strobe repair |
| From: | C&K <yellowduckduo(at)gmail.com> |
It looked like a modern metal film resistor to me. Mounted parallel with
the circuit board with a light conformal coating. No evidence of it
getting hot, discolored, or mechanically stressed. In fact there was no
evidence of anything on the circuit board running hot. This unit was 12
years old and bolted to the main spar in the outboard wing bay. The
other failed unit was about 8 years old at the time and has continued
working OK since the repair. Both units were almost certainly from the
same production run.
Ken
On 22/07/2018 12:26 PM, Robert L. Nuckolls, III wrote:
> At 10:26 PM 7/21/2018, you wrote:
>>
>> I just had another aeroflash 151-0011 strobe power supply fail.
>> Interestingly it was the second one I've seen with an open 330K
>> resistor that was preventing triggering.
>> On 12 volts the unit would almost immediately charge up to 400 volts
>> and then shutdown until the voltage decayed.
>> On about 6 volts the unit would charge continuously to about 300
>> volts and you could hear the trigger fire but the signal was not
>> getting to the white wire going to the flash tube.
>> Across the 330K resistor measured about 450K in circuit and it was in
>> fact open. It was the larger (1/2 watt) of the two 330K resistors
>> that failed.
>> Simple fix but of course the usual safety cautions of respecting high
>> voltage and capacitors applies. Mine self discharged quickly but
>> yours might not.
>
> Good find. Thanks for sharing. I am mystified by
> the failure of so high value of resistor. Was
> it observably discolored or mechanically compromised?
> 1/2w was perhaps marginal. 300v/300k is one mil which
> is 300 milliwatts. Was it a carbon comp?
>
>
> Bob . . .
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: aeroflash strobe repair |
At 01:39 PM 7/22/2018, you wrote:
>
>It looked like a modern metal film resistor to me. Mounted parallel
>with the circuit board with a light conformal coating. No evidence
>of it getting hot, discolored, or mechanically stressed. In fact
>there was no evidence of anything on the circuit board running hot.
>This unit was 12 years old and bolted to the main spar in the
>outboard wing bay. The other failed unit was about 8 years old at
>the time and has continued working OK since the repair. Both units
>were almost certainly from the same production run.
Interesting! By the way, do you happend to
have a schematic and/or maintenance manual
on the device?
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: aeroflash strobe repair |
| From: | C&K <yellowduckduo(at)gmail.com> |
No I could not find any documentation.
Ken
On 23/07/2018 11:19 AM, Robert L. Nuckolls, III wrote:
> At 01:39 PM 7/22/2018, you wrote:
>>
>> It looked like a modern metal film resistor to me. Mounted parallel
>> with the circuit board with a light conformal coating. No evidence of
>> it getting hot, discolored, or mechanically stressed. In fact there
>> was no evidence of anything on the circuit board running hot. This
>> unit was 12 years old and bolted to the main spar in the outboard
>> wing bay. The other failed unit was about 8 years old at the time and
>> has continued working OK since the repair. Both units were almost
>> certainly from the same production run.
>
> Interesting! By the way, do you happend to
> have a schematic and/or maintenance manual
> on the device?
>
>
> Bob . . .
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | FLYaDIVE <flyadive(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: aeroflash strobe repair |
And to make things even more difficult; The circuit board is conformally
coated - NOT IN CLEAR! A rusty brown. Getting below the coating to read
the component and values becomes a surgeon's job.
Barry
On Mon, Jul 23, 2018 at 11:19 AM, Robert L. Nuckolls, III <
nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> wrote:
> At 01:39 PM 7/22/2018, you wrote:
>
>
> It looked like a modern metal film resistor to me. Mounted parallel with
> the circuit board with a light conformal coating. No evidence of it getting
> hot, discolored, or mechanically stressed. In fact there was no evidence of
> anything on the circuit board running hot. This unit was 12 years old and
> bolted to the main spar in the outboard wing bay. The other failed unit was
> about 8 years old at the time and has continued working OK since the
> repair. Both units were almost certainly from the same production run.
>
>
> Interesting! By the way, do you happend to
> have a schematic and/or maintenance manual
> on the device?
>
>
> Bob . . .
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: aeroflash strobe repair |
| From: | C&K <yellowduckduo(at)gmail.com> |
Mine just had an amber colored coating that I could see through.
If it helps anyone there are 3 resistors mounted in a row perpendicular
to the edge of the board near where the 3 wires connect that go to the
flash tube.
The middle resistor was the problem one.
Ken
On 23/07/2018 12:17 PM, FLYaDIVE wrote:
> And to make things even more difficult; The circuit board is
> conformally coated - NOT IN CLEAR! A rusty brown. Getting below the
> coating to read the component and values becomes a surgeon's job.
>
> Barry
>
> On Mon, Jul 23, 2018 at 11:19 AM, Robert L. Nuckolls, III
> >
> wrote:
>
> At 01:39 PM 7/22/2018, you wrote:
>> >
>>
>> It looked like a modern metal film resistor to me. Mounted
>> parallel with the circuit board with a light conformal coating.
>> No evidence of it getting hot, discolored, or mechanically
>> stressed. In fact there was no evidence of anything on the
>> circuit board running hot. This unit was 12 years old and bolted
>> to the main spar in the outboard wing bay. The other failed unit
>> was about 8 years old at the time and has continued working OK
>> since the repair. Both units were almost certainly from the same
>> production run.
>
> Interesting! By the way, do you happend to
> have a schematic and/or maintenance manual
> on the device?
>
>
> Bob . . .
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | FLYaDIVE <flyadive(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: aeroflash strobe repair |
THANK YOU KEN!!!
I have two or three AeroFlash PS's.
I will LQQK for them.
Barry
On Mon, Jul 23, 2018 at 1:02 PM, C&K wrote:
>
> Mine just had an amber colored coating that I could see through.
> If it helps anyone there are 3 resistors mounted in a row perpendicular to
> the edge of the board near where the 3 wires connect that go to the flash
> tube.
> The middle resistor was the problem one.
> Ken
>
> On 23/07/2018 12:17 PM, FLYaDIVE wrote:
>
>> And to make things even more difficult; The circuit board is conformally
>> coated - NOT IN CLEAR! A rusty brown. Getting below the coating to read
>> the component and values becomes a surgeon's job.
>>
>> Barry
>>
>> On Mon, Jul 23, 2018 at 11:19 AM, Robert L. Nuckolls, III <
>> nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com >
>> wrote:
>>
>> At 01:39 PM 7/22/2018, you wrote:
>>
>>> >
>>>
>>> It looked like a modern metal film resistor to me. Mounted
>>> parallel with the circuit board with a light conformal coating.
>>> No evidence of it getting hot, discolored, or mechanically
>>> stressed. In fact there was no evidence of anything on the
>>> circuit board running hot. This unit was 12 years old and bolted
>>> to the main spar in the outboard wing bay. The other failed unit
>>> was about 8 years old at the time and has continued working OK
>>> since the repair. Both units were almost certainly from the same
>>> production run.
>>>
>>
>> Interesting! By the way, do you happend to
>> have a schematic and/or maintenance manual
>> on the device?
>>
>>
>> Bob . . .
>>
>>
>>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Mickey Coggins <mick-matronics(at)rv8.ch> |
| Subject: | Spark plug wire installation - distance between wires |
Hi,
I've always heard that spark plug wires need some small distance between
them, and that's what I did on my engine, but I'm curious what happens if
you don't have distance between them. I've seen several certified aircraft
where the wires were just zip tied together with no spacing, and they seem
to fly. :)
Example I just saw on Reddit:
https://i.redd.it/o4e5rmjqktb11.jpg
Thanks,
Mickey Coggins
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Spark plug wire installation - distance between |
wires
At 01:45 AM 7/24/2018, you wrote:
>Hi,
>
>I've always heard that spark plug wires need
>some small distance between them, and that's
>what I did on my engine, but I'm curious what
>happens if you don't have distance between
>them.=C2 I've seen several certified aircraft
>where the wires were just zip tied together with
>no spacing, and they seem to fly.=C2 :)
>
>Example I just saw on Reddit:
>
>https://i.redd.it/o4e5rmjqktb11.jpg
>
>Thanks,
>Mickey Coggins
I cannot imagine the physics supporting such an
assertion. Engines running legacy magnetos are
generally fitted with shielded plug wires. Two
wires tied to each other are DOUBLE shielded
for what ever effect the writer is hypothesizing.
Modern electronic ignitions can use automotive
unshielded wire . . . so without shielding, what
is the effect of having two or more wires running
in close parallel for some distance?
Electrostatic coupling (the physics thingy that
calls for shielding) is very weak. The energy
coupled between adjacent wires is a tiny fraction
of that flowing in the wire from ignition source
to the plug . . .
Lacking competent analysis and/or repeatable
demonstrations of deleterious effect, I'll bet
this is yet another ol' hangar yarn . . .
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | FLYaDIVE <flyadive(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Spark plug wire installation - distance between |
wires
Micky:
In the old days and even going back to old cars, the space was needed to
prevent cross-over ignition of the spark.
Today, with higher dielectric wires, shielded wires and silicon coated
wires the need for separation in no longer needed.
We are talking Spark Plug Ignition Wires... There IS a need for separation
between Ignition wires and other wires such as EGT & CHT probes/harnesses.
How much separation? I can't say. Maybe the EGT/CHT manufactures state
how much in their install manual.
Barry
On Tue, Jul 24, 2018 at 2:45 AM, Mickey Coggins
wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I've always heard that spark plug wires need some small distance between
> them, and that's what I did on my engine, but I'm curious what happens if
> you don't have distance between them. I've seen several certified aircraft
> where the wires were just zip tied together with no spacing, and they seem
> to fly. :)
>
> Example I just saw on Reddit:
>
> https://i.redd.it/o4e5rmjqktb11.jpg
>
> Thanks,
> Mickey Coggins
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Ed Gilroy <egilroy(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Spark plug wire installation - distance between |
wires
My problem with the wires bundled together approach is that the zip ties
are very sharp edged when pulled tight and did cut into the wire insulation
over time. This caused an arc over on two adjacent wires over the 1,000
hours time in service on an ElectroAir system that developed this problem.
This problem was elusive until I started moving the bundle around with the
engine running. The zap I got, got my attention...
The picture below is similar to my solution. I did the same thing on a 502
powered Chevelle I have that has an MSD 5 with CDI ignition.
Ed
On Tue, Jul 24, 2018 at 12:36 PM, Robert L. Nuckolls, III <
nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> wrote:
> At 01:45 AM 7/24/2018, you wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> I've always heard that spark plug wires need some small distance between
> them, and that's what I did on my engine, but I'm curious what happens if
> you don't have distance between them.=C3=82 I've seen several certified
> aircraft where the wires were just zip tied together with no spacing, and
> they seem to fly.=C3=82 :)
>
> Example I just saw on Reddit:
>
> https://i.redd.it/o4e5rmjqktb11.jpg
>
> Thanks,
> Mickey Coggins
>
>
> I cannot imagine the physics supporting such an
> assertion. Engines running legacy magnetos are
> generally fitted with shielded plug wires. Two
> wires tied to each other are DOUBLE shielded
> for what ever effect the writer is hypothesizing.
>
> Modern electronic ignitions can use automotive
> unshielded wire . . . so without shielding, what
> is the effect of having two or more wires running
> in close parallel for some distance?
>
> Electrostatic coupling (the physics thingy that
> calls for shielding) is very weak. The energy
> coupled between adjacent wires is a tiny fraction
> of that flowing in the wire from ignition source
> to the plug . . .
>
> Lacking competent analysis and/or repeatable
> demonstrations of deleterious effect, I'll bet
> this is yet another ol' hangar yarn . . .
>
>
> Bob . . .
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Question for Bob |
| From: | Bill Watson <Mauledriver(at)nc.rr.com> |
I know the discussion has gone way past this but I ran 2 AWG between
the batteries, contactors, and for the forward run to the starter. All
other 'bus' runs are 8 AWG.
I'll attach a diagram of my Z-14 in my RV10. (2) Odyssey 680s in the
rear along with the 3 contactors. Everything else on the diagram is
forward.
On 7/16/2018 2:00 PM, Rocketman1988 wrote:
>
> So what size wire did you run from the aft battery to the forward buss?
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=481660#481660
>
>
---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Question for Bob |
At 01:54 PM 7/24/2018, you wrote:
>I know the discussion has gone way past this
>but=C2 I ran 2 AWG between the batteries,
>contactors, and for the forward run to the
>starter.=C2 All other 'bus' runs are 8 AWG.
>
>I'll attach a diagram of my Z-14 in my
>RV10.=C2 (2) Odyssey 680s in the rear along with
>the 3 contactors.=C2 Everything else on the diagram is forward.
That should play as advertised. Only thing
I would suggest is to make your battery
jumpers from 4AWG welding cable. Very
flexible and entirely sufficient
electrically but MUCH less stress
on the battery connector screws.
Do you have a wire runnig from battery(-)
up to your firewall ground bus?
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: MANL's (current limiters) |
| From: | "blues750" <den_beaulieu(at)yahoo.com> |
Thanks for the reply Bob!
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=481833#481833
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: IMPORTANCE OF ESSAY WRITING |
| From: | "Hannono94" <genny.verna14(at)gmail.com> |
True! It is that essay writing plays an important part in our academic year. It
is also a part of my LSAT Prep (https://testmaxprep.com/lsat/) and I have been
looking for such service for a very long time now. I am not very good at writing
essays and therefore, a lot of my assignments are also pending. Thanks for
sharing this link, it is going to be very much useful to me.
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=481839#481839
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Art Zemon <art(at)zemon.name> |
| Subject: | Melted battery terminal |
Question for y'all. This happened at AirVenture (not my plane, thankfully).
The cable from the battery positive terminal to the current limiter got
loose at the current limiter end. Just loose, it did not come off. The
pilot kept cranking on the starter until he heard a pop. The negative
terminal on the battery has melted. See photo.
I don't understand why this is the party that got hot, since this connector
was tight. And why there is no other visible damage to the battery out
anything else, not even the current limiter.
-- Art Z.
Sent from my phone. Please excuse brevity and bizarre typos.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Sebastien <cluros(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Melted battery terminal |
How do you know the connection was tight?
On Wed, Jul 25, 2018, 10:38 Art Zemon wrote:
> Question for y'all. This happened at AirVenture (not my plane,
> thankfully). The cable from the battery positive terminal to the current
> limiter got loose at the current limiter end. Just loose, it did not come
> off. The pilot kept cranking on the starter until he heard a pop. The
> negative terminal on the battery has melted. See photo.
>
> I don't understand why this is the party that got hot, since this
> connector was tight. And why there is no other visible damage to the
> battery out anything else, not even the current limiter.
>
> -- Art Z.
>
> Sent from my phone. Please excuse brevity and bizarre typos.
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Art Zemon <art(at)zemon.name> |
| Subject: | Re: Melted battery terminal |
Correction. The plane has a shunt, not a current limiter.
-- Art Z.
Sent from my phone. Please excuse brevity and bizarre typos.
On Wed, Jul 25, 2018, 10:08 AM Art Zemon wrote:
> Question for y'all. This happened at AirVenture (not my plane,
> thankfully). The cable from the battery positive terminal to the current
> limiter got loose at the current limiter end. Just loose, it did not come
> off. The pilot kept cranking on the starter until he heard a pop. The
> negative terminal on the battery has melted. See photo.
>
> I don't understand why this is the party that got hot, since this
> connector was tight. And why there is no other visible damage to the
> battery out anything else, not even the current limiter.
>
> -- Art Z.
>
> Sent from my phone. Please excuse brevity and bizarre typos.
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Ernest Christley <echristley(at)att.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Melted battery terminal |
Looks like a lead post.=C2- Lead has a fairly low melting point.=C2- Ma
ybe the wire was heated from the other end enough to soften the battery pos
t material.=C2- Once soft, the connection was degraded, leading to a high
resistance connection. Leading to ... goo running down the side of the bat
tery?
On Wednesday, July 25, 2018 10:31 AM, Art Zemon wrote:
Question for y'all. This happened at AirVenture (not my plane, thankfully)
. The cable from the battery positive terminal to the current limiter got l
oose at the current limiter end. Just loose, it did not come off. The pilot
kept cranking on the starter until he heard a pop. The negative terminal o
n the battery has melted. See photo.
I don't understand why this is the party that got hot, since this connector
was tight. And why there is no other visible damage to the battery out any
thing else, not even the current limiter.
=C2-=C2-=C2- -- Art Z.
Sent from my phone. Please excuse brevity and bizarre typos.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | argoldman(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Melted battery terminal |
Lessee, a loose connection (no matter where it is from or to) is potentiall
y a high resistance connection. With the tremendous power draw of the start
er motor it is likely that that was the source of the heat and meltage.
=C2-
Rich
=C2-
In a message dated 7/25/2018 10:11:48 AM Central Standard Time, art(at)zemon.n
ame writes:
=C2-
Correction. The plane has a shunt, not a current limiter.
=C2-=C2-=C2- -- Art Z.
Sent from my phone. Please excuse brevity and bizarre typos.
On Wed, Jul 25, 2018, 10:08 AM Art Zemon wrote:
Question for y'all. This happened at AirVenture (not my plane, thankfully).
The cable from the battery positive terminal to the current limiter got lo
ose at the current limiter end. Just loose, it did not come off. The pilot
kept cranking on the starter until he heard a pop. The negative terminal on
the battery has melted. See photo.
=C2-
I don't understand why this is the party that got hot, since this connector
was tight. And why there is no other visible damage to the battery out any
thing else, not even the current limiter.
=C2-=C2-=C2- -- Art Z.
Sent from my phone. Please excuse brevity and bizarre typos.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Art Zemon <art(at)zemon.name> |
| Subject: | Re: Melted battery terminal |
Because it still is, after the battery terminal melted and the bolt fell
off. The lock nut is now soldered in it's compressed state between the bolt
head and the washer.
-- Art Z.
Sent from my phone. Please excuse brevity and bizarre typos.
On Jul 25, 2018 10:30 AM, "Sebastien" wrote:
How do you know the connection was tight?
On Wed, Jul 25, 2018, 10:38 Art Zemon wrote:
> Question for y'all. This happened at AirVenture (not my plane,
> thankfully). The cable from the battery positive terminal to the current
> limiter got loose at the current limiter end. Just loose, it did not come
> off. The pilot kept cranking on the starter until he heard a pop. The
> negative terminal on the battery has melted. See photo.
>
> I don't understand why this is the party that got hot, since this
> connector was tight. And why there is no other visible damage to the
> battery out anything else, not even the current limiter.
>
> -- Art Z.
>
> Sent from my phone. Please excuse brevity and bizarre typos.
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Charlie England <ceengland7(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Melted battery terminal |
On Wed, Jul 25, 2018 at 9:28 AM, Art Zemon wrote:
> Question for y'all. This happened at AirVenture (not my plane,
> thankfully). The cable from the battery positive terminal to the current
> limiter got loose at the current limiter end. Just loose, it did not come
> off. The pilot kept cranking on the starter until he heard a pop. The
> negative terminal on the battery has melted. See photo.
>
> I don't understand why this is the party that got hot, since this
> connector was tight. And why there is no other visible damage to the
> battery out anything else, not even the current limiter.
>
> -- Art Z.
>
> Sent from my phone. Please excuse brevity and bizarre typos.
>
If I had to speculate, I'd be looking at the battery type, in addition to
the question of whether there really was a clean gas tight connection on
the posts. If you look up the specs on that battery, I'll bet you'll find
it was intended for service in UPS, powered wheel chair, etc. You can get
away with using 'universal' batteries for starting; I've used the SLA
universals as starting batteries for a couple of decades. But the terminals
are typically a lot smaller than a true starting battery. Even if the
terminals were clean/tight, I wonder if a drastically extended cranking
session could drive heat up enough to melt the terminals, which are likely
sized for, let's say, 20 amps continuous, instead of 200+.
Charlie
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Melted battery terminal |
At 09:28 AM 7/25/2018, you wrote:
>Question for y'all. This happened at AirVenture (not my plane,
>thankfully). The cable from the battery positive terminal to the
>current limiter got loose at the current limiter end. Just loose, it
>did not come off. The pilot kept cranking on the starter until he
>heard a pop. The negative terminal on the battery has melted. See photo.
>
>I don't understand why this is the party that got hot, since this
>connector was tight. And why there is no other visible damage to the
>battery out anything else, not even the current limiter.
Was the current limiter in series with starter
current . . .? If the 'loose' terminal was not
visibly damaged due to electrically induced
heating/arcing, then it did not participate
in this failure.
How did the battery wire terminal look after the 'meltdown'?
Lead has right at 10x the d.c. resistance of copper.
Not sure what comparative gradients for reduction
in compression strength vs. temperature would be
but you can bet that lead is MUCH steeper than copper.
This sorta sets up a weak-link for the low resistance,
high current batteries. An extended cranking scenario
will absolutely warm up these terminals. Joint integrity
falls with temperature rise and the trajectory to destruction
steepens exponentially.
Some suppliers of SVLA products will include a lead
battery bolt kit that includes a Bellville washer
to be used in the joint makeup that provides (1) an
indication as to when design compression in the joint
has been reached and (2) improve retention of joint
quality for small rises in temperature.
Emacs!
Pretty sure this is why Odyssey and similar products
use a lot of brass in their terminal posts
Emacs!
Emacs!
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | FLYaDIVE <flyadive(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Melted battery terminal |
Art:
The current limit circuit has nothing to do with it.
The cable should be going from the battery to the starter relay to the
starter.
There are hundreds of amps being sucked out of the battery.
Nothing should be limiting the current flow.
The crank, cranking the engine probably did so WAY TOO LONG!
Many starters stipulate 10 seconds. Well, that is too long! It should be
more like 5 seconds.
The only thing indicating the positive terminal was maybe tight is - It did
not melt.
It does not matter which terminal is loose, positive or negative,
resistance is resistance. And you now have proof of what a poor connection
can do.
Also you do not know if the positive terminal was a CLEAN connection or how
tight. One ohm of resistance under a terminal increases current drawing a
12 VDC circuit by 12 Amps.
If the plane=99s amp gauge reads starting amps, there might be an ind
ication
of higher draw than normal. A good indication to stop cranking.
Barry
On Wednesday, July 25, 2018, Art Zemon wrote:
> Question for y'all. This happened at AirVenture (not my plane,
> thankfully). The cable from the battery positive terminal to the current
> limiter got loose at the current limiter end. Just loose, it did not come
> off. The pilot kept cranking on the starter until he heard a pop. The
> negative terminal on the battery has melted. See photo.
>
> I don't understand why this is the party that got hot, since this
> connector was tight. And why there is no other visible damage to the
> battery out anything else, not even the current limiter.
>
> -- Art Z.
>
> Sent from my phone. Please excuse brevity and bizarre typos.
>
--
Barry
"Chop'd Liver"
If you wash your hands before you go to the bathroom you may have the
makings of a Crew Chief.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Melted battery terminal |
If I had to speculate, I'd be looking at the battery type, in addition
to the question of whether there really was a clean gas tight
connection on the posts. If you look up the specs on that
battery, I'll bet you'll find it was intended for service in
UPS, powered wheel chair, etc. You can get away with using
'universal' batteries for starting; I've used the SLA universals
as starting batteries for a couple of decades. But the terminals
are typically a lot smaller than a true starting battery. Even
if the terminals were clean/tight, I wonder if a drastically
extended cranking session could drive heat up enough to melt the
terminals, which are likely sized for, let's say, 20 amps continuous,
instead of 200+.
Excellent put Charlie . . .
I'm recalling the first SVLA batteries
B&C offered . . . yeah, they would dump
700A in a load test but also featured
the lead molded terminal tabs. It was important
to educate the buyers about their relative
fragility . . . that's where the soft-n-floppy,
welding cable battery jumpers originated . . .
which remains a good thing to do even with
the more robust terminals.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Melted battery terminal |
| From: | Charlie England <ceengland7(at)gmail.com> |
I think we need to review Ohm's Law and power formulas for DC circuits.
http://www.sengpielaudio.com/calculator-ohm.htm
Using P for power, V for volts, R for resistance, and I for current,
pick a formula, and plug in value of 12V (or maybe 10 V, with the
starter load). Then plug in a value for the starter's resistance. Pick
virtually any value you want, but you can get a fairly realistic one by
picking an arbitrary current of 200 amps, and using V/I=R: 12V/200A=0.06
ohms.
Now that you have starter resistance, let's use V/R=I: 12/0.06 0 Amps.
Now, add your 1 ohm of extra resistance to the V/R=I formula:
12/(0.06+1.0)=x
Which reduces to: 12V/1.06R=x
Solve for x, and tell us how adding 1 ohm of series resistance increases
the current. :-)
Charlie
On 7/25/2018 11:55 AM, FLYaDIVE wrote:
>
> Art:
>
> The current limit circuit has nothing to do with it.
> The cable should be going from the battery to the starter relay to the
> starter.
> There are hundreds of amps being sucked out of the battery.
> Nothing should be limiting the current flow.
> The crank, cranking the engine probably did so WAY TOO LONG!
> Many starters stipulate 10 seconds. Well, that is too long! It should
> be more like 5 seconds.
> The only thing indicating the positive terminal was maybe tight is -
> It did not melt.
> It does not matter which terminal is loose, positive or negative,
> resistance is resistance. And you now have proof of what a poor
> connection can do.
> Also you do not know if the positive terminal was a CLEAN connection
> or how tight. One ohm of resistance under a terminal increases
> current drawing a 12 VDC circuit by 12 Amps.
> If the planes amp gauge reads starting amps, there might be an
> indication of higher draw than normal. A good indication to stop
> cranking.
>
> Barry
>
>
> On Wednesday, July 25, 2018, Art Zemon > wrote:
>
> Question for y'all. This happened at AirVenture (not my plane,
> thankfully). The cable from the battery positive terminal to the
> current limiter got loose at the current limiter end. Just loose,
> it did not come off. The pilot kept cranking on the starter until
> he heard a pop. The negative terminal on the battery has melted.
> See photo.
>
> I don't understand why this is the party that got hot, since this
> connector was tight. And why there is no other visible damage to
> the battery out anything else, not even the current limiter.
>
> -- Art Z.
>
> Sent from my phone. Please excuse brevity and bizarre typos.
>
>
> --
> Barry
> "Chop'd Liver"
> If you wash your hands before you go to the bathroom you may have the
> makings of a Crew Chief.
---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Question for Bob |
| From: | Bill Watson <Mauledriver(at)nc.rr.com> |
On 7/24/2018 8:08 PM, Robert L. Nuckolls, III wrote:
> At 01:54 PM 7/24/2018, you wrote:
>> I know the discussion has gone way past this but I ran 2 AWG
>> between the batteries, contactors, and for the forward run to the
>> starter. All other 'bus' runs are 8 AWG.
>>
>> I'll attach a diagram of my Z-14 in my RV10. (2) Odyssey 680s in
>> the rear along with the 3 contactors. Everything else on the
>> diagram is forward.
>
> That should play as advertised. Only thing
> I would suggest is to make your battery
> jumpers from 4AWG welding cable. Very
> flexible and entirely sufficient
> electrically but MUCH less stress
> on the battery connector screws.
>
> Do you have a wire runnig from battery(-)
> up to your firewall ground bus?
Yes I do. My guess is that it is an 8AWG wire running from the battery
to airframe ground connection forward to the ground bus. That forward
ground bus is also grounded to the airframe.
>
>
> Bob . . .
>
---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Question for Bob |
Do you have a wire running from battery(-)
up to your firewall ground bus?
Yes I do. My guess is that it is an 8AWG wire running from the
battery to airframe ground connection forward to the ground
bus. That forward ground bus is also grounded to the airframe.
Okay . . . the resistance of that wire is probably
100 times higher than the airframe. The wire doesn't
hurt anything but it adds no value.
Also just noticed the dual power source diodes
for the oil pressure annunciator. The 'thing'
about Z-14 is that there's virtually zero
probability that either of the busses will
go dark. Powering from the aux bus alone
would eliminate the diodes.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Melted battery terminal |
At 01:04 PM 7/25/2018, you wrote:
>I think we need to review Ohm's Law and power formulas for DC circuits.
><http://www.sengpielaudio.com/calculator-ohm.htm>http://www.sengpielaudio.com/calculator-ohm.htm
>
>Using P for power, V for volts, R for resistance, and I for current,
>pick a formula, and plug in value of 12V (or maybe 10 V, with the
>starter load). Then plug in a value for the starter's resistance.
>Pick virtually any value you want, but you can get a fairly
>realistic one by picking an arbitrary current of 200 amps, and using
>V/I=R: 12V/200A=0.06 ohms.
It's a bit more complex than that. A figure lifted from
the 'Connection will help highlight the details . . .
Emacs!
A battery has an internal resistance component. So does the starter
motor. As explained in the DC Motors posting on 6/27, we know that the
motor windings moving through the magnetic field flux generates a
COUNTER EMF, i.e. a voltage that opposes the applied voltage.
The starter motor's internal resistance sets the STALL current
which is the same as INRUSH current. That resistance will be MUCH
lower than the hypothesized 0.06 ohms cited above. Using 12v as the
'source' voltage for cranking calculations assumes that OTHER than
motor resistance, there are no additional resistances. The exemplar
cranking scenario speaks to a number of resistances not the least
of which is contained within the battery.
These numbers can be better or worse depending on the system
configuration and condition of the components but suffice it
to say that NONE of these resistances are ever so small as
to be ignored.
Inrush current, while short in duration, is several times
higher than cranking current. Note that ALL resistances cited
are, as Charlie suggested in his hypothetical, are measured
in MILLIOHMS. You don't have to add much resistance to seriously
impact system performance and in all cases, adding or increasing
any resistance causes current to go DOWN.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Charlie England <ceengland7(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Melted battery terminal |
You have a lot more words at your disposal than I do. :-) I was just
shooting for a simple way to show that adding series resistance can't make
current go *up* in a DC circuit.
Charlie
On Wed, Jul 25, 2018 at 3:34 PM, Robert L. Nuckolls, III <
nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> wrote:
> At 01:04 PM 7/25/2018, you wrote:
>
> I think we need to review Ohm's Law and power formulas for DC circuits.
> http://www.sengpielaudio.com/calculator-ohm.htm
>
> Using P for power, V for volts, R for resistance, and I for current, pick
> a formula, and plug in value of 12V (or maybe 10 V, with the starter load).
> Then plug in a value for the starter's resistance. Pick virtually any value
> you want, but you can get a fairly realistic one by picking an arbitrary
> current of 200 amps, and using V/I=R: 12V/200A=0.06 ohms.
>
>
> It's a bit more complex than that. A figure lifted from
> the 'Connection will help highlight the details . . .
>
> [image: Emacs!]
>
> A battery has an internal resistance component. So does the starter
> motor. As explained in the DC Motors posting on 6/27, we know that the
> motor windings moving through the magnetic field flux generates a
> COUNTER EMF, i.e. a voltage that opposes the applied voltage.
>
> The starter motor's internal resistance sets the STALL current
> which is the same as INRUSH current. That resistance will be MUCH
> lower than the hypothesized 0.06 ohms cited above. Using 12v as the
> 'source' voltage for cranking calculations assumes that OTHER than
> motor resistance, there are no additional resistances. The exemplar
> cranking scenario speaks to a number of resistances not the least
> of which is contained within the battery.
>
> These numbers can be better or worse depending on the system
> configuration and condition of the components but suffice it
> to say that NONE of these resistances are ever so small as
> to be ignored.
>
> Inrush current, while short in duration, is several times
> higher than cranking current. Note that ALL resistances cited
> are, as Charlie suggested in his hypothetical, are measured
> in MILLIOHMS. You don't have to add much resistance to seriously
> impact system performance and in all cases, adding or increasing
> any resistance causes current to go DOWN.
>
> Bob . . .
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Melted battery terminal |
At 05:18 PM 7/25/2018, you wrote:
>You have a lot more words at your disposal than I do. :-) I was just
>shooting for a simple way to show that adding series resistance
>can't make current go *up* in a DC circuit.
Understand . . . and it's absolutely
correct.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Question for Bob |
| From: | "GusF16rv8" <wngsfrmhvn(at)aol.com> |
nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelect wrote:
> Do you have a wire running from battery(-) up to your firewall ground bus?
>
> Yes I do. My guess is that it is an 8AWG wire running from the battery to airframe
ground connection forward to the ground bus. That forward ground bus is
also grounded to the airframe.
>
> Okay . . . the resistance of that wire is probably
> 100 times higher than the airframe. The wire doesn't
> hurt anything but it adds no value.
>
>
Isn't the point of having a bus or 'field of tabs' grounded directly to the negative
batt terminal to prevent ground loops through the airframe? If so, why
then is the wire of no value, because of its length due to being run from the
rear?
>From the explanation above, it sounds like both ends (batt neg terminal and ground
bus) are also grounded to the airframe, is that correct?
Could you specify which wire is 'adds no value' and how the planned system SHOULD
be grounded then? Thanks!
--------
Gus
RV8 SlowBuild (2006-?)
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=481864#481864
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Grounding architecture |
Okay . . . the resistance of that wire is probably
100 times higher than the airframe. The wire doesn't
hurt anything but it adds no value . . .
Isn't the point of having a bus or 'field of tabs' grounded directly
to the negative batt terminal to prevent ground loops through the
airframe? If so, why then is the wire of no value, because of its
length due to being run from the rear?
From the explanation above, it sounds like both ends (batt neg
terminal and ground bus) are also grounded to the airframe, is that correct?
Could you specify which wire is 'adds no value' and how the planned
system SHOULD be grounded then? Thanks!
We're talking two separate issues:
(1) Ground path integrity for DC power
distribution and . . .
(2) shared ground paths bet ween potential
antagonists [alternators, strobe supplies,
etc] and potential victims [audio systems,
some avitonics].
This thread is about issue #1. Yes, we'd
like to achieve the lowest practical path
resistance between the battery(-) and the
firewall ground block. For aircraft with the
battery forward, taking battery(-) directly
to the stud is ideal and practical.
For batteries mounted aft in a metal aircraft,
taking battery(-) to structure is the most
practical.
https://goo.gl/28exWU
Now, if one were to measure the airframe
resistance between the battery(-) grounding
location on the airframe and the firewall
ground block stud, one would measure some
exceedingly small resistance . . . generally
under 0.001 ohms (resistance from nose to
tailcone on a Beechjet is right at .001 ohms).
Enhancements to conductivity by adding some bit
of wire in PARALLEL with the structure would
be very difficult to measure.
GROUND LOOPS are a separate discussion unique
to managing grounds for potential victims
and is unrelated to management of DC power.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Grounding architecture |
| From: | "Rocketman1988" <Rocketman(at)etczone.com> |
So is running a 2 AWG cable from the aft mounted batteries on an RV 10 to a firewall
stud a bad plan? Would a basic airframe ground be the better option,i.e.
ground the batteries at their aft mounted location?
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=481866#481866
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | FLYaDIVE <flyadive(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Grounding architecture |
Nothing beats a copper wire ground on a plane.
There is no reason why you can not do both... A wire from the battery to
the Firewall/Ground Buss and a short Ground wire to the airframe.
Barry
On Thu, Jul 26, 2018 at 3:15 PM, Rocketman1988
wrote:
> Rocketman(at)etczone.com>
>
> So is running a 2 AWG cable from the aft mounted batteries on an RV 10 to
> a firewall stud a bad plan? Would a basic airframe ground be the better
> option,i.e. ground the batteries at their aft mounted location?
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=481866#481866
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Grounding architecture |
| From: | Charlie England <ceengland7(at)gmail.com> |
On 7/26/2018 2:15 PM, Rocketman1988 wrote:
>
> So is running a 2 AWG cable from the aft mounted batteries on an RV 10 to a firewall
stud a bad plan? Would a basic airframe ground be the better option,i.e.
ground the batteries at their aft mounted location?
>
I think the idea is that running the extra ground wire forward is not a
*bad* idea; just an unnecessary one, in a metal a/c. The airframe will
be a lower resistance ground path than any practically size wire.
Problems related to the ground loop issue are usually limited to audio
gear. I'm sure Bob can give you a better, more precise description of
what happens. But my layman's description is this: If a low level
signal, like audio, shares its ground return path with much stronger,
'noisy' electrical signals, like a strobe, the strobe noise can
effectively become part of the audio signal, and you get the noise in
the audio system. To prevent that, you use the 'forest of tabs' located
somewhere near the audio (and other low signal level) gear, and run all
low level signals to that spot instead of through the airframe. That
keeps the ground paths of the low level stuff & the 'noisy' stuff separate.
Charlie
---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Grounding architecture |
| From: | "Rocketman1988" <Rocketman(at)etczone.com> |
If running a large wire ground isn't necessary, how does Z-15 fit in?
Just curious...
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=481873#481873
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Grounding architecture |
| From: | Charlie England <ceengland7(at)gmail.com> |
On 7/26/2018 10:38 PM, Rocketman1988 wrote:
>
> If running a large wire ground isn't necessary, how does Z-15 fit in?
>
> Just curious...
Are you asking me? (no context for your question in the email version)
If so, did you read the text (pg z-4) that's associated with the drawing?
---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Grounding architecture |
At 09:13 PM 7/26/2018, you wrote:
>Nothing beats a copper wire ground on a plane.
>There is no reason why you can not do
>both...=C2 A wire from the battery to the
>Firewall/Ground Buss and a short Ground wire to the airframe.=C2 =C2
Can you support your assertion with an
analysis of the physics? Aluminum is not
a poor conductor. In fact, overhead transmission
lines for long distance power distribution are
aluminum over steel cables.
If the resistance between battery ground in
the tail and a firewall ground block is already
on the order of .001 ohms, how much of the
airframe current is shunted off onto a paralleled
wire? What benefit is realized by this 'sharing'
of battery current?
Except when cranking the engine, the
total current flowing through the battery
ground path will not exceed alternator capacity
and then only for the minutes needed to top
of the battery. Battery currents in normal
operations are essentially zero . . .
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Grounding architecture |
| From: | Bill Watson <Mauledriver(at)nc.rr.com> |
Bob's point is that it is completely unnecessary. I have a robust
battery to ground connection at the battery and at my firewall grounding
bar:
Battery Mount and Ground (680s)
<http://www.mykitlog.com/users/display_log.php?user=mauledriver&project=224&category=2155&log=55678&row=18>
Firewall ground
<http://www.mykitlog.com/users/display_log.php?user=mauledriver&project=224&category=4043&log=62926&row=2>
You can see in the first link the 8AWG white wire going forward to the
grounding bar. If it is unnecessary then I consider a bad plan. An
error on my part that simply added weight.
On 7/26/2018 3:15 PM, Rocketman1988 wrote:
>
> So is running a 2 AWG cable from the aft mounted batteries on an RV 10 to a firewall
stud a bad plan? Would a basic airframe ground be the better option,i.e.
ground the batteries at their aft mounted location?
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=481866#481866
>
>
---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Grounding architecture |
| From: | "Rocketman1988" <Rocketman(at)etczone.com> |
Bob, so is there anything wrong with a grounding plan similar to the Z-15 for the
Rv-10? It is simple enough to run that 2awg wire now, not so much later. For
reference, the main 2awg wire running from the battery to the starter contactor
is about 12 feet long. The ground would obviously be about the same.
Thanks in advance...
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=481880#481880
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Grounding architecture |
At 02:15 PM 7/26/2018, you wrote:
>
>
>So is running a 2 AWG cable from the aft mounted batteries on an RV
>10 to a firewall stud a bad plan? Would a basic airframe ground be
>the better option,i.e. ground the batteries at their aft mounted location?
It's not 'bad' . . . just unnecessary when
a lighter alternative is available. Airplanes
like Beechjets and Hawkers have all manner
of airframe grounds that carry currents from
amps to thousands of amps (starter inrush).
There are NO wires installed to avoid running
ground returns through airframes. Well, almost
no wires . . . had a case on a T1 trainer (Beechjet)
in Mississippi where four strands of 2awg were
routed from tail to nose to carry power and
ground to a nose mounted air conditioning
compressor motor (3+ horsepower). This
antagonist was so profound that running
motor current over so much of the airframe
was a noise disaster. But that's another
story.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | FLYaDIVE <flyadive(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Grounding architecture |
Charlie:
How can an aluminum - Riveted skin be a lower resistance than a straight
run of copper wire?
It can't since aluminum has a higher resistance than copper. To that add
the poor connection of riveted panels.
Also remember aluminum sheeting is clear coat anodized.
Barry
On Thu, Jul 26, 2018 at 10:58 PM, Charlie England
wrote:
> ceengland7(at)gmail.com>
>
> On 7/26/2018 2:15 PM, Rocketman1988 wrote:
>
>> Rocketman(at)etczone.com>
>>
>> So is running a 2 AWG cable from the aft mounted batteries on an RV 10 to
>> a firewall stud a bad plan? Would a basic airframe ground be the better
>> option,i.e. ground the batteries at their aft mounted location?
>>
>> I think the idea is that running the extra ground wire forward is not a
> *bad* idea; just an unnecessary one, in a metal a/c. The airframe will be
> a lower resistance ground path than any practically size wire.
>
> Problems related to the ground loop issue are usually limited to audio
> gear. I'm sure Bob can give you a better, more precise description of what
> happens. But my layman's description is this: If a low level signal, like
> audio, shares its ground return path with much stronger, 'noisy' electrical
> signals, like a strobe, the strobe noise can effectively become part of the
> audio signal, and you get the noise in the audio system. To prevent that,
> you use the 'forest of tabs' located somewhere near the audio (and other
> low signal level) gear, and run all low level signals to that spot instead
> of through the airframe. That keeps the ground paths of the low level stuff
> & the 'noisy' stuff separate.
>
> Charlie
>
> ---
> This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
> https://www.avast.com/antivirus
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Alec Myers <alec(at)alecmyers.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Grounding architecture |
Because the cross sectional area of the fuselage is many times greater than t
he cross section of the putative wire, and rivets are great conductors?
On Jul 27, 2018, at 16:07, FLYaDIVE wrote:
Charlie:
How can an aluminum - Riveted skin be a lower resistance than a straight run
of copper wire?
It can't since aluminum has a higher resistance than copper. To that add th
e poor connection of riveted panels.
Also remember aluminum sheeting is clear coat anodized.
Barry
> On Thu, Jul 26, 2018 at 10:58 PM, Charlie England w
rote:
.com>
>
>> On 7/26/2018 2:15 PM, Rocketman1988 wrote:
ne.com>
>>
>> So is running a 2 AWG cable from the aft mounted batteries on an RV 10 to
a firewall stud a bad plan? Would a basic airframe ground be the better op
tion,i.e. ground the batteries at their aft mounted location?
>>
> I think the idea is that running the extra ground wire forward is not a *b
ad* idea; just an unnecessary one, in a metal a/c. The airframe will be a l
ower resistance ground path than any practically size wire.
>
> Problems related to the ground loop issue are usually limited to audio gea
r. I'm sure Bob can give you a better, more precise description of what happ
ens. But my layman's description is this: If a low level signal, like audio,
shares its ground return path with much stronger, 'noisy' electrical signal
s, like a strobe, the strobe noise can effectively become part of the audio s
ignal, and you get the noise in the audio system. To prevent that, you use t
he 'forest of tabs' located somewhere near the audio (and other low signal l
evel) gear, and run all low level signals to that spot instead of through th
e airframe. That keeps the ground paths of the low level stuff & the 'noisy'
stuff separate.
>
> Charlie
>
> ---
> This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
> https://www.avast.com/antivirus
>
>
> =========================
> -
> Electric-List" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://www.matronics.c
om/Navigator?AeroElectric-List
> =========================
> FORUMS -
> eferrer" target="_blank">http://forums.matronics.com
> =========================
> WIKI -
> errer" target="_blank">http://wiki.matronics.com
> =========================
> b Site -
> -Matt Dralle, List Admin.
> rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/contribution
> =========================
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Grounding architecture |
| From: | Charlie England <ceengland7(at)gmail.com> |
That, and the unrelated point that no aircraft grade aluminum sheet is anod
ized, clear or otherwise=2E
Barry, where are you getting your misinformati
on?
Charlie
=81=A3Charlie=8B
On Jul 27, 2018, 10:55 AM, at 10:5
5 AM, Alec Myers wrote:
>Because the cross sectional
area of the fuselage is many times greater
>than the cross section of the
putative wire, and rivets are great
>conductors?
>
>On Jul 27, 2018, at 16:
07, FLYaDIVE wrote:
>
>Charlie:
>
>How can an alumin
um - Riveted skin be a lower resistance than a
>straight run of copper wire
?
>It can't since aluminum has a higher resistance than copper=2E To that
>add the poor connection of riveted panels=2E
>Also remember aluminum sheet
ing is clear coat anodized=2E
>
>Barry
>
>> On Thu, Jul 26, 2018 at 10:58
PM, Charlie England
> wrote:
>> --> AeroElectric-Li
st message posted by: Charlie England
>
>>
>>> On
7/26/2018 2:15 PM, Rocketman1988 wrote:
>>> --> AeroElectric-List message p
osted by: "Rocketman1988"
>
>>>
>>> So is running
a 2 AWG cable from the aft mounted batteries on an RV
>10 to a firewall st
ud a bad plan? Would a basic airframe ground be the
>better option,i=2Ee
=2E ground the batteries at their aft mounted location?
>>>
>> I think the
idea is that running the extra ground wire forward is not
>a *bad* idea; j
ust an unnecessary one, in a metal a/c=2E The airframe
>will be a lower re
sistance ground path than any practically size wire=2E
>>
>> Problems rela
ted to the ground loop issue are usually limited to
>audio gear=2E I'm sure
Bob can give you a better, more precise
>description of what happens=2E Bu
t my layman's description is this: If a
>low level signal, like audio, shar
es its ground return path with much
>stronger, 'noisy' electrical signals,
like a strobe, the strobe noise
>can effectively become part of the audio s
ignal, and you get the noise
>in the audio system=2E To prevent that, you u
se the 'forest of tabs'
>located somewhere near the audio (and other low si
gnal level) gear, and
>run all low level signals to that spot instead of th
rough the airframe=2E
>That keeps the ground paths of the low level stuff &
the 'noisy' stuff
>separate=2E
>>
>> Charlie
>>
>> ---
>> This email has
been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software=2E
>> https://www=2Ea
vast=2Ecom/antivirus
>>
>>
>> ==============
===========> -
>> Electric-List" rel="noreferrer"
>
target="_blank">http://www=2Ematronics=2Ecom/Navigator?AeroElectric-List
>> ========================
=> FORUMS -
>> eferrer" target="_blank">http://forums=2Ematronics=2Ecom
>> =======================
==> WIKI -
>> errer" target="_blank">http://wiki=2Ematronics=2Ecom
>>
========================
=> b Site -
>> -Matt Dralle, List Admin=2E
>> rel="noreferrer
"
>target="_blank">http://www=2Ematronics=2Ecom/contribution
>> ===
======================>
>>
>>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Alec Myers <alec(at)alecmyers.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Grounding architecture |
right... it=99s a strong aluminium alloy clad in pure (soft, but corro
sion resistant) aluminium. Hence =9CAlclad=9D.
On Jul 27, 2018, at 17:48, Charlie England wrote:
That, and the unrelated point that no aircraft grade aluminum sheet is anodi
zed, clear or otherwise.
Barry, where are you getting your misinformation?
Charlie
Charlie
> On Jul 27, 2018, at 10:55 AM, Alec Myers wrote:
> Because the cross sectional area of the fuselage is many times greater tha
n the cross section of the putative wire, and rivets are great conductors?
>
> On Jul 27, 2018, at 16:07, FLYaDIVE wrote:
>
> Charlie:
>
> How can an aluminum - Riveted skin be a lower resistance than a straight r
un of copper wire?
> It can't since aluminum has a higher resistance than copper. To that add t
he poor connection of riveted panels.
> Also remember aluminum sheeting is clear coat anodized.
>
> Barry
>
>> On Thu, Jul 26, 2018 at 10:58 PM, Charlie England w
rote:
l.com>
>>
>>> On 7/26/2018 2:15 PM, Rocketman1988 wrote:
one.com>
>>>
>>> So is running a 2 AWG cable from the aft mounted batteries on an RV 10 t
o a firewall stud a bad plan? Would a basic airframe ground be the better o
ption,i.e. ground the batteries at their aft mounted location?
>>>
>> I think the idea is that running the extra ground wire forward is not a *
bad* idea; just an unnecessary one, in a metal a/c. The airframe will be a l
ower resistance ground path than any practically size wire.
>>
>> Problems related to the ground loop issue are usually limited to audio ge
ar. I'm sure Bob can give you a better, more precise description of what hap
pens. But my layman's description is this: If a low level signal, like audio
, shares its ground return path with much stronger, 'noisy' electrical signa
ls, like a strobe, the strobe noise can effectively become part of the audio
signal, and you get the noise in the audio system. To prevent that, you use
the 'forest of tabs' located somewhere near the audio (and other low signal
level) gear, and run all low level signals to that spot instead of through t
he airframe. That keeps the ground paths of the low level stuff & the 'noisy
' stuff separate.
>>
>> Charlie
>>
>> ---
>> This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
>> https://www.avast.com/antivirus
>>
>>
>> =========================
>> -
>> Electric-List" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://www.matronics.
com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List
>> ==========
>> FORUMS -
>> eferrer" target="_blank">http://forums.matronics.com
>> =========================
>> WIKI -
>> errer" target="_blank">http://wiki.matronics.com
>> =========================
>> b Site -
>> -Matt Dralle, List Admin.
>> rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/contributio
n
>> ==========
>>
>>
>>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Grounding architecture |
At 10:07 AM 7/27/2018, you wrote:
>Charlie:
>
>How can an aluminum - Riveted skin be a lower
>resistance than a straight run of copper wire?
It's a 'cross section' thing. The square inches of conductor
cross-section from nose to tail of a metal airplane is
a whole lot bigger than any practical chunk of wire
you might choose to run.
>It can't since aluminum has a higher resistance than copper.
Depending on the alloy, aluminum will present
a volume resistivity on the order of 2.82x10^-8
while copper will be about 1.68x10^-8 or 67%
higher. Given that the cross section of wire
goes up with the square of diameter, an aluminum
wire only needs to be about 30% larger. This
speaks to the success of Eric's offer for copper-
clad, fine-strand FAT wires.
https://goo.gl/8HTqEV
In spite of being larger wires, they are lighter
for the same electrical performance. This also
speaks to the preference for using aluminum in
long distance transmission lines . . . the lighter
wire makes for a smaller steel core in the makeup
of the strands.
>=C2 To that add the poor connection of riveted panels.
A properly sized rivet SWELLS up in the hole
with such force that a gas-tight connection
is achieved even when the sheet is coated with
corrosion preventatives.
>Also remember aluminum sheeting is clear coat anodized.
Yes, there are come chemical passivation processes
offered for aluminum sheet . . . which has zero
influence on the electrical integrity of riveted
joints.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Grounding architecture |
At 10:01 AM 7/27/2018, you wrote:
>
>
>Bob, so is there anything wrong with a grounding plan similar to the
>Z-15 for the Rv-10? It is simple enough to run that 2awg wire now,
>not so much later. For reference, the main 2awg wire running from
>the battery to the starter contactor is about 12 feet long. The
>ground would obviously be about the same.
If you don't mind the weight penalty and cost
of installation, no . . . it will perform as
advertised.
I've updated View -A- to Z-15 to add a note on
the battery(-) connection to (1) suggest it
be used as shown on forward/rear mounted batteries
in plastic and forward mounted batteries in
metal airplanes. It can be replaced with local
grounding of the battery on a metal airplane.
https://goo.gl/NtQT1P
We've discussed this on several occasions over
the years but the conclusions didn't get
carried over to Z-15.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Grounding architecture |
| From: | Kelly McMullen <kellym(at)aviating.com> |
You are comparing 2AWG copper or lesser, to almost infinite size
aluminum, which is NOT clear coat anodized, never has been, as far as
the common varieties such as 2024T3 or 5056. The 2024 in fact has a thin
layer of pure aluminum at the surface, known as alclad. Rivets are in
fact gas tight metal to metal connections.
Have you any data to assert that the copper has less resistance?
Kelly
On 7/27/2018 10:07 AM, FLYaDIVE wrote:
> Charlie:
>
> How can an aluminum - Riveted skin be a lower resistance than a straight
> run of copper wire?
> It can't since aluminum has a higher resistance than copper. To that
> add the poor connection of riveted panels.
> Also remember aluminum sheeting is clear coat anodized.
>
> Barry
>
> On Thu, Jul 26, 2018 at 10:58 PM, Charlie England > wrote:
>
> >
>
> On 7/26/2018 2:15 PM, Rocketman1988 wrote:
>
> >
>
> So is running a 2 AWG cable from the aft mounted batteries on an
> RV 10 to a firewall stud a bad plan? Would a basic airframe
> ground be the better option,i.e. ground the batteries at their
> aft mounted location?
>
> I think the idea is that running the extra ground wire forward is
> not a *bad* idea; just an unnecessary one, in a metal a/c. The
> airframe will be a lower resistance ground path than any practically
> size wire.
>
> Problems related to the ground loop issue are usually limited to
> audio gear. I'm sure Bob can give you a better, more precise
> description of what happens. But my layman's description is this: If
> a low level signal, like audio, shares its ground return path with
> much stronger, 'noisy' electrical signals, like a strobe, the strobe
> noise can effectively become part of the audio signal, and you get
> the noise in the audio system. To prevent that, you use the 'forest
> of tabs' located somewhere near the audio (and other low signal
> level) gear, and run all low level signals to that spot instead of
> through the airframe. That keeps the ground paths of the low level
> stuff & the 'noisy' stuff separate.
>
> Charlie
>
> ---
> This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
> https://www.avast.com/antivirus
>
>
> ===================================
> -
> Electric-List" rel="noreferrer"
> target="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List
> ===================================
> FORUMS -
> eferrer" target="_blank">http://forums.matronics.com
> ===================================
> WIKI -
> errer" target="_blank">http://wiki.matronics.com
> ===================================
> b Site -
> -Matt Dralle, List Admin.
> rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/contribution
> ===================================
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Grounding architecture |
At 08:19 PM 7/27/2018, you wrote:
>
>You are comparing 2AWG copper or lesser, to almost infinite size
>aluminum, which is NOT clear coat anodized, never has been, as far
>as the common varieties such as 2024T3 or 5056. The 2024 in fact has
>a thin layer of pure aluminum at the surface, known as alclad.
>Rivets are in fact gas tight metal to metal connections.
>Have you any data to assert that the copper has less resistance?
It's a fact of physics that copper is
a better conductor than aluminum in the
same cross section. The harder thing to
wrap your arms around is to consider the
effective cross section of a fuselage
structure covered in a relatively thin
layer of aluminum. The path traveled by
current flows through the airframe do not
move is straight lines but will concentrate
over the areas of least resistance.
There have been studies and experiments
run for effects of direct lightning strikes.
Intuitively we can assert that small aircraft
will have higher resistance between similar
locations on the airframe . . . but for this
thread, it's sufficient to assert that adding
an extra wire between battery(-) in the tail
and firewall ground stud will produce no
demonstrable benefit.
A 12' run of 22759 2AWG at ~0.28 pounds/ft
adds about 3.4 pounds to the aircraft's
empty weight.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Grounding architecture |
| From: | "Eric M. Jones" <emjones(at)charter.net> |
Years ago Bob N. put togther a little collection called the "Economics of Weight
Reduction", in which he had a piece I had written. It is still on the Aeroelectric
Connection, but I attach it here. Good reading.
I too, wonder about using the aluminum skin for a ground conductor...Not that it
doesn't work in most cases (it does work), but as the structure ages, and in
some special cases, it gives me pause. The rivets could grow weak any you wouldn't
even know it.
My guess is that steel airframes are best not used as ground due to magnetization.
Also to be sure, Aluminum is a far better conductor than copper per weight. I also
include my piece on the subject.
I sell a lot of Copper Clad Aluminum cable to people who are extremely careful
with weight. Drones, NASCAR, EAA aircraft, NASA,Aerovironment, TOP FUEL DRAGSTERS!,
Searey, many others. There has never been a problem history with CCA.
--------
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=481895#481895
Attachments:
http://forums.matronics.com//files/copper_cables_607.pdf
http://forums.matronics.com//files/economics_of_weight_reduction_139.pdf
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Grounding architecture |
| From: | Charlie England <ceengland7(at)gmail.com> |
On 7/28/2018 9:50 AM, Eric M. Jones wrote:
>
> Years ago Bob N. put togther a little collection called the "Economics of Weight
Reduction", in which he had a piece I had written. It is still on the Aeroelectric
Connection, but I attach it here. Good reading.
>
> I too, wonder about using the aluminum skin for a ground conductor...Not that
it doesn't work in most cases (it does work), but as the structure ages, and
in some special cases, it gives me pause. The rivets could grow weak any you wouldn't
even know it.
>
> My guess is that steel airframes are best not used as ground due to magnetization.
>
> Also to be sure, Aluminum is a far better conductor than copper per weight. I
also include my piece on the subject.
>
> I sell a lot of Copper Clad Aluminum cable to people who are extremely careful
with weight. Drones, NASCAR, EAA aircraft, NASA,Aerovironment, TOP FUEL DRAGSTERS!,
Searey, many others. There has never been a problem history with CCA.
>
> --------
> Eric M. Jones
> www.PerihelionDesign.com
> 113 Brentwood Drive
> Southbridge, MA 01550
> (508) 764-2072
> emjones(at)charter.net
>
The obvious solution to the unlikely resistance growth issue would be to
use a longeron. Obviously won't apply to every a/c design, but the RVs
have a continuous longeron from firewall to tail. Tying to a longeron
(1/8 thick x 3/4 x 3/4 inches) would give an unbroken path.
Charlie
---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Ken Ryan <keninalaska(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Grounding architecture |
Eric, is the copper clad aluminum cable as stiff as copper of the same
gauge?
On Sat, Jul 28, 2018 at 6:55 AM Eric M. Jones wrote:
> emjones(at)charter.net>
>
> Years ago Bob N. put togther a little collection called the "Economics of
> Weight Reduction", in which he had a piece I had written. It is still on
> the Aeroelectric Connection, but I attach it here. Good reading.
>
> I too, wonder about using the aluminum skin for a ground conductor...Not
> that it doesn't work in most cases (it does work), but as the structure
> ages, and in some special cases, it gives me pause. The rivets could grow
> weak any you wouldn't even know it.
>
> My guess is that steel airframes are best not used as ground due to
> magnetization.
>
> Also to be sure, Aluminum is a far better conductor than copper per
> weight. I also include my piece on the subject.
>
> I sell a lot of Copper Clad Aluminum cable to people who are extremely
> careful with weight. Drones, NASCAR, EAA aircraft, NASA,Aerovironment, TOP
> FUEL DRAGSTERS!, Searey, many others. There has never been a problem
> history with CCA.
>
> --------
> 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=481895#481895
>
>
> Attachments:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com//files/copper_cables_607.pdf
> http://forums.matronics.com//files/economics_of_weight_reduction_139.pdf
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | William Hunter <billhuntersemail(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | Can You PLEASE help Me Find a CHINT NP4 Switch (or |
equivalent)
Sorry for the slightly off topic post (however this is for a machine
installed inside my airplane hangar).
I am looking for a pushbutton switch to replace the broken one on my
hydraulic lift.
It's a push button momentary contact on single pole single throw switch.
The diameter of the hole in the panel is 0.894 inches / 22.72 MM.
The switch that broke is labeled CHNT NP4 and it has other numbers on it
such as GB140 48.5 and it's a 10 amp switch.
It is a switch that you push and hold in the button and then a relay closes
to energize the electric motor that moves the hydraulic pump.
Again, sorry about the off-topic post however I've spent 30 minutes on the
Google with no success but I'm sure there's a guy on this forum that will
recognize this switch immediately and know exactly where to find one (or
one that will work).
Thanks!!!
Bill Hunter
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Alec Myers <alec(at)alecmyers.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Can You PLEASE help Me Find a CHINT NP4 Switch |
(or equivalent)
https://www.google.ca/search?q=chint+np4+switch
There are about a million options...
On Jul 28, 2018, at 20:08, William Hunter wrote
:
Sorry for the slightly off topic post (however this is for a machine install
ed inside my airplane hangar).
I am looking for a pushbutton switch to replace the broken one on my hydraul
ic lift.
It's a push button momentary contact on single pole single throw switch. Th
e diameter of the hole in the panel is 0.894 inches / 22.72 MM.
The switch that broke is labeled CHNT NP4 and it has other numbers on it suc
h as GB140 48.5 and it's a 10 amp switch.
It is a switch that you push and hold in the button and then a relay closes t
o energize the electric motor that moves the hydraulic pump.
Again, sorry about the off-topic post however I've spent 30 minutes on the G
oogle with no success but I'm sure there's a guy on this forum that will re
cognize this switch immediately and know exactly where to find one (or one t
hat will work).
Thanks!!!
Bill Hunter
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Can You PLEASE help Me Find a CHINT NP4 Switch |
(or equivalent)
At 02:08 PM 7/28/2018, you wrote:
>Sorry for the slightly off topic post (however
>this is for a machine installed inside my airplane hangar).
>
>I am looking for a pushbutton switch to replace
>the broken one on my hydraulic lift.=C2
>
>It's a push button momentary contact on single
>pole single throw switch.=C2 The diameter of the
>hole in the panel is 0.894 inches / 22.72 MM.=C2
>
>The switch that broke is labeled CHNT NP4 and it
>has other numbers on it such as GB140 48.5 and it's a 10 amp switch.=C2 =C2
>
>It is a switch that you push and hold in the
>button and then a relay closes to energize the
>electric motor that moves the hydraulic pump.
>
>Again, sorry about the off-topic post however
>I've spent 30 minutes on the Google=C2 with no
>success but I'm sure there's a guy on this forum
>that will recognize this switch immediately and
>know exactly where to find one (or one that will work).
>
>Thanks!!!=C2
>
>Bill Hunter
There is nothing electrically special about this
switch other than the fact that it's normally open.
You probably want to get the door operable ASAP
so go to a hardware store and get ANY normally open
P.B. Here's one example at Lowes.
https://goo.gl/66gez5
Wire it into place temporarily . . . mgiht even let it
dangle on the wires wrapped with tape to keep the
electrons from tunning onto the floor.
Then order one of these:
https://goo.gl/pTKXPT
It will directly replace the switch that's broken
and will be delivered to your door in a few days
for free.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | William Hunter <billhuntersemail(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Can You PLEASE help Me Find a CHINT NP4 Switch |
(or equivalent)
That is the one Bob... less than 5 bucks (delivered) is KAZACKLY what I
needed.
Thanks Again!!!!
Bill Hunter
On Sat, Jul 28, 2018, 12:32 Robert L. Nuckolls, III <
nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> wrote:
> At 02:08 PM 7/28/2018, you wrote:
>
> Sorry for the slightly off topic post (however this is for a machine
> installed inside my airplane hangar).
>
> I am looking for a pushbutton switch to replace the broken one on my
> hydraulic lift.=C3=82
>
> It's a push button momentary contact on single pole single throw switch.
=C3=82
> The diameter of the hole in the panel is 0.894 inches / 22.72 MM.=C3=82
>
> The switch that broke is labeled CHNT NP4 and it has other numbers on it
> such as GB140 48.5 and it's a 10 amp switch.=C3=82 =C3=82
>
> It is a switch that you push and hold in the button and then a relay
> closes to energize the electric motor that moves the hydraulic pump.
>
> Again, sorry about the off-topic post however I've spent 30 minutes on th
e
> Google=C3=82 with no success but I'm sure there's a guy on this forum th
at will
> recognize this switch immediately and know exactly where to find one (or
> one that will work).
>
> Thanks!!!=C3=82
>
> Bill Hunter
>
>
> There is nothing electrically special about this
> switch other than the fact that it's normally open.
>
> You probably want to get the door operable ASAP
> so go to a hardware store and get ANY normally open
> P.B. Here's one example at Lowes.
>
> https://goo.gl/66gez5
>
> Wire it into place temporarily . . . mgiht even let it
> dangle on the wires wrapped with tape to keep the
> electrons from tunning onto the floor.
>
> Then order one of these:
>
>
> https://goo.gl/pTKXPT
>
>
> It will directly replace the switch that's broken
> and will be delivered to your door in a few days
> for free.
>
> Bob . . .
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Can You PLEASE help Me Find a CHINT NP4 Switch |
(or equivalent)
| From: | Charlie England <ceengland7(at)gmail.com> |
On 7/28/2018 2:28 PM, Robert L. Nuckolls, III wrote:
> At 02:08 PM 7/28/2018, you wrote:
>> Sorry for the slightly off topic post (however this is for a machine
>> installed inside my airplane hangar).
>>
>> I am looking for a pushbutton switch to replace the broken one on my
>> hydraulic lift.
>>
>> It's a push button momentary contact on single pole single throw
>> switch. The diameter of the hole in the panel is 0.894 inches /
>> 22.72 MM.
>>
>> The switch that broke is labeled CHNT NP4 and it has other numbers on
>> it such as GB140 48.5 and it's a 10 amp switch.
>>
>> It is a switch that you push and hold in the button and then a relay
>> closes to energize the electric motor that moves the hydraulic pump.
>>
>> Again, sorry about the off-topic post however I've spent 30 minutes
>> on the Google with no success but I'm sure there's a guy on this
>> forum that will recognize this switch immediately and know exactly
>> where to find one (or one that will work).
>>
>> Thanks!!!
>>
>> Bill Hunter
>
>
> There is nothing electrically special about this
> switch other than the fact that it's normally open.
>
> You probably want to get the door operable ASAP
> so go to a hardware store and get ANY normally open
> P.B. Here's one example at Lowes.
>
> https://goo.gl/66gez5
>
> Wire it into place temporarily . . . mgiht even let it
> dangle on the wires wrapped with tape to keep the
> electrons from tunning onto the floor.
>
> Then order one of these:
>
>
> https://goo.gl/pTKXPT
>
>
> It will directly replace the switch that's broken
> and will be delivered to your door in a few days
> for free.
>
> Bob . . .
>
Hi Bob,
You might want to recheck that ebay link. When I click it, I get an
emergency stop switch. The industrial E-stop switches I've worked with
latch down, opening the safety interlock line and closing a pair of
contacts used for monitoring the safety loop. They must be either pulled
or rotated back to 'normal' position. The one pictured has circular
arrows on the button, which indicates that it latches down and must be
rotated to release. The text at the bottom of the listing says that,
too. If he's replacing a momentary PB, things could get interesting if
he doesn't notice how to release the button.
Charlie
---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Can You PLEASE help Me Find a CHINT NP4 Switch |
(or equivalen
| From: | "user9253" <fransew(at)gmail.com> |
A search for Chint NP4 gave these:
https://www.aliexpress.com/item/CHINT-Button-Switch-Since-Reset-NP4-11BN-Flat-Button-Switch-Reset-Switch-Button-Normally-Open-Often/32828826215.html
http://www.usbreaker.com/products/products.php
https://www.alliedelec.com/view/search/?category=3|2510419/2737097/2737107&isredirect=1&keyword=switches&n8520=10%20A,15%20A,16%20A,12%20A,13%20A,10.5%20A,20%20A&n8461=Round,Round%2030mm,Round%20Flush,Round%20Recessed&pg=1&mpp &sort=price_retailasc
--------
Joe Gores
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=481907#481907
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | William Hunter <billhuntersemail(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Can You PLEASE help Me Find a CHINT NP4 Switch |
(or equivalent)
Thanks Charlie for the heads up! I emailed the seller to confirm what kind
of switch it was
Thanks,
Bill Hunter
On Sat, Jul 28, 2018, 13:34 Charlie England wrote:
> On 7/28/2018 2:28 PM, Robert L. Nuckolls, III wrote:
>
> At 02:08 PM 7/28/2018, you wrote:
>
> Sorry for the slightly off topic post (however this is for a machine
> installed inside my airplane hangar).
>
> I am looking for a pushbutton switch to replace the broken one on my
> hydraulic lift.=C3=82
>
> It's a push button momentary contact on single pole single throw switch.
=C3=82
> The diameter of the hole in the panel is 0.894 inches / 22.72 MM.=C3=82
>
> The switch that broke is labeled CHNT NP4 and it has other numbers on it
> such as GB140 48.5 and it's a 10 amp switch.=C3=82 =C3=82
>
> It is a switch that you push and hold in the button and then a relay
> closes to energize the electric motor that moves the hydraulic pump.
>
> Again, sorry about the off-topic post however I've spent 30 minutes on th
e
> Google=C3=82 with no success but I'm sure there's a guy on this forum th
at will
> recognize this switch immediately and know exactly where to find one (or
> one that will work).
>
> Thanks!!!=C3=82
>
> Bill Hunter
>
>
> There is nothing electrically special about this
> switch other than the fact that it's normally open.
>
> You probably want to get the door operable ASAP
> so go to a hardware store and get ANY normally open
> P.B. Here's one example at Lowes.
>
> https://goo.gl/66gez5
>
> Wire it into place temporarily . . . mgiht even let it
> dangle on the wires wrapped with tape to keep the
> electrons from tunning onto the floor.
>
> Then order one of these:
>
>
> https://goo.gl/pTKXPT
>
>
> It will directly replace the switch that's broken
> and will be delivered to your door in a few days
> for free.
>
> Bob . . .
>
> Hi Bob,
>
> You might want to recheck that ebay link. When I click it, I get an
> emergency stop switch. The industrial E-stop switches I've worked with
> latch down, opening the safety interlock line and closing a pair of
> contacts used for monitoring the safety loop. They must be either pulled
or
> rotated back to 'normal' position. The one pictured has circular arrows o
n
> the button, which indicates that it latches down and must be rotated to
> release. The text at the bottom of the listing says that, too. If he's
> replacing a momentary PB, things could get interesting if he doesn't noti
ce
> how to release the button.
>
> Charlie
>
>
> Virus-free
.
> www.avast.com
>
> <#m_-6760267267783769634_DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | William Hunter <billhuntersemail(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Can You PLEASE help Me Find a CHINT NP4 Switch |
(or equivalent)
The same seller on eBay had the switch I needed so I will swap the
emergency stop switch for this one
https://m.ebay.com/itm/NEW-TWO-2-Push-Button-Switch-Momentary-Press-Switch-
Heavy-Duty/170614528296?hash=item27b96b1928%3Ag%3AOUQAAOxyjzNRF4x~&_pgn
=1&rt=nc
Thanks again for all your help!
Thanks,
Bill Hunter
On Sat, Jul 28, 2018, 12:32 Robert L. Nuckolls, III <
nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> wrote:
> At 02:08 PM 7/28/2018, you wrote:
>
> Sorry for the slightly off topic post (however this is for a machine
> installed inside my airplane hangar).
>
> I am looking for a pushbutton switch to replace the broken one on my
> hydraulic lift.=C3=82
>
> It's a push button momentary contact on single pole single throw switch.
=C3=82
> The diameter of the hole in the panel is 0.894 inches / 22.72 MM.=C3=82
>
> The switch that broke is labeled CHNT NP4 and it has other numbers on it
> such as GB140 48.5 and it's a 10 amp switch.=C3=82 =C3=82
>
> It is a switch that you push and hold in the button and then a relay
> closes to energize the electric motor that moves the hydraulic pump.
>
> Again, sorry about the off-topic post however I've spent 30 minutes on th
e
> Google=C3=82 with no success but I'm sure there's a guy on this forum th
at will
> recognize this switch immediately and know exactly where to find one (or
> one that will work).
>
> Thanks!!!=C3=82
>
> Bill Hunter
>
>
> There is nothing electrically special about this
> switch other than the fact that it's normally open.
>
> You probably want to get the door operable ASAP
> so go to a hardware store and get ANY normally open
> P.B. Here's one example at Lowes.
>
> https://goo.gl/66gez5
>
> Wire it into place temporarily . . . mgiht even let it
> dangle on the wires wrapped with tape to keep the
> electrons from tunning onto the floor.
>
> Then order one of these:
>
>
> https://goo.gl/pTKXPT
>
>
> It will directly replace the switch that's broken
> and will be delivered to your door in a few days
> for free.
>
> Bob . . .
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | William Hunter <billhuntersemail(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | 220 VAC Circuit Breaker Question |
Greetings,
If you all would be so kind as to entertain another slightly off topic
electrical question.
In my hangar I just installed an evaporative cooler and it is powered by a
newly purchased 20 amp 220 volt circuit breaker.
Due to an internal problem in the toggle switch out at the unit there was a
direct short because when I closed the 20 amp circuit breaker(s) about 3
seconds later the entire power to the hanger was shut off because the 60
amp feed circuit breaker out at the house opened.
This was kind of surprising because I assume that if there was a short out
at the evaporative cooler unit then the new 20 amp circuit breaker that
I've installed for that circuit would have opened before the main 60 amp
circuit breaker that feeds the entire hanger would open.
I removed the toggle switch at the unit and directly wired the 220 volt
wires to the unit wires and it's working perfectly (so I have a discussion
with Mastercool about getting a replacement toggle switch) but regardless I
have concluded that the wires out to the unit are fine and the unit motor
is working fine so my only concern at this point is why would the 20 amp
circuit breaker not open and why would it stay closed long enough to
require the main feed 60 amp circuit breaker to open?
I have another 20 amp circuit breaker that I could install in circuit
however I figured I would ask the collective what their thoughts were first
.
And BTW... the evaporative cooler is taking 100 degree outside Arizona air
and making it 80=C2=B0 as it enters the hanger however a 3000 square foot s
teel
building without insulation in the Arizona Sun is a bit hard to cool. Any
suggestions on hanger insulation?
Thanks,
Bill Hunter
On Sat, Jul 28, 2018, 12:32 Robert L. Nuckolls, III <
nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> wrote:
> At 02:08 PM 7/28/2018, you wrote:
>
> Sorry for the slightly off topic post (however this is for a machine
> installed inside my airplane hangar).
>
> I am looking for a pushbutton switch to replace the broken one on my
> hydraulic lift.=C3=82
>
> It's a push button momentary contact on single pole single throw switch.
=C3=82
> The diameter of the hole in the panel is 0.894 inches / 22.72 MM.=C3=82
>
> The switch that broke is labeled CHNT NP4 and it has other numbers on it
> such as GB140 48.5 and it's a 10 amp switch.=C3=82 =C3=82
>
> It is a switch that you push and hold in the button and then a relay
> closes to energize the electric motor that moves the hydraulic pump.
>
> Again, sorry about the off-topic post however I've spent 30 minutes on th
e
> Google=C3=82 with no success but I'm sure there's a guy on this forum th
at will
> recognize this switch immediately and know exactly where to find one (or
> one that will work).
>
> Thanks!!!=C3=82
>
> Bill Hunter
>
>
> There is nothing electrically special about this
> switch other than the fact that it's normally open.
>
> You probably want to get the door operable ASAP
> so go to a hardware store and get ANY normally open
> P.B. Here's one example at Lowes.
>
> https://goo.gl/66gez5
>
> Wire it into place temporarily . . . mgiht even let it
> dangle on the wires wrapped with tape to keep the
> electrons from tunning onto the floor.
>
> Then order one of these:
>
>
> https://goo.gl/pTKXPT
>
>
> It will directly replace the switch that's broken
> and will be delivered to your door in a few days
> for free.
>
> Bob . . .
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: 220 VAC Circuit Breaker Question |
| From: | "user9253" <fransew(at)gmail.com> |
When two circuit breakers (or fuses) are in series, either one or both could trip
(or blow) when there is a short circuit. A friend told me that he was working
on an electric range outlet without shutting off the power. He stuck his
screwdriver where it shouldn't be and shorted out the circuit. The main breaker
for the whole apartment building tripped. He had to get the manager to unlock
the utility room to reset the main breaker. I do not know if the 40 amp range
breaker tripped or not.
The above scenario might be one reason why aircraft main bus feeders are not
normally fused. I know that the major reason given for not fusing the feeder
is that it is not needed. Another reason is that if it is not installed, then
it can not blow.
--------
Joe Gores
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=481911#481911
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Charles Plumery <barber_seville(at)msn.com> |
| Subject: | Re: 220 VAC Circuit Breaker Question |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________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Can You PLEASE help Me Find a CHINT NP4 Switch |
(or equivalent)
>
>You might want to recheck that ebay link. When I click it, I get an
>emergency stop switch. The industrial E-stop switches I've worked
>with latch down, opening the safety interlock line and closing a
>pair of contacts used for monitoring the safety loop. They must be
>either pulled or rotated back to 'normal' position. The one pictured
>has circular arrows on the button, which indicates that it latches
>down and must be rotated to release. The text at the bottom of the
>listing says that, too. If he's replacing a momentary PB, things
>could get interesting if he doesn't notice how to release the button.
>
>Charlie
Good catch Charlie. I missed that. Perhaps this
is a bettery options
https://goo.gl/R5rAdN
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Can You PLEASE help Me Find a CHINT NP4 Switch |
(or equivalent)
At 06:59 PM 7/28/2018, you wrote:
>The same seller on eBay had the switch I needed so I will swap the
>emergency stop switch for this one
>
>https://m.ebay.com/itm/NEW-TWO-2-Push-Button-Switch-Momentary-Press-Switch-Heavy-Duty/170614528296?hash=item27b96b1928%3Ag%3AOUQAAOxyjzNRF4x~&_pgn=1&rt=nc
>
>Thanks again for all your help!
>
>Thanks,
>
>Bill Hunter
Sounds like you guys got it under control . . .
that's how this List rolls!
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Grounding architecture |
| From: | "Eric M. Jones" <emjones(at)charter.net> |
> Eric, is the copper clad aluminum cable as stiff as copper of the same gauge?
Well, it's complicated. I don't sell this as replacement for Mogami microphone
cable. Big cable is stiff cable UNLESS like some welding cable it is made of individual
fine wires.
Copper Clad Aluminum is not made finer that 23 AWG (0.0226"), so all cables made
from it can only be so flexible. On top of that the insulation sacrifices some
flexibility to achieve its other desirable qualities. Bare, the CCA is very
flexible.
On the other hand, it IS more flexible than SOME copper cable of the same gauge,
just not all cables.
Sample on request.
--------
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=481917#481917
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Art Zemon <art(at)zemon.name> |
| Subject: | Re: Melted battery terminal |
Folks,
I am home now, with access to a real keyboard and a real chair :-)
AirVenture was good this year but immediately followed by a hurried trip to
New Jersey with no time to even think.
Based on your emails, I figured out my hypothesis of what happened:
1. The connector between the cable from the battery to the ammeter shunt
got loose, increasing the resistance.
2. For unknown reasons, the engine was hard to start and the pilot kept
cranking and cranking and cranking.
3. There is no circuit protection in the circuit battery positive
terminal -> shunt -> master contactor -> starter contactor -> starter motor
-> engine block -> battery negative terminal
4. Lacking circuit protection, the parts most likely to get hot enough
to melt were the lead battery terminals. It was a crap shoot which would
fail first, positive or negative. Once the negative got hot enough to
loosen up, it got hotter in a hurry and melted.
Several lessons learned.
- I don't think that pilot will do that again.
- I learned that too much cranking puts other components at risk, not
just the starter motor.
- The airplane's owner will be checking the other high current
connectors.
- In diagnosing this issue, I spotted another damaged connection
(unrelated problem) on the master contactor so the airplane's owner will
fix that too.
- I have the same battery in my airplane and when it needs replacing, I
will choose a model that doesn't have lead terminals.
Thank you for the education!
-- Art Z.
On Wed, Jul 25, 2018 at 10:08 AM Art Zemon wrote:
> Question for y'all. This happened at AirVenture (not my plane,
> thankfully). The cable from the battery positive terminal to the
> shunt
> got loose at the current limiter end. Just loose, it did not come off.
> The pilot kept cranking on the starter until he heard a pop. The negative
> terminal on the battery has melted. See photo.
>
> I don't understand why this is the party that got hot, since this
> connector was tight. And why there is no other visible damage to the
> battery out anything else, not even the
> shunt
> .
>
--
https://CheerfulCurmudgeon.com/
*"We do not see the world as it is. We see the world as we are."*
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Melted battery terminal |
| From: | Charlie England <ceengland7(at)gmail.com> |
=81=A3Charlie=8B
On Jul 29, 2018, 4:39 PM, at 4:39 PM, Charlie
England wrote:
>
>
>=81=A3Charlie=8B
>
>O
n Jul 29, 2018, 4:18 PM, at 4:18 PM, Art Zemon wrote:
>>
Folks,
>>
>>I am home now, with access to a real keyboard and a real chair
:-)
>>AirVenture was good this year but immediately followed by a hurried
>
>trip to
>>New Jersey with no time to even think=2E
>>
>>Based on your emai
ls, I figured out my hypothesis of what happened:
>>
>>1=2E The connector b
etween the cable from the battery to the ammeter
>>shunt
>> got loose, in
creasing the resistance=2E
>>2=2E For unknown reasons, the engine was hard
to start and the pilot
>kept
>> cranking and cranking and cranking=2E
>>
3=2E There is no circuit protection in the circuit battery positive
>>ter
minal -> shunt -> master contactor -> starter contactor -> starter
>>motor
>> -> engine block -> battery negative terminal
>> 4=2E Lacking circuit p
rotection, the parts most likely to get hot
>enough
>>to melt were the lead
battery terminals=2E It was a crap shoot which
>>would
>> fail first, pos
itive or negative=2E Once the negative got hot enough
>to
>> loosen up, i
t got hotter in a hurry and melted=2E
>>
>>Several lessons learned=2E
>>
>>
- I don't think that pilot will do that again=2E
>> - I learned that to
o much cranking puts other components at risk,
>not
>> just the starter m
otor=2E
>> - The airplane's owner will be checking the other high current
>> connectors=2E
>> - In diagnosing this issue, I spotted another dama
ged connection
>>(unrelated problem) on the master contactor so the airplan
e's owner
>>will
>> fix that too=2E
>>- I have the same battery in my air
plane and when it needs replacing,
>I
>> will choose a model that doesn't
have lead terminals=2E
>>
>>Thank you for the education!
>>
>> -- Art Z
=2E
>>
>>On Wed, Jul 25, 2018 at 10:08 AM Art Zemon wrot
e:
>>
>>> Question for y'all=2E This happened at AirVenture (not my plane,
>>> thankfully)=2E The cable from the battery positive terminal to the
>>>
shunt
>>> got loose at the current limiter end=2E Just loose, it did not c
ome
>>off=2E
>>> The pilot kept cranking on the starter until he heard a po
p=2E The
>>negative
>>> terminal on the battery has melted=2E See photo=2E
>>>
>>> I don't understand why this is the party that got hot, since this
>
July 04, 2018 - July 29, 2018
AeroElectric-Archive.digest.vol-om