AeroElectric-Archive.digest.vol-oq

October 14, 2018 - November 14, 2018



      One electronic ignition could be connected to the battery bus.
      The other EI could be connected to the Essential bus.
      Yes, there is a work around for substituting a LED for incandescent.
      Bob has drawn diagrams in the past.  Basically a load resistor is
      connected in parallel with the LED.
      
      --------
      Joe Gores
      
      
      Read this topic online here:
      
      http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=483811#483811
      
      
________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Oct 14, 2018
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com>
Subject: Re: Z-12 questions
> >=C2 what brand/model ignition systems? Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Z-12 questions
From: Charlie England <ceengland7(at)gmail.com>
Date: Oct 14, 2018
On 10/14/2018 1:01 PM, Robert L. Nuckolls, III wrote: >> >> I have read that non-permanent magnet alternators require a battery >> for reliable operation. > > not necessarily so . . . but your ship's battery, > diligently maintained is the most reliable source > of power in the airplane. > >> My question is, what happens if the battery fails or becomes >> disconnected? > > There will be a variant of Z-12 published that takes > some cues from Z-13/8 where the second alternator is > drives the battery bus as opposed to the main bus. > >> Will the alternators continue to operate as long as they arent >> both powered down and back up? Is a second, smaller battery >> required to ensure alternator operation? > > The proposed new z-figure will offer all the advantages > of Z-12 (originally designed for TC aircraft) and > Z-13 combined. > > >> Z-12 shows one EI and one mag but I am landing to have two EIs. > >> Where would be the best place to supply power to a second EI? > > what brand/model ignition systems? > >> Finally, I plan to have a glass panel and a small LED annunciator >> panel. Is there a work around for the incandescent bulb requirement >> of the B&C regulators? > > Yes. > > Plan for TWO LR3A-14 alternator controllers. > NOT one LR3 and one SB1 > > Bob . . . > That's good news; I've tried to do something similar to my electrically dependent auto engine conversion that has two identical alternators. Looking forward to seeing it looks like with your more experienced eye on it. You can expect a lot more demand for this; more and more people are using either the SDS or other full-electronic engine controllers, even on traditional engines. Charlie --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Lyn Robertson <lyn.robertson(at)gmail.com>
Date: Oct 14, 2018
Subject: Re: Z-12 questions
Hi Bob, sorry, I thought I answered that... the ignition system I plan to use is made by SDS (Simple Digital Systems) out of Canada. The Model is CPI (coil pack ignition) for 4 cylinder Lycomings. http://www.sdsefi.com/cpi.html Lyn On Sun, Oct 14, 2018 at 12:40 Robert L. Nuckolls, III < nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> wrote: > > =C3=82 what brand/model ignition systems? > > > Bob . . . > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Oct 14, 2018
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com>
Subject: Re: Z-12 questions
At 04:14 PM 10/14/2018, you wrote: >Hi Bob, >sorry, I thought I answered that... =C2 the >ignition system I plan to use is made by SDS >(Simple Digital Systems) out of Canada. The >Model is CPI (coil pack ignition) for 4 cylinder Lycomings.=C2 > ><http://www.sdsefi.com/cpi.html>http://www.sdsefi.com/cpi.html=C2 > >Lyn Okay, looked over the website but didn't see any data on current consumption. Are these numbers available to you? Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Lyn Robertson <lyn.robertson(at)gmail.com>
Date: Oct 14, 2018
Subject: Re: Z-12 questions
I=99ll see if I can get those numbers from Ross at SDS. Thanks. Lyn On Sun, Oct 14, 2018 at 17:52 Robert L. Nuckolls, III < nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> wrote: > At 04:14 PM 10/14/2018, you wrote: > > Hi Bob, > sorry, I thought I answered that... =C3=82 the ignition system I plan to use is > made by SDS (Simple Digital Systems) out of Canada. The Model is CPI (coi l > pack ignition) for 4 cylinder Lycomings.=C3=82 > > http://www.sdsefi.com/cpi.html=C3=82 > > Lyn > > > Okay, looked over the website but didn't > see any data on current consumption. Are > these numbers available to you? > > > Bob . . . > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Lyn Robertson <lyn.robertson(at)gmail.com>
Date: Oct 14, 2018
Subject: Re: Z-12 questions
I found this... Low current draw/ long spark duration. 4 cylinder coil pack and CPI draw about 1.2 amps at 2500 rpm. Lyn On Sun, Oct 14, 2018 at 17:52 Robert L. Nuckolls, III < nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> wrote: > At 04:14 PM 10/14/2018, you wrote: > > Hi Bob, > sorry, I thought I answered that... =C3=82 the ignition system I plan to use is > made by SDS (Simple Digital Systems) out of Canada. The Model is CPI (coi l > pack ignition) for 4 cylinder Lycomings.=C3=82 > > http://www.sdsefi.com/cpi.html=C3=82 > > Lyn > > > Okay, looked over the website but didn't > see any data on current consumption. Are > these numbers available to you? > > > Bob . . . > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Dr. Andrew Elliott" <a.s.elliott(at)cox.net>
Subject: re: Z-12 question
Date: Oct 15, 2018
My plane has a Precision Airmotive "Eagle" dual electronic ignition with electronic fuel injection - almost a FADEC, but it has a potentiometer for mixture control override. (This unit is no longer in production.) Their simple method of handling the power issue is a dedicated small 12V sealed battery (I think it is 5 or 6 AH.) with a panel charging indicator. According to the docs, this should run the system for > 1hour after a main power failure. I check it after by simply shutting off the battery and alternator. FWIW, Andy --------------------------------- Andy Elliott, RV-8, N303RV, @KFFZ CL: 480-695-9568 ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Lyn Robertson <lyn.robertson(at)gmail.com>
Date: Oct 15, 2018
Subject: Re: re: Z-12 question
Thanks Dr. Elliot! Simple but effective. There=99s a lot to be said for that. Lyn On Mon, Oct 15, 2018 at 08:00 Dr. Andrew Elliott wrote: > My plane has a Precision Airmotive =9CEagle=9D dual electroni c ignition with > electronic fuel injection - almost a FADEC, but it has a potentiometer fo r > mixture control override. (This unit is no longer in production.) > > > Their simple method of handling the power issue is a dedicated small 12V > sealed battery (I think it is 5 or 6 AH.) with a panel charging indicator . > According to the docs, this should run the system for > 1hour after a mai n > power failure. I check it after by simply shutting off the battery and > alternator. > > > FWIW, > > Andy > > > --------------------------------- > > Andy Elliott, RV-8, N303RV, @KFFZ > > CL: 480-695-9568 > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Oct 15, 2018
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com>
Subject: Re: re: Z-12 question
At 09:53 AM 10/15/2018, you wrote: >My plane has a Precision Airmotive "Eagle" dual electronic ignition >with electronic fuel injection - almost a FADEC, but it has a >potentiometer for mixture control override. (This unit is no longer >in production.) > >Their simple method of handling the power issue is a dedicated small >12V sealed battery (I think it is 5 or 6 AH.) with a panel charging >indicator. According to the docs, this should run the system for > >1hour after a main power failure. I check it after by simply >shutting off the battery and alternator. But why this extra hardware? How does one experience a total failure of the DC power system in an airplane? Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Sebastien <cluros(at)GMail.com>
Date: Oct 15, 2018
Subject: Re: re: Z-12 question
Electrical fire requiring the master switch be selected off? I also met a C182 that had apparently had a sudden and complete electrical failure at night but don't know the details. It's possible it was the typical "not noticing the alternator has failed until the battery is discharged" but I think all 182s have a warning light for this. Hard to miss at night and would not be sudden. On Mon, Oct 15, 2018, 08:49 Robert L. Nuckolls, III < nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> wrote: > At 09:53 AM 10/15/2018, you wrote: > > My plane has a Precision Airmotive =9CEagle=9D dual electroni c ignition with > electronic fuel injection - almost a FADEC, but it has a potentiometer fo r > mixture control override. (This unit is no longer in production.) > > Their simple method of handling the power issue is a dedicated small 12V > sealed battery (I think it is 5 or 6 AH.) with a panel charging indicator . > According to the docs, this should run the system for > 1hour after a mai n > power failure. I check it after by simply shutting off the battery and > alternator. > > > But why this extra hardware? How does one > experience a total failure of the DC > power system in an airplane? > > > Bob . . . > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Lyn Robertson <lyn.robertson(at)gmail.com>
Date: Oct 15, 2018
Subject: Re: re: Z-12 question
Here's what I got back from Ross Farnham at SDS: *There is a schematic for the 6 cylinder setup here: * *http://www.sdsefi.com/tcad15sm.pdf Fusing requirements are the same for * *the 4 cylinder setups so 10 amps for each coil pack and 2 amps for each * *CPI module. At 2700 rpm, current draw is around 1.5 amps each. * Lyn On Mon, Oct 15, 2018 at 8:49 AM Robert L. Nuckolls, III < nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> wrote: > At 09:53 AM 10/15/2018, you wrote: > > My plane has a Precision Airmotive =9CEagle=9D dual electroni c ignition with > electronic fuel injection - almost a FADEC, but it has a potentiometer fo r > mixture control override. (This unit is no longer in production.) > > Their simple method of handling the power issue is a dedicated small 12V > sealed battery (I think it is 5 or 6 AH.) with a panel charging indicator . > According to the docs, this should run the system for > 1hour after a mai n > power failure. I check it after by simply shutting off the battery and > alternator. > > > But why this extra hardware? How does one > experience a total failure of the DC > power system in an airplane? > > > Bob . . . > ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: re: Z-12 question
From: Charlie England <ceengland7(at)gmail.com>
Date: Oct 15, 2018
> On Mon, Oct 15, 2018 at 8:49 AM Robert L. Nuckolls, III > > > wrote: > > At 09:53 AM 10/15/2018, you wrote: >> My plane has a Precision Airmotive Eagle dual electronic >> ignition with electronic fuel injection - almost a FADEC, but it >> has a potentiometer for mixture control override. (This unit is >> no longer in production.) >> >> Their simple method of handling the power issue is a dedicated >> small 12V sealed battery (I think it is 5 or 6 AH.) with a panel >> charging indicator. According to the docs, this should run the >> system for > 1hour after a main power failure. I check it after >> by simply shutting off the battery and alternator. > > But why this extra hardware? How does one > experience a total failure of the DC > power system in an airplane? > > > Bob . . . > On 10/15/2018 3:49 PM, Lyn Robertson wrote: > Here's what I got back from Ross Farnham at SDS: > > *There is a schematic for the 6 cylinder setup here: * > *http://www.sdsefi.com/tcad15sm.pdf Fusing requirements are the > same for * > *the 4 cylinder setups so 10 amps for each coil pack and 2 amps > for each * > *CPI module. At 2700 rpm, current draw is around 1.5 amps each. * > > > Lyn For Bob: Note that this is for their *ignition only* system. If I'm doing the math right, this should be minimum draw of 2 A for the control module, and 1.5 A * 2 coil packs for a 4 cyl Lyc, or 5 amps total. SDS (and other mfgrs) also makes a system that is a complete automotive style, high pressure fuel injection system plus electronic ignition. The Walbro electric pumps typically used for auto style injection draw between 4 & 6 amps continuous, and their recommended fusing is 15 amps. Add to this around 2 A for one controller, 1.5 A each for the coil packs (3 A for a pair), and amps each for the 4 injectors required. So, you'd have the 5 A for controller & coils, plus 4-6 A for the fuel pump, plus some ? amperage for the injectors. Users of similar systems on automotive conversion engines in a/c are seeing total consumption in the 15 A range for the whole engine control system. The few real-world tests have shown ~40 minutes of battery-only operation from a fresh Odyssey PC-680 battery. This aligns with Odyssey's data for the battery. http://www.odysseybattery.com/documents/US-ODY-TM-002_1214.pdf For me, it means to either be on the ground in 30 minutes or less after an alternator failure (not a reasonable number, IMO), or have a second alternator with some real grunt; not just a 'sustainer' type alternator. Charlie --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: DIY Over Voltage Protection
From: "user9253" <fransew(at)gmail.com>
Date: Oct 16, 2018
Bob, I added a 0.1 MFD capacitor across the 2K49 resistor in the lower left corner. This has resulted in much improved stability and consistent operation. -------- Joe Gores Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=483838#483838 Attachments: http://forums.matronics.com//files/ov_using_lm431_by_bob_nuckolls__210.jpg ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Dr. Andrew Elliott" <a.s.elliott(at)cox.net>
Subject: Total Power Failure?
Date: Oct 16, 2018
Just a reply to Bob=92s question: But why this extra hardware? How does one experience a total failure of the DC power system in an airplane? My particular airplane has a single alternator, single main battery. And I do fly IFR and at night. While *I* have never had a paired battery/alternator failure, most assuredly I have read accident cases of those who did. Often, this was due to a combination of poor maintenance and poor pilot decisions. My last electrically-dependent airplane (dual electric fuel pumps, no mechanical pump) had dual batteries and was set up according to the appropriate Z-diagram. The Precision Airmotive Eagle system is clearly designed as a *retrofit* for existing typical single-battery GA installations, and therefore includes its own back-up battery. My panel also has internal back-up batteries for the EFISes. These would also be redundant for a properly designed dual-battery system. But even out where I live in the mountains, it is hard to imagine not being able to get the plane on the ground within 30 minutes, with the engine running, EFIS alive and tablet working. Andy ------------------------ Andrew S. Elliott, CFI Servicios A=E9reos, LLC Dynamic Propeller Balancing, Flight Instruction PH: 720-460-1823 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Oct 16, 2018
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com>
Subject: Re: Total Power Failure?
At 09:33 AM 10/16/2018, you wrote: >Just a reply to Bob's question: > > But why this extra hardware? How does one > experience a total failure of the DC > power system in an airplane? > >My particular airplane has a single alternator, single main >battery. And I do fly IFR and at night. While *I* have never had a >paired battery/alternator failure, most assuredly I have read >accident cases of those who did. Often, this was due to a >combination of poor maintenance and poor pilot decisions. Agreed. I would venture to take it a bit further and replace "often" to "mostly". I used to analyze what I called "Dark-n-Stormy Night" stories from the popular journals to see if there was measurable value for having read these narratives. I found them particularly un-informative. While they all purported to arm the reader with information that might serve help them in a similar situation, virtually all of the stories were devoid of cause/effect/ remedy details and/or critique of poor design and/or maintenance. Chapter 17 in the 'Connection features one such story . . . http://www.aeroelectric.com/Book/AEC_R12A.pdf I ended the chapter with this: Emacs! Some years later, I heard from Mr. Gomez. He allowed as how my analysis of his story was correct.He said he was considering an OBAM aviation project! > >My last electrically-dependent airplane (dual electric fuel pumps, >no mechanical pump) had dual batteries and was set up according to >the appropriate Z-diagram. The Precision Airmotive Eagle system is >clearly designed as a *retrofit* for existing typical single-battery >GA installations, and therefore includes its own back-up battery. If we think about it, our airplanes have been 'electrically dependent' nearly since day-one. While early gyros for light aircraft were vacuum driven, we still had rudimentary radio-navigation aids. An uncle of mine used to own a Tri-Pacer with a belly mounted, manual DF loop on his Single Lear LTRA6 transceiver with an OmniScope. A heavy, rather robust trio of boxes full of vacuum tubes. He was instrument rated. The equipment was capable of non-precision approaches but if only one of those vacuum tubes went belly up, or a power supply shorted . . . he was committed to depend on iron gyros and reserve fuel to navigate to nearest predicted conditions for safe descent to terra firma. But it was only 10 years later that S.E. aircraft began to be fitted with dual nav/coms, glide slope, ADFs, marker beacons and transponders. I used to work for a company that built electrically driven stand by vacuum pumps. But even with all that 'redundancy' the airplanes still had one alternator and one battery . . . BOTH rather fragile components compared to today's hardware. YET . . . there must have been tens of thousands of successful approaches and/or escapes from un- anticipated turns of event as long as the most ignored and abused component of the electrical system was maintained to minimum conditions for continued airworthiness . . . the battery. Many dark-n-stormy night stories featured weak or failed batteries . . . no doubt, similar stories were never written because the pilot did not survive to transcribe his/her experience. > >My panel also has internal back-up batteries for the EFISes. These >would also be redundant for a properly designed dual-battery >system. But even out where I live in the mountains, it is hard to >imagine not being able to get the plane on the ground within 30 >minutes, with the engine running, EFIS alive and tablet working. Yeah, the manufacturers of these products are kinda stuck between a rock and a hard place. They KNOW that a prudently maintained electrical system is about as reliable as prop bolts . . . but . . . out of the hundreds of thousands of light aircraft flying around today . . . how many carry an un-airworthy battery? So, let's say you're marketing a really snazzy electro-whizzie with a prominent role to play in comfortable termination of some flights. Okay, what control do YOU have over the design, operation and maintenance policies for the customer's electrical system? Easy, it's ZERO. Hmmmm . . . you can see it now. There's a momma sitting at the plaintiff's table, three kiddies are sitting in the front row of the spectator's gallery with grandma. Momma's lawyer is hammering your engineers, marketing people, indeed ANYONE and EVERYONE who touched her husband's airplane perhaps years before it flew into a mountainside. What's a poor entrepreneur to do? Eureka! An internal back-up battery! At least YOUR product will continue to function even if everybody else's electro-whizzies are off line due to loss of power. The guy's engine may be dead but at least he'll hit the ground wings level and knowing what his heading is to within a degree or two. Now, we're a few milestones further down the technological highway and there are even more electro-whizzies necessary for comfortable arrival with the earth. If every supplier of such products had his way, they'd all get back-up batteries . . . mostly because they have no control over how well the primary energy sources will be designed, fabricated and maintained. If all suppliers of electro-whizzies fondest dreams were realized, there would be a family of batteries scattered about the airplane, each one intended to make up for potential if not realized deficiencies in the ship's primary energy source. Problem is, if the primary energy source is poorly designed or neglected, what's to say that the back up battery(ies) will not be similarly compromised? Further, every battery in the system, represents one more preventative maintenance item demanding $resources$ to secure airworthiness. If one is inclined to take good care of the primary system, the last thing the owner needs is to spend more $resources$ on maintenance of battery(ies) with an exceedingly low probability of being pressed into service. I cringe when I read 'back up battery' knowing that it is (1) possible to reduce its contribution to system reliability to near zero and (2) the very presence of back up batteries can lull some owners into a false sense of security. Yeah, total loss of power has happened. The last one I was aware of happened in a B390 in South Bend on March 17, 2013. A sad but interesting read can be found here . . . http://www.aeroelectric.com/Reference_Docs/Accidents/N26DK_Mar2013/20130317-0_PRM1_N26DK.pdf The guys up front on this airplane managed to turn lots of things OFF . . . engines . . . battery . . . oh well . . . some days the gods of energy management are simply not on your side. Concorde received the battery for evaluation MONTHS after the accident. The battery had received NO interim maintenance or examination. Concorde found it to STILL possessed a high percentage of its specified energy storage. A dozen back up batteries wouldn't have helped these guys All you need to do is properly size the battery to a KNOWN endurance requirement and then give it the same attention as you do the tires, prop and engine oil. It WILL be there when you need it most. Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Dr. Andrew Elliott" <a.s.elliott(at)cox.net>
Subject: Re: Total Power Failure?
Date: Oct 17, 2018
At least the designers of the now-defunct Precision Airmotive system used a commonly available 12V SLA battery that is easy and inexpensive :) to replace every couple of years, and the system has checks for back-up battery voltage built in. Got one in the hangar that I plug into the charger about 1/month. On the other hand, the AFS 3400 EFIS back-up battery is an unspecified internal lithium-ion device. I guess you have to open it up to find out if is an off-the-shelf battery or a custom. At least when you go on internal, the unit displays a battery capacity indicator, which can be checked every time you shut the plane down. Andy ------------------------ Andrew S. Elliott, CFI Servicios A=E9reos, LLC Dynamic Propeller Balancing, Flight Instruction PH: 720-460-1823 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Oct 17, 2018
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com>
Subject: Re: Total Power Failure?
At 11:09 AM 10/17/2018, you wrote: >At least the designers of the now-defunct Precision Airmotive system >used a commonly available 12V SLA battery that is easy and >inexpensive J to replace every couple of years, and the system has >checks for back-up battery voltage built in. Got one in the hangar >that I plug into the charger about 1/month. > >On the other hand, the AFS 3400 EFIS back-up battery is an >unspecified internal lithium-ion device. I guess you have to open >it up to find out if is an off-the-shelf battery or a custom. At >least when you go on internal, the unit displays a battery capacity >indicator, which can be checked every time you shut the plane down. Sounds like thoughtful design . . . Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Z-12 questions
From: Rick Beebe <rick(at)beebe.org>
Date: Oct 17, 2018
On 10/14/2018 2:01 PM, Robert L. Nuckolls, III wrote: > There will be a variant of Z-12 published that takes > some cues from Z-13/8 where the second alternator is > drives the battery bus as opposed to the main bus. > >> Will the alternators continue to operate as long as they arent >> both powered down and back up? Is a second, smaller battery >> required to ensure alternator operation? > > The proposed new z-figure will offer all the advantages > of Z-12 (originally designed for TC aircraft) and > Z-13 combined. What's the timeframe on this being published? --Rick ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Total Power Failure?
From: "jonlaury" <jonlaury(at)impulse.net>
Date: Oct 18, 2018
a.s.elliott(at)cox.net wrote: > ... > > On the other hand, the AFS 3400 EFIS back-up battery is an unspecified internal lithium-ion device. I guess you have to open it up to find out if is an off-the-shelf battery or a custom. ... > > Andy > > ------------------------ > Or call AFS (now Dynon) and ask [Wink] Search for Advanced Flight Systems, http://www.advanced-flight-systems.com/Support/AF-3000support/replacing-clock-battery.pdf "We have found that the internal clock battery lasts from 6 to 10 year in a display. Finding a BR chemistry battery is important over the CR type due to the performance in high temperature environments and stable voltage over battery life. CR-1225 batteies will need replacement more often." Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=483858#483858 ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Total Power Failure?
From: Bill Watson <Mauledriver(at)nc.rr.com>
Date: Oct 18, 2018
On 10/17/2018 2:41 PM, Robert L. Nuckolls, III wrote: > At 11:09 AM 10/17/2018, you wrote: >> At least the designers of the now-defunct Precision Airmotive system >> used a commonly available 12V SLA battery that is easy and >> inexpensive J to replace every couple of years, and the system has >> checks for back-up battery voltage built in. Got one in the hangar >> that I plug into the charger about 1/month. >> >> On the other hand, the AFS 3400 EFIS back-up battery is an >> unspecified internal lithium-ion device. I guess you have to open it >> up to find out if is an off-the-shelf battery or a custom. At least >> when you go on internal, the unit displays a battery capacity >> indicator, which can be checked every time you shut the plane down. > > Sounds like thoughtful design . . . > > Bob . . > And a thoughtful discussion as well. I always find these informative and useful in the ongoing management of my OBAM RV-10 with a Z-14 (dual batts, buses, and alts). I am about to change my panel by swapping out a backup cluster of a round guage ASI, Alt, and ADI (with backup battery) for a small format non-TSO's PFD with internal AHRS (The HORIS from Karnardia). That will make my panel 100% dependent on the Z-14 electrical system since I did not opt for an internal backup battery on any of my instruments (including 3 GRT EFISs). I'm confident about doing this because of the confidence I have in the Z-14 design and its operation. After much screwing up, I've also built up confidence in maintaining the 2 Odyssey 680 batteries. For the batteries I now simply follow the voltage checks outlined by the manufacturer and replace when a battery falls short. I should mention that I'm not discarding the round gauge backup cluster for kicks. For one I wasn't completely confident with the ADI as a backup for keeping the wings level. But the main reason was to free up some panel real estate for a larger GRT EFIS/PFD screen. For some reason, the eyes aren't improving with age. The nagging question is why do I feel I need to backup the GRT EFISs? I have 3 of them on the panel, 2 easily viewed by the pilot and all of them capable of acting as a PFD, moving map or engine monitor, or all 3 at one time. The answer is one I don't fully buy into but lingers out there; what if there is a software 'bug' or 'hack' that causes all 3 units to fail simultaneously? Never heard of that occurring with any brand of EFIS (?) but I will have a backup PFD with different hw/sw to backup the primaries. But again, no backup batteries. Total dependency on the Z-14. Bill "flying an electrically dependent RV10 fired by dual Slick mags" Watson --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Total Power Failure?
From: Charlie England <ceengland7(at)gmail.com>
Date: Oct 18, 2018
On 10/18/2018 11:13 AM, jonlaury wrote: > > > a.s.elliott(at)cox.net wrote: >> ... >> >> On the other hand, the AFS 3400 EFIS back-up battery is an unspecified internal lithium-ion device. I guess you have to open it up to find out if is an off-the-shelf battery or a custom. ... >> >> Andy >> >> ------------------------ >> > > Or call AFS (now Dynon) and ask [Wink] > > Search for Advanced Flight Systems, http://www.advanced-flight-systems.com/Support/AF-3000support/replacing-clock-battery.pdf > > "We have found that the internal clock battery lasts from 6 to 10 year in a display. Finding a BR chemistry battery is important over the CR type due to the performance in high temperature environments and stable voltage over battery life. CR-1225 batteies will need replacement more often." > Big difference between a clock battery and the operational backup battery.... --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Oct 18, 2018
From: argoldman(at)aol.com
Subject: Thermocouple question
=C2- Greetings all, =C2- Can a single thermocouple (K or H) run two different indicators (efises o e ifi)? or is there a circuitry that will make this possible? =C2- Rich ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Oct 18, 2018
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com>
Subject: New Z-figure
>> The proposed new z-figure will offer all the advantages >> of Z-12 (originally designed for TC aircraft) and >> Z-13 combined. > >What's the timeframe on this being published? > >--Rick I've been stirring that pot for several weeks and I think I'm getting close. Here's revision 3 to the drawing . . . http://www.aeroelectric.com/PPS/Adobe_Architecture_Pdfs/Z02P3_Preliminary.pdf Critical review most welcome . . . Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Oct 18, 2018
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com>
Subject: Re: Thermocouple question
At 01:14 PM 10/18/2018, you wrote: >Greetings all, > >Can a single thermocouple (K or H) run two different indicators >(efises o eifi)? or is there a circuitry that will make this possible? > >Rich Generally yes. Assuming the indicators are modern, electronic displays with high impedance inputs. The legacy steam gages that would read thermocouples actually DEMAND a certain amount of current from the TC hence paralleling instruments is problematic. I'd venture to guess that any of the glass screen displays can share thermocouples. Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Mark Wheeler <markwheelermd(at)icloud.com>
Date: Oct 18, 2018
Subject: Re: New Z-figure
Bob, Is it possible to obtain a software version of your electric symbols if we w ant to spin our own variant of your z-diagrams? Mark Sent from my iPhone > On Oct 18, 2018, at 11:47 AM, Robert L. Nuckolls, III <nuckolls.bob@aeroel ectric.com> wrote: > >>> The proposed new z-figure will offer all the advantages >>> of Z-12 (originally designed for TC aircraft) and >>> Z-13 combined. >> >> What's the timeframe on this being published? >> >> --Rick > > > I've been stirring that pot for several weeks and > I think I'm getting close. Here's revision 3 > to the drawing . . . > > http://www.aeroelectric.com/PPS/Adobe_Architecture_Pdfs/Z02P3_Preliminary. pdf > > Critical review most welcome . . . > > > Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Oct 18, 2018
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com>
Subject: Re: New Z-figure
At 02:46 PM 10/18/2018, you wrote: >Bob, >Is it possible to obtain a software version of your electric symbols >if we want to spin our own variant of your z-diagrams? >Mark https://tinyurl.com/og7ztjl Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Oct 18, 2018
From: argoldman(at)aol.com
Subject: Re: Thermocouple question
Thanks with a big sigh of relief =C2- Rich =C2- In a message dated 10/18/2018 1:57:52 PM Central Standard Time, nuckolls.bo b(at)aeroelectric.com writes: =C2- At 01:14 PM 10/18/2018, you wrote: Greetings all, Can a single thermocouple (K or H) run two different indicators (efises o eifi)? or is there a circuitry that will make this possible? Rich =C2- Generally yes. Assuming the indicators are modern, =C2- electronic displays with high impedance inputs. =C2- The legacy steam gages that would read thermocouples =C2- actually DEMAND a certain amount of current from the =C2- TC hence paralleling instruments is problematic. =C2- I'd venture to guess that any of the glass screen =C2- displays can share thermocouples. =C2- =C2- Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Mark Wheeler <markwheelermd(at)icloud.com>
Subject: Re: New Z-figure
Date: Oct 18, 2018
Thank you!! > On Oct 18, 2018, at 1:31 PM, Robert L. Nuckolls, III wrote: > > At 02:46 PM 10/18/2018, you wrote: >> Bob, >> Is it possible to obtain a software version of your electric symbols if we want to spin our own variant of your z-diagrams? >> Mark > > > https://tinyurl.com/og7ztjl > > > > Bob . . . > ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: New Z-figure
From: Charlie England <ceengland7(at)gmail.com>
Date: Oct 18, 2018
On 10/18/2018 1:47 PM, Robert L. Nuckolls, III wrote: >>> The proposed new z-figure will offer all the advantages >>> of Z-12 (originally designed for TC aircraft) and >>> Z-13 combined. >> >> What's the timeframe on this being published? >> >> --Rick > > > I've been stirring that pot for several weeks and > I think I'm getting close. Here's revision 3 > to the drawing . . . > > http://www.aeroelectric.com/PPS/Adobe_Architecture_Pdfs/Z02P3_Preliminary.pdf > > > Critical review most welcome . . . > > > Bob . . . > Assuming this the one for electronic injection electrically dependent engines, is there any merit in a separate bus for the engine? I'm trying to do this in my auto-conversion powered RV-7. My desire and logic (or what I hope is logic :-) ) is that the airframe can go dark and the engine will still run, with an alternator charging the battery. I'm trying to mimic what you see in a 'typical' airframe with a magneto ignition a/c engine, where the master can be flipped off and the engine still runs. I have a high current 'engine master' switch that directly connects the battery to the engine bus, and a conventional looking master contactor that feeds the 'aircraft bus'. Only the starter is fed by the master contactor; all other engine functions are fed by the engine master switch. One alternator conventionally feeds the load side of the master contactor; the other (identical model) alternator feeds through its alternator contactor to the battery side of the master contactor. There is a high current crossfeed switch between the two buses, to cover the possibility of 'engine master' switch failure. Am I overthinking it? Charlie --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Oct 18, 2018
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com>
Subject: Re: New Z-figure
>I have a high current 'engine master' switch that directly connects >the battery to the engine bus, and a conventional looking master >contactor that feeds the 'aircraft bus'. Only the starter is fed by >the master contactor; all other engine functions are fed by the >engine master switch. One alternator conventionally feeds the load >side of the master contactor; the other (identical model) alternator >feeds through its alternator contactor to the battery side of the >master contactor. There is a high current crossfeed switch between >the two buses, to cover the possibility of 'engine master' switch failure. > If it were my airplane, I'd run engine critical loads directly from the battery bus with each of those loads enjoying it's own feeder protection and switch. This keeps the engine running with all other switches off. No relays or contactors in series with the feeders. The Z02 battery bus enjoys THREE energy sources with minimal sharing of hardware. All three sources are pre-flight testable.` Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: New Z-figure
From: "Av8rrob" <av8rrob(at)gmail.com>
Date: Oct 19, 2018
Bob, is is possible to change the switch configuration from off/bat/ bat+ pri alt , to off/batt/ batt +alt; then change the second switch to selecting either primary or secondary alternator? It would seem to be a bit easier operationaly that way. What do you think? Rob Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=483875#483875 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Oct 19, 2018
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com>
Subject: Re: New Z-figure
At 06:42 AM 10/19/2018, you wrote: > >Bob, is is possible to change the switch configuration from off/bat/ >bat+ pri alt , to off/batt/ batt +alt; then change the second switch >to selecting either primary or secondary alternator? It would seem >to be a bit easier operationaly that way. What do you think? That 'mixes' controls between two systems which, by legacy design goals, should be as independent from each other as possible. Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Oct 19, 2018
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com>
Subject: Re: New Z-figure
At 10:59 PM 10/18/2018, you wrote: >>I have a high current 'engine master' switch that directly >>connects the battery to the engine bus, and a conventional looking >>master contactor that feeds the 'aircraft bus'. Only the starter is >>fed by the master contactor; all other engine functions are fed by >>the engine master switch. One alternator conventionally feeds the >>load side of the master contactor; the other (identical model) >>alternator feeds through its alternator contactor to the battery >>side of the master contactor. There is a high current crossfeed >>switch between the two buses, to cover the possibility of 'engine >>master' switch failure. > > >If it were my airplane, I'd run engine critical loads >directly from the battery bus with each of those loads >enjoying it's own feeder protection and switch. This >keeps the engine running with all other switches off. >No relays or contactors in series with the feeders. The >Z02 battery bus enjoys THREE energy sources with minimal >sharing of hardware. All three sources are pre-flight >testable.` Can you describe the engine's electrical feeders? Does the system have any redundant features like pri/sec ECU, dual fuel pumps, etc? Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Oct 19, 2018
From: Jeff Page <jpx(at)qenesis.com>
Subject: Re: New Z-figure
Bob, I have always wondered why the feed to the main alternator field breaker are different sizes on each side of the breaker. This is unchanged from earlier versions. I assume the Ebus brown out booster is significantly cheaper than the TCW Intelligent Power Stabilizer ? I don't know what the internal failure modes are, but their wiring diagram shows it directly wired in at all times, rather than being switched out with a relay. The think the biggest advantage of the IPS is that it boosts the voltage as the battery sags after an alternator failure, which doesn't apply to this architecture, but it does supply a boost during starting. Jeff Page Dream Aircraft Tundra #10 > From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> > Subject: AeroElectric-List: New Z-figure > > >>> The proposed new z-figure will offer all the advantages >>> of Z-12 (originally designed for TC aircraft) and >>> Z-13 combined. >> >> What's the timeframe on this being published? >> >> --Rick > > > I've been stirring that pot for several weeks and > I think I'm getting close. Here's revision 3 > to the drawing . . . > > http://www.aeroelectric.com/PPS/Adobe_Architecture_Pdfs/Z02P3_Preliminary.pdf > > Critical review most welcome . . . > > > Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Charlie England <ceengland7(at)gmail.com>
Date: Oct 19, 2018
Subject: Re: New Z-figure
On Fri, Oct 19, 2018 at 7:33 AM Robert L. Nuckolls, III < nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> wrote: > At 10:59 PM 10/18/2018, you wrote: > > I have a high current 'engine master' switch that directly connects the > battery to the engine bus, and a conventional looking master contactor that > feeds the 'aircraft bus'. Only the starter is fed by the master contactor; > all other engine functions are fed by the engine master switch. One > alternator conventionally feeds the load side of the master contactor; the > other (identical model) alternator feeds through its alternator contactor > to the battery side of the master contactor. There is a high current > crossfeed switch between the two buses, to cover the possibility of 'engine > master' switch failure. > > > If it were my airplane, I'd run engine critical loads > directly from the battery bus with each of those loads > enjoying it's own feeder protection and switch. This > keeps the engine running with all other switches off. > No relays or contactors in series with the feeders. The > Z02 battery bus enjoys THREE energy sources with minimal > sharing of hardware. All three sources are pre-flight > testable.` > > > Can you describe the engine's electrical > feeders? > > Does the system have any redundant features > like pri/sec ECU, dual fuel pumps, etc? > > Bob . . . > Please forgive the rough looking drawing; I've never had time to learn a cad program, so I tweaked a z drawing with MS Paint to create the attached. Ignore the fused feeder values on the engine bus; most are artifacts from my cut & paste operation. Both alternators in the drawing are auto-style internally regulated; the engine comes with an IR alternator, and I just hung a 2nd where the air conditioner compressor used to reside. As yet unresolved in this draft is the fact that both OV modules can 'see' both alternators. My original intent was to run both alternators all the time, but I may modify that idea to primary/backup. My controller (from Real World Solutions, specifically for Mazda rotary engines) does have primary/secondary controllers in one box, but a single power feed to the controllers. The RWS controllers have been set up this way for over 20 years. Over the years, multiple fliers have had controller issues requiring switching to the backup controller, but none have ever had a power supply failure to the box caused by an issue with one controller. If the controller box had separate power feeds to each controller, it would obviously beg for running one from the a/c bus, but I'm not sure that would be a good thing, from the standpoint of trying to keep the systems similar (as possible) to old habit driven pilots. The controllers' control of the injectors & ignition coils is switched by an external control, which drives a bank of internal relays to do the switching (I believe this is how the ones for a/c engines do it, as well). Power to each injector & coil is individually fused; the controller switches the ground side of the injectors/coils. There are dual Walbro high pressure fuel pumps, each with it's own fuse/switch. The choice to have an engine master was driven by the same logic mentioned earlier. Just as the airframe can go dark without affecting the engine, a typical a/c can shut off the engine by turning a key or flipping a pair of mag switches. The engine master switch is my 'mag switch'. But I'm not married to this, is there good reason to change? If the above isn't clear, I can try to do a rough drawing of power flow to the engine's power feeders. Charlie ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Oct 19, 2018
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com>
Subject: Re: New Z-figure
At 08:06 AM 10/19/2018, you wrote: > >Bob, > >I have always wondered why the feed to the main alternator field >breaker are different sizes on each side of the breaker. This is >unchanged from earlier versions. Because the hot side is a bus extension with recommended protection. 20AWG fuselinkwire is readily available now so a 20GFLW followed by a 16AWG extension is called for up to the breaker. After that, it's just alternator field loads. >I assume the Ebus brown out booster is significantly cheaper than the >TCW Intelligent Power Stabilizer Yes . . . $10 vs. $hundreds$ >I don't know what the internal failure modes are, but their wiring >diagram shows it directly wired in at all times, rather than being >switched out with a relay. ? It's expected to funtion and powered only while the starter button is depressed. Given that it functions ONLY during cranking, then there are no significant failure modes. It gets pre-flight tested but is not needed in flight. If it craps, there are no safety implications to the rest of the ship's electro-whizzies or comfortable termination of flight. >The think the biggest advantage of the IPS is that it boosts the >voltage as the battery sags after an alternator failure, which doesn't >apply to this architecture, but it does supply a boost during starting. Yes . . . and why do you want to boost the voltage with a dead alternator? Recall that the brown-out issue is based on battery voltage sagging BELOW a brown-out threshold of the electro-whizzy during starter inrush. Except while cranking, the battery is expected to supply the legacy adopted and understood supply voltage of 10-12 volts. By the time a battery drops to 10.5 or thereabouts, it's 95% used up. All electro-whizzies qualified for aircraft operate quite happily down to 10.5 and usually below . . . so boosting bus voltage during alternator out conditions only adds complexity and increased energy consumption. When the brown-out issue first reared its ugly head about 10 years ago, the energy budget for preventing brown-out reset was small. The resourceful Eric Jones crafted an array of super-caps that would grunt loads to the victimized devices for the few milliseconds that the battery was suffering starter-sag. But it seems that more and more devices are being offered to the OBAM aviation community that suffer the same short coming. So assuming the builder objects to brown-out resets. then its left to us to craft a band-aid to accomplish a design goal that should have been built into the electro-whizzy in the first place. The capacitor array is less practical and more expensive than the architecture proposed in Z02. MUCH less expensive than the TCW approach. Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Charlie England <ceengland7(at)gmail.com>
Date: Oct 19, 2018
Subject: Re: New Z-figure
Jeff, that 'after alternator failure' voltage boost might buy you a few seconds (as in less than 10) longer operation beyond typical low voltage shutdown. When the energy is depleted from the battery, it's gone. Using a 'switcher' on a virtually dead battery when it's down to 9 or 10 volts will just drive it down to low single digit volts almost instantly. On Fri, Oct 19, 2018 at 8:13 AM Jeff Page wrote: > > Bob, > > I have always wondered why the feed to the main alternator field > breaker are different sizes on each side of the breaker. This is > unchanged from earlier versions. > > I assume the Ebus brown out booster is significantly cheaper than the > TCW Intelligent Power Stabilizer ? > I don't know what the internal failure modes are, but their wiring > diagram shows it directly wired in at all times, rather than being > switched out with a relay. > The think the biggest advantage of the IPS is that it boosts the > voltage as the battery sags after an alternator failure, which doesn't > apply to this architecture, but it does supply a boost during starting. > > Jeff Page > Dream Aircraft Tundra #10 > > > > From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> > > Subject: AeroElectric-List: New Z-figure > > > > > >>> The proposed new z-figure will offer all the advantages > >>> of Z-12 (originally designed for TC aircraft) and > >>> Z-13 combined. > >> > >> What's the timeframe on this being published? > >> > >> --Rick > > > > > > I've been stirring that pot for several weeks and > > I think I'm getting close. Here's revision 3 > > to the drawing . . . > > > > > http://www.aeroelectric.com/PPS/Adobe_Architecture_Pdfs/Z02P3_Preliminary.pdf > > > > Critical review most welcome . . . > > > > > > Bob . . . > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: New Z-figure
From: "user9253" <fransew(at)gmail.com>
Date: Oct 19, 2018
Charlie, I suggest that the bus tie-switch be replaced by a DPDT switch. Connect the N.C. second half of the switch in series with the start push button. Doing that will disable the starter if the bus-tie switch is turned on. The purpose is to prevent starter current from taking a parallel path from the battery to the engine bus to the main bus to the starter. -------- Joe Gores Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=483883#483883 ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: New Z-figure
From: "user9253" <fransew(at)gmail.com>
Date: Oct 19, 2018
Jeff, the brownout booster (DC-DC converter) is only energized while the relay is energized (except for milliseconds through diode). The relay is only energized while the start button is pressed (except for milliseconds dropout delay). -------- Joe Gores Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=483884#483884 ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: New Z-figure
From: Charlie England <ceengland7(at)gmail.com>
Date: Oct 19, 2018
On 10/19/2018 10:19 AM, user9253 wrote: > > Charlie, > I suggest that the bus tie-switch be replaced by a DPDT switch. Connect the N.C. second half of the switch in series with the start push button. Doing that will disable the starter if the bus-tie switch is turned on. The purpose is to prevent starter current from taking a parallel path from the battery to the engine bus to the main bus to the starter. > > -------- > Joe Gores Hi Joe, Good idea. I think we may have discussed that issue in the past; I just haven't revised the rough draft. The -7 project has been stagnant for several months while I dealt with family illnesses and built a hangar door. Thanks, Charlie --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Fast Return Investment 9000% ROI after 1 day
From: "goldbtc1" <goldenworldinvestmentcom(at)gmail.com>
Date: Oct 20, 2018
Fast Return Investment 9000% ROI after 1 day Fast Return Investment is an emerging markets investment firm that sponsors and manages private equity, mezzanine finance, and fixed income funds for institutional investors and high-net worth individuals.Private Equity: Private equity investing in middle and late-stage companies in Latin America and the U.S. Hispanic market.Financial Services: Private equity investing in Latin American financial institutions, and in financial sector specialized projects. Fixed Income: Emerging market debt investing and related advisory services. Invest Now http://www.fastreturninvestment.com Investment Insurance http://www.payinghyiponline.com/fastreturninvestment.html Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=483908#483908 ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Pat Little <roughleg(at)gmail.com>
Date: Oct 21, 2018
Subject: Stuck starter questions
Many of the Z diagrams show the starter current passing thru the master contactor as well as the starter contactor, and I gather this is to allow for the possibility of the starter contactor welding itself shut. If that were to occur then the pilot can disengage the starter motor by turning the master switch off (having a "starter engaged" light and an e-bus alt feed would both be useful for this scenario). However, I see that Z-20 shows the starter current direct from the battery to the starter contactor and not thru the master. Z-20 is for a Jabiru system, and I have a Jabiru engine so I figure (no pun intended) that I could use the Z-20 arrangement, although I don't know why Jabirus would be different in this respect. So, here are my questions: How unlikely is a welded contactor? How well does the diode prevent this from happening? Is there a way to tell if the diode has failed open-circuit? Pat ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Alec Myers <alec(at)alecmyers.com>
Date: Oct 21, 2018
Subject: Re: Stuck starter questions
Can=99t speak for how common this is overall, but I=99ve had a s tuck starter solenoid on both my TC aircraft. On Oct 21, 2018, at 13:38, Pat Little wrote: Many of the Z diagrams show the starter current passing thru the master cont actor as well as the starter contactor, and I gather this is to allow for th e possibility of the starter contactor welding itself shut. If that were to o ccur then the pilot can disengage the starter motor by turning the master sw itch off (having a "starter engaged" light and an e-bus alt feed would both b e useful for this scenario). However, I see that Z-20 shows the starter current direct from the battery t o the starter contactor and not thru the master. Z-20 is for a Jabiru system , and I have a Jabiru engine so I figure (no pun intended) that I could use t he Z-20 arrangement, although I don't know why Jabirus would be different in this respect. So, here are my questions: How unlikely is a welded contactor? How well does the diode prevent this from happening? Is there a way to tell if the diode h as failed open-circuit? Pat ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Pat Little <roughleg(at)gmail.com>
Date: Oct 21, 2018
Subject: Alternator OV disconnect
In the (British) Light Aircraft Association=99s technical leaflet on electrical systems it says it=99s better to disconnect a permanent-ma gnet alternator by interrupting the AC going into the regulator than the DC output from the regulator. The Z diagrams that include PM alternators seem to show the OV relay downstream of the regulator. Any thoughts on this? Pat ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Richard Girard <aslsa.rng(at)gmail.com>
Date: Oct 22, 2018
Subject: Re: Stuck starter questions
Going from memory here but as I recall the diode is there to prevent arcing of the switch contacts controlling the solenoid and not the solenoid itself. I'm sure that that info is in the archives. Try a search for diode or diode and contactor to be sure. Rick On Sun, Oct 21, 2018 at 2:04 PM Alec Myers wrote: > Can=99t speak for how common this is overall, but I=99ve had a stuck starter > solenoid on both my TC aircraft. > > > On Oct 21, 2018, at 13:38, Pat Little wrote: > > Many of the Z diagrams show the starter current passing thru the master > contactor as well as the starter contactor, and I gather this is to allow > for the possibility of the starter contactor welding itself shut. If that > were to occur then the pilot can disengage the starter motor by turning t he > master switch off (having a "starter engaged" light and an e-bus alt feed > would both be useful for this scenario). > > However, I see that Z-20 shows the starter current direct from the batter y > to the starter contactor and not thru the master. Z-20 is for a Jabiru > system, and I have a Jabiru engine so I figure (no pun intended) that I > could use the Z-20 arrangement, although I don't know why Jabirus would b e > different in this respect. > > So, here are my questions: How unlikely is a welded contactor? How well > does the diode prevent this from happening? Is there a way to tell if the > diode has failed open-circuit? > > Pat > > -- =9CBlessed are the cracked, for they shall let in the light.=9D Groucho Marx <http://www.goodreads.com/author/show/43244.Groucho_Marx> ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Stuck starter questions
From: "user9253" <fransew(at)gmail.com>
Date: Oct 22, 2018
I agree with Rick. One way to test a diode is to remove it from the circuit. Then put it in series with a test light and battery. The light should illuminate when the diode is orientated one way and not illuminate when reversed. Trying to start an engine with a weak battery can lead to welded contacts. -------- Joe Gores Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=483928#483928 ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Alec Myers <alec(at)alecmyers.com>
Subject: Re: Stuck starter questions
Date: Oct 22, 2018
>>Trying to start an engine with a weak battery can lead to welded contacts. Yes of the two occasions this happened to me, one was because of a weak battery. The other was caused by an intermittent dead short (yes!) in the starter motor. ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Alternator OV disconnect
From: "user9253" <fransew(at)gmail.com>
Date: Oct 22, 2018
Z-16 has the relay interrupting the dynamo AC. So the relay could interrupt either the AC or DC. If the voltage rectifier/regulator were smoking, then interrupting the AC would be better. Other than that, either way should be OK. -------- Joe Gores Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=483930#483930 ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Alternator OV disconnect
From: C&K <yellowduckduo(at)gmail.com>
Date: Oct 22, 2018
Yes and interupting AC allows a smaller less robust relay than what is required to reliably interupt DC current. Rectifier/regulators smoke just often enough that I use an OV/On Off relay (forward of firewall) on the AC supply to it and a C/B near the battery to limit current from the battery. There has been some discussion in the past on this. Ken On 22/10/2018 8:46 AM, user9253 wrote: > > Z-16 has the relay interrupting the dynamo AC. So the relay could interrupt either the AC or DC. If the voltage rectifier/regulator were smoking, then interrupting the AC would be better. Other than that, either way should be OK. > > -------- > Joe Gores > > > Read this topic online here: > > http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=483930#483930 > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Stuck starter questions
From: C&K <yellowduckduo(at)gmail.com>
Date: Oct 22, 2018
Everything that I have newer than my 70 year old Ford has contacts built into the starter and no separate starter contactor. Both systems can weld shut but it is pretty rare with the built in contactor IMO. Despite having integral contacts on my starter, I do run the starter current through the battery contactor on my aircraft as it was convenient to do it, it added miniscule resistance to the circuit, and (in my case) it makes the heavy starter wire go dead when the master is off. I would recommend that scheme if a standard 200 amp battery contactor is used or if the battery was inaccessible and could not be disconnected within a minute or three. I would not argue that it is essential. I would take another look at this if using a Li battery. Either way the important thing is to make sure system voltage recovers, or battery is charging after the engine starts (or at least before takeoff)! Phooey on starter engaged lights. Even paralled with the coil, diodes can often be tested in circuit with a nominal one volt low current source or ohmeter as they typically conduct at 0.6 volt or less but I don't bother unless it is physically damaged or suspect for some reason. They seem to last forever or occasionally simply blow apart when shorted. Ken On 21/10/2018 1:38 PM, Pat Little wrote: > Many of the Z diagrams show the starter current passing thru the > master contactor as well as the starter contactor, and I gather this > is to allow for the possibility of the starter contactor welding > itself shut. If that were to occur then the pilot can disengage the > starter motor by turning the master switch off (having a "starter > engaged" light and an e-bus alt feed would both be useful for this > scenario). > > However, I see that Z-20 shows the starter current direct from the > battery to the starter contactor and not thru the master. Z-20 is for > a Jabiru system, and I have a Jabiru engine so I figure (no pun > intended) that I could use the Z-20 arrangement, although I don't know > why Jabirus would be different in this respect. > > So, here are my questions: How unlikely is a welded contactor? How > well does the diode prevent this from happening? Is there a way to > tell if the diode has failed open-circuit? > > Pat > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Oct 22, 2018
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com>
Subject: Re: Stuck starter questions
At 01:58 PM 10/21/2018, you wrote: >Can=99t speak for how common this is overall, >but I=99ve had a stuck starter solenoid on both my TC aircraft. It's one of those pesky FMEA thingys . . . to get your product/design qualified onto a sophisticated TC aircraft you need to demonstrate or at least calculate that failure of the device presents ZERO safety of flight implications because it's either (a) insignificant or (b) is backed up. In the case of conducting FMEA, you ASSUME that it will fail . . . another way of acknowledging that the risk of failure is not zero. The other path to qualification Nirvana is the so called reliability study. One puts on the green eye-shade, digs out their Hogwarts-issue magic wand and divines a failure rate for EVERY component of the of device down to the solder joints. Then you put them in this big pot (computer) and it simmer to a predicted failure rate for the constellation of components. If one achieves failure rates on the order of one per million flight hours, you can get onto most flying machines, churn out a one-per- billion-flight-hours design and you're good to go to Pluto. We lowly tin benders and electron herders find it more practical to go the FMEA route . . . especially when the not-zero=risk assumption is validated with demonstrated anecdotes from history. Hence the legacy policy of routing starter current through the battery contactor (assuming there is one). There are special cases like Z20 where the system's energy source is limited. VariEz airplanes flying and SD-8 as sole source of engine driven power is one example. There are other examples of PM alternator where we'd rather not toss off 0.8 Amps of current just to hold the battery contactor closed; hence no contactor. It doesn't represent a terrible risk . . . but if one would LIKE to emulate the battery contactor's function with a zero energy budget, consider a battery switch. The TriPacer in which I studied back in the dark ages had no battery -OR- starter contactor . . . they were both manual switches. Here's one example of a suitable switch https://tinyurl.com/ycechd8f I've updated Z20 to reflect this configuration. Hmmmm . . . last time that drawing was updated was 10 years ago . . . http://www.aeroelectric.com/PPS/Adobe_Architecture_Pdfs/Z20M.pdf Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Oct 22, 2018
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com>
Subject: Re: Alternator OV disconnect
At 10:01 PM 10/21/2018, you wrote: >In the (British) Light Aircraft Association=99s >technical leaflet on electrical systems it says >it=99s better to disconnect a permanent-magnet >alternator by interrupting the AC going into the >regulator than the DC output from the regulator. >The Z diagrams that include PM alternators seem >to show the OV relay downstream of the regulator. Any thoughts on this? I posited that notion some years ago and began to incorporate that philosophy as the z-figures were updated . . . See Z16. Hmmm . . . just updated Z20 and didn't get that feature incorporated. Either way, it's not a really big deal but yes, breaking the AC leads from the PM alternator is a bit more 'sanitary' . . . Back to the cad screen . . . Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Oct 22, 2018
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com>
Subject: Re: Alternator OV disconnect
> Back to the cad screen . . . > Fixed it . . . Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Oct 22, 2018
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com>
Subject: Re: Stuck starter questions
>How well does the diode prevent this from happening? Is there a way >to tell if the diode has failed open-circuit? The diode across the coil of a contactor has no significant effect on the life of that device's contacts. An often quoted document by Potter and Brumfield claims that coil suppression techniques can have a deleterious effect on contact life. https://tinyurl.com/yayk835c One of several exemplar figures is shown below: Emacs! When this document was first cited on the AeroElectric List, I went to the bench and captured some relay performance traces of my own: http://aeroelectric.com/articles/spike.pdf https://tinyurl.com/yb6s6l7c www.aeroelectric.com/articles/spikecatcher.pdf I'm mystified by the trace pictures in the P&B document. They fail to illustrate any drop-out-delay caused by addition of the simple catch diode. At the same time, the figures and text purport to show how coil suppression techniques can affect CONTACT SPREADING VELOCITY which is the critical to contact life. They also fail to show any contact bounce on closing. If I were a physics prof grading these illustrations as part of a student's work-product, I would ask them to 'show me' back in the lab. I was able to show that contact spreading velocity does not change appreciably with variations in coil suppression technique (for reasons that have to do with MAGNETICS and little to do with coil current). The short answer is, worrying about the diode is not useful. They seldom fail and when they do fail, they'll fail shorted . . . not open . . . and may even blow apart as noted by another Lister. The PRIMARY reason for contact welding is a soggy battery. So if your starter fails to get the prop whipping around right smartly . . . STOP and charge/replace battery or plug in ground power. Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
From: skywagon185guy <skywagon185(at)gmail.com>
Date: Oct 22, 2018
Subject: Re: Stuck starter questions
Joe, You made a remarkable statement about weak batteries, starting, and contactor contact problems. I hope everyone reads your remark and remembers this potential problem. Too many try to do starts via a weak battery and cold engines. This will eventually do contact damage in the starter contactor. On Mon, Oct 22, 2018 at 5:34 AM user9253 wrote: > > I agree with Rick. > One way to test a diode is to remove it from the circuit. Then put it in > series with a test light and battery. The light should illuminate when the > diode is orientated one way and not illuminate when reversed. > Trying to start an engine with a weak battery can lead to welded > contacts. > > -------- > Joe Gores > > > Read this topic online here: > > http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=483928#483928 > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Charlie England <ceengland7(at)gmail.com>
Date: Oct 22, 2018
Subject: new z-figure thread
*Sorry for the re-post of the message below, but I don't get my own posts back from the matronics server.Can anyone tell me if they got a .pdf attachment with the previous post of this message?Thanks,CharliePlease forgive the rough looking drawing; I've never had time to learn a cad program, so I tweaked a z drawing with MS Paint to create the attached. Ignore the fused feeder values on the engine bus; most are artifacts from my cut & paste operation. Both alternators in the drawing are auto-style internally regulated; the engine comes with an IR alternator, and I just hung a 2nd where the air conditioner compressor used to reside. As yet unresolved in this draft is the fact that both OV modules can 'see' both alternators. My original intent was to run both alternators all the time, but I may modify that idea to primary/backup. My controller (from Real World Solutions, specifically for Mazda rotary engines) does have primary/secondary controllers in one box, but a single power feed to the controllers. The RWS controllers have been set up this way for over 20 years. Over the years, multiple fliers have had controller issues requiring switching to the backup controller, but none have ever had a power supply failure to the box caused by an issue with one controller. If the controller box had separate power feeds to each controller, it would obviously beg for running one from the a/c bus, but I'm not sure that would be a good thing, from the standpoint of trying to keep the systems similar (as possible) to old habit driven pilots. The controllers' control of the injectors & ignition coils is switched by an external control, which drives a bank of internal relays to do the switching (I believe this is how the ones for a/c engines do it, as well). Power to each injector & coil is individually fused; the controller switches the ground side of the injectors/coils. There are dual Walbro high pressure fuel pumps, each with it's own fuse/switch. The choice to have an engine master was driven by the same logic mentioned earlier. Just as the airframe can go dark without affecting the engine, a typical a/c can shut off the engine by turning a key or flipping a pair of mag switches. The engine master switch is my 'mag switch'. But I'm not married to this, is there good reason to change? If the above isn't clear, I can try to do a rough drawing of power flow to the engine's power feeders. Charlie * ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: new z-figure thread
From: Rick Beebe <rick(at)beebe.org>
Date: Oct 22, 2018
Yes. On 10/22/2018 4:11 PM, Charlie England wrote: > * > > Sorry for the re-post of the message below, but I don't get my own > posts back from the matronics server. Can anyone tell me if they > got a .pdf attachment with the previous post of this message? > Thanks, Charlie Please forgive the rough looking drawing; I've > never had time to learn a cad program, so I tweaked a z drawing > with MS Paint to create the attached. Ignore the fused feeder > values on the engine bus; most are artifacts from my cut & paste > operation. Both alternators in the drawing are auto-style > internally regulated; the engine comes with an IR alternator, and > I just hung a 2nd where the air conditioner compressor used to > reside. As yet unresolved in this draft is the fact that both OV > modules can 'see' both alternators. My original intent was to run > both alternators all the time, but I may modify that idea to > primary/backup. My controller (from Real World Solutions, > specifically for Mazda rotary engines) does have primary/secondary > controllers in one box, but a single power feed to the > controllers. The RWS controllers have been set up this way for > over 20 years. Over the years, multiple fliers have had controller > issues requiring switching to the backup controller, but none have > ever had a power supply failure to the box caused by an issue with > one controller. If the controller box had separate power feeds to > each controller, it would obviously beg for running one from the > a/c bus, but I'm not sure that would be a good thing, from the > standpoint of trying to keep the systems similar (as possible) to > old habit driven pilots. The controllers' control of the injectors > & ignition coils is switched by an external control, which drives > a bank of internal relays to do the switching (I believe this is > how the ones for a/c engines do it, as well). Power to each > injector & coil is individually fused; the controller switches the > ground side of the injectors/coils. There are dual Walbro high > pressure fuel pumps, each with it's own fuse/switch. The choice to > have an engine master was driven by the same logic mentioned > earlier. Just as the airframe can go dark without affecting the > engine, a typical a/c can shut off the engine by turning a key or > flipping a pair of mag switches. The engine master switch is my > 'mag switch'. But I'm not married to this, is there good reason to > change? If the above isn't clear, I can try to do a rough drawing > of power flow to the engine's power feeders. Charlie > * ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Charlie England <ceengland7(at)gmail.com>
Date: Oct 22, 2018
Subject: Re: new z-figure thread
Thanks, Rick. I just emailed Matt about this, & he said nothing in the Matronics system should cause it. I need dig through my settings (on several different computers) to see if I've messed up somewhere. On Mon, Oct 22, 2018 at 3:33 PM Rick Beebe wrote: > Yes. > > On 10/22/2018 4:11 PM, Charlie England wrote: > > * Sorry for the re-post of the message below, but I don't get my own posts > back from the matronics server. Can anyone tell me if they got a .pdf > attachment with the previous post of this message? Thanks, Charlie Please > forgive the rough looking drawing; I've never had time to learn a cad > program, so I tweaked a z drawing with MS Paint to create the attached. > Ignore the fused feeder values on the engine bus; most are artifacts from > my cut & paste operation. Both alternators in the drawing are auto-style > internally regulated; the engine comes with an IR alternator, and I just > hung a 2nd where the air conditioner compressor used to reside. As yet > unresolved in this draft is the fact that both OV modules can 'see' both > alternators. My original intent was to run both alternators all the time, > but I may modify that idea to primary/backup. My controller (from Real > World Solutions, specifically for Mazda rotary engines) does have > primary/secondary controllers in one box, but a single power feed to the > controllers. The RWS controllers have been set up this way for over 20 > years. Over the years, multiple fliers have had controller issues requiring > switching to the backup controller, but none have ever had a power supply > failure to the box caused by an issue with one controller. If the > controller box had separate power feeds to each controller, it would > obviously beg for running one from the a/c bus, but I'm not sure that would > be a good thing, from the standpoint of trying to keep the systems similar > (as possible) to old habit driven pilots. The controllers' control of the > injectors & ignition coils is switched by an external control, which drives > a bank of internal relays to do the switching (I believe this is how the > ones for a/c engines do it, as well). Power to each injector & coil is > individually fused; the controller switches the ground side of the > injectors/coils. There are dual Walbro high pressure fuel pumps, each with > it's own fuse/switch. The choice to have an engine master was driven by the > same logic mentioned earlier. Just as the airframe can go dark without > affecting the engine, a typical a/c can shut off the engine by turning a > key or flipping a pair of mag switches. The engine master switch is my 'mag > switch'. But I'm not married to this, is there good reason to change? If > the above isn't clear, I can try to do a rough drawing of power flow to the > engine's power feeders. Charlie * > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Todd Bartrim <bartrim(at)gmail.com>
Date: Oct 22, 2018
Subject: Re: IVO current limiter project
I've received a batch of 6 boards and assembled and tested one of them. I found that there is an error on the board. Zener diodes D5 & D9 as well as mosfet Q7 & Q8 are mixed up. Now it makes no difference at all about Q7 & Q8 as they are identical but as for labeling on the board they are mixed up, but the zener diodes D5 & D9 are different, so when assembled as per the board markings, the LED glows dimly as there is grounding current leaking through the 10volt zener diode. It still glows bright when GP1 goes high. Switching D5 & D9 corrects this issue. This can be corrected for these already built boards, by simply altering the schematic diagram, otherwise the .pcb file for the boards could be corrected. I would recommend go with the first option, as it is quite expensive to have these boards produced by expressPCB, but they do provide along with the finished product the gerber files that will allow future boards to be produced by much less expensive sources. I'd be happy to provide these files to Bob to post with the other project files on aeroelectric.com to save costs for future builders. But even after correcting this issue I'm still having problems with the circuit, that I suspect are a result of my ineptitude in compiling C into hex. I've contacted Paul Fisher for his guidance on this, as he wrote the original code. The problems are surprisingly similar to one that was reported here long ago when the first iteration of this project was all hardware based without the microcontroller; When I apply power to drive the prop motor, it will move for approx .5 second before GP1 goes high, tripping the circuit. It does this for both directions. But measured current is only a max of 6.5 amps of inrush current with about 5 amps of continuous current. The behavior of this would suggest that possibly I may have correctly compiled the code as it should trip in .5 second of high current (.5volt across R16a-d). So possibly this just needs to be changed in the code. After several trips up to the airport to test this, I built a bench test set-up using an electric water pump for a load as it has very similar current draw as the IVOprop motor, so that will expedite further testing. I just heard from Paul and he will take a close look at my hex code, so hopefully it will be a simple error in my hex code. I'll update soon.... Todd Bartrim On Tue, Sep 18, 2018 at 12:15 PM Robert L. Nuckolls, III < nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> wrote: > At 09:29 PM 9/17/2018, you wrote: > > The last 2 posts I saw on this were these 2: > > Robert L. Nuckolls, III > Fri 7/21/2017, 12:23 PM > Got the board stuffed. > > http://tinyurl.com/ycemckye > > I need to get my pic programmer up and running > for a couple other programs. I'll pop a 9023 chip > and see how critter works. > > Bob . . . > > AND > > Paul A. Fisher > Wed 10/4/2017, 11:53 AM > Bob and all, > Did we ever finish this project? The message attached below was the last > one I heard about it. I don't know if that means it worked, that it didn't > work and we gave up, or everyone just lost interest. > I don't have an IVO prop, so I don't need the limiter. I just wondered if > the software that I contributed needs any additional refinement. > Paul A. Fisher > Q-200, N17PF > RV-7A, N18PF > > If there was a limiter produced I didn't see it. > > Deems > > > Okay guys . . . looks like I dropped the ball on this > one. I'll hide behind the 'too many projects' phenomenon. > Got another grand-kid living with us for a year to > try alternatives to Wichita schools . . . etc. But > that's not an excuse. I'll dig around and get that > package together. > > I know Paul had sent me some POC software and I > don't recall having loaded it into a chip. We'll > get that pot back on a front burner today. > > > Bob . . . > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Art Zemon <art(at)zemon.name>
Date: Oct 22, 2018
Subject: Re: new z-figure thread
Charlie, You have been bitten by a well-known Gmail "issue." Gmail silently deletes the copy of the message that comes back to you from the Matronics system. There is no workaround; you just have to trust that it worked. -- Art Z. On Mon, Oct 22, 2018 at 4:18 PM Charlie England wrote: > Thanks, Rick. I just emailed Matt about this, & he said nothing in the > Matronics system should cause it. I need dig through my settings (on > several different computers) to see if I've messed up somewhere. > -- https://CheerfulCurmudgeon.com/ *"We do not see the world as it is. We see the world as we are."* ________________________________________________________________________________
From: don van santen <donvansanten(at)gmail.com>
Date: Oct 22, 2018
Subject: Re: new z-figure thread
Art is correct, I have the same issue. Same problen with Gmail on phone. lap top and desk top. On Mon, Oct 22, 2018, 19:01 Art Zemon wrote: > Charlie, > > You have been bitten by a well-known Gmail "issue." Gmail silently deletes > the copy of the message that comes back to you from the Matronics system. > There is no workaround; you just have to trust that it worked. > > -- Art Z. > > On Mon, Oct 22, 2018 at 4:18 PM Charlie England > wrote: > >> Thanks, Rick. I just emailed Matt about this, & he said nothing in the >> Matronics system should cause it. I need dig through my settings (on >> several different computers) to see if I've messed up somewhere. >> > > -- > https://CheerfulCurmudgeon.com/ > > *"We do not see the world as it is. We see the world as we are."* > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: don van santen <donvansanten(at)gmail.com>
Date: Oct 22, 2018
Subject: Re: new z-figure thread
Ok thats weird. The last message sent me the return! On Mon, Oct 22, 2018, 19:14 don van santen wrote: > Art is correct, I have the same issue. Same problen with Gmail on phone. > lap top and desk top. > > On Mon, Oct 22, 2018, 19:01 Art Zemon wrote: > >> Charlie, >> >> You have been bitten by a well-known Gmail "issue." Gmail silently >> deletes the copy of the message that comes back to you from the Matronics >> system. There is no workaround; you just have to trust that it worked. >> >> -- Art Z. >> >> On Mon, Oct 22, 2018 at 4:18 PM Charlie England >> wrote: >> >>> Thanks, Rick. I just emailed Matt about this, & he said nothing in the >>> Matronics system should cause it. I need dig through my settings (on >>> several different computers) to see if I've messed up somewhere. >>> >> >> -- >> https://CheerfulCurmudgeon.com/ >> >> *"We do not see the world as it is. We see the world as we are."* >> > ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: new z-figure thread
From: Charlie England <ceengland7(at)gmail.com>
Date: Oct 22, 2018
Yep, I got a copy of the email asking if anyone got that attachment=2E Very strange=2E =81=A3Sent from BlueMail =8B On Oct 22, 2018, 9:23 P M, at 9:23 PM, don van santen wrote: >Ok thats w eird=2E The last message sent me the return! > >On Mon, Oct 22, 2018, 19:14 don van santen >wrote: > >> Art is correct, I h ave the same issue=2E Same problen with Gmail on >phone=2E >> lap top and d esk top=2E >> >> On Mon, Oct 22, 2018, 19:01 Art Zemon w rote: >> >>> Charlie, >>> >>> You have been bitten by a well-known Gmail "i ssue=2E" Gmail silently >>> deletes the copy of the message that comes back to you from the >Matronics >>> system=2E There is no workaround; you just have to trust that it >worked=2E >>> >>> -- Art Z=2E >>> >>> On Mon, Oc t 22, 2018 at 4:18 PM Charlie England > >>> wrote: >>> >>>> Thanks, Rick=2E I just emailed Matt about this, & he said nothing in >the >>>> Matronics system should cause it=2E I need dig through my sett ings >(on >>>> several different computers) to see if I've messed up somewh ere=2E >>>> >>> >>> -- >>> https://CheerfulCurmudgeon=2Ecom/ >>> >>> *"We d o not see the world as it is=2E We see the world as we are=2E"* >>> >> ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Mickey Coggins <mick-matronics(at)rv8.ch>
Date: Oct 23, 2018
Subject: Same rating for fuses and circuit breakers?
Hi, I'm curious if we should use the exact same rating for fuses as are recommended for circuit breakers. I have all fuses with one CB as recommended by the AEC, and for most devices they say something "protect with a 1 amp circuit breaker". My understanding is that fuses are "faster", so more likely to blow in a case where a CB might not have time to react - could be I have this wrong. Is there a recommendation to use the exact same value of fuse as recommended for circuit breakers, or should we increase the fuse size? Thanks for any tips. Mickey Coggins ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Same rating for fuses and circuit breakers?
From: "user9253" <fransew(at)gmail.com>
Date: Oct 23, 2018
Here is my opinion: Use the same size. Do not use fuses smaller than 3 amps. 3 amp fuses and larger are available from Van's that glow when blown. If a fuse nuisance blows for loads that have a high momentary current, use the next larger size. Of course the wire must be able to carry the current. The nice thing about fuses is that it is easy to change amp rating. -------- Joe Gores Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=483988#483988 ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Art Zemon <art(at)zemon.name>
Date: Oct 23, 2018
Subject: Re: Same rating for fuses and circuit breakers?
Joe, Why do you say not to use a fuse smaller than 3 amps? My backup ASI/altimeter came with installation instructions calling for a 1 amp slow blow fuse . I splurged the $1.02 and installed it. -- Art Z. On Tue, Oct 23, 2018 at 1:52 PM user9253 wrote: > > Here is my opinion: > Use the same size. > Do not use fuses smaller than 3 amps. > -- https://CheerfulCurmudgeon.com/ *"We do not see the world as it is. We see the world as we are."* ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Same rating for fuses and circuit breakers?
From: Rick Beebe <rick(at)beebe.org>
Date: Oct 23, 2018
I think he means because you can't get the glow-when-blown fuses smaller than 3amp. A 3amp fuse is able to protect a 24-gauge wire so I'm not sure there's any reason to use smaller fuses. I don't have any wires smaller than that in my plane anyway. That said, there's nothing wrong with using smaller if a manufacturer calls for it and you don't mind that it doesn't light up. --Rick On 10/23/2018 3:11 PM, Art Zemon wrote: > Joe, > > Why do you say not to use a fuse smaller than 3 amps? My backup > ASI/altimeter came with installation instructions calling for a 1 amp > slow blow fuse > . > I splurged the $1.02 and installed it. > > -- Art Z. > > On Tue, Oct 23, 2018 at 1:52 PM user9253 > wrote: > > > > > Here is my opinion: > Use the same size. > Do not use fuses smaller than 3 amps. > > > -- > https://CheerfulCurmudgeon.com/ > > /"We do not see the world as it is. We see the world as we are."/ ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Same rating for fuses and circuit breakers?
From: Charlie England <ceengland7(at)gmail.com>
Date: Oct 23, 2018
I'll jump in, because that's one of my pet peeves. First, the mfgr of a widget shouldn't be asking the end user to supply protection for their device. Circuit protection protects circuits; not devices. If the mfgr thinks their device needs a 1A fuse, it should be in the device. Ever seen a piece of consumer or industrial electronics that came with a requirement that you supply its fusing? (They tell you the *minimum* size circuit needed; not a spec for device protection.) Second, a 1A fuse isn't going to protect anything; the equipment will either die before the fuse blows, or the fuse will be blowing needlessly on a more or less random (possibly regular) basis. That's likely why Joe said not to use any fusing under 3A; a policy I also use. Charlie On 10/23/2018 2:11 PM, Art Zemon wrote: > Joe, > > Why do you say not to use a fuse smaller than 3 amps? My backup > ASI/altimeter came with installation instructions calling for a 1 amp > slow blow fuse > . > I splurged the $1.02 and installed it. > > -- Art Z. > > On Tue, Oct 23, 2018 at 1:52 PM user9253 > wrote: > > > > > Here is my opinion: > Use the same size. > Do not use fuses smaller than 3 amps. > > > -- > https://CheerfulCurmudgeon.com/ > > /"We do not see the world as it is. We see the world as we are."/ --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Same rating for fuses and circuit breakers?
From: Kelly McMullen <kellym(at)aviating.com>
Date: Oct 23, 2018
I seem to recall there is a reason that ammeters call for a 1 amp fuse on each lead from the shunt. It certainly isn't for wire protection, maybe to protect the meter movement. On 10/23/2018 12:44 PM, Charlie England wrote: > I'll jump in, because that's one of my pet peeves. First, the mfgr of a > widget shouldn't be asking the end user to supply protection for their > device. Circuit protection protects circuits; not devices. If the mfgr > thinks their device needs a 1A fuse, it should be in the device. Ever > seen a piece of consumer or industrial electronics that came with a > requirement that you supply its fusing? (They tell you the *minimum* > size circuit needed; not a spec for device protection.) Second, a 1A > fuse isn't going to protect anything; the equipment will either die > before the fuse blows, or the fuse will be blowing needlessly on a more > or less random (possibly regular) basis. That's likely why Joe said not > to use any fusing under 3A; a policy I also use. > > Charlie > > On 10/23/2018 2:11 PM, Art Zemon wrote: >> Joe, >> >> Why do you say not to use a fuse smaller than 3 amps? My backup >> ASI/altimeter came with installation instructions calling for a 1 amp >> slow blow fuse >> . >> I splurged the $1.02 and installed it. >> >> -- Art Z. >> >> On Tue, Oct 23, 2018 at 1:52 PM user9253 > > wrote: >> >> > >> >> Here is my opinion: >> Use the same size. >> Do not use fuses smaller than 3 amps. >> >> >> >> -- >> https://CheerfulCurmudgeon.com/ >> >> /"We do not see the world as it is. We see the world as we are."/ > > > > Virus-free. www.avast.com > > > > <#DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2> ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Same rating for fuses and circuit breakers?
From: "user9253" <fransew(at)gmail.com>
Date: Oct 23, 2018
One reason is to keep the number of spare fuses to a minimum. Another reason is that glow-when-blown fuses are not readily available at less than 3 amps. Wire sizes commonly used to wire home-built airplanes can safely carry 3 amps. But I am not going to argue with the equipment manufacture's recommendation. Evidently your ASI/Altimeter does not have any internal protection. I should not have wrote to not use less than a 3 amps fuse. It sure doesn't hurt to use a smaller fuse than 3 amps. But I prefer not to. -------- Joe Gores Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=483993#483993 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Oct 23, 2018
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com>
Subject: Re: Same rating for fuses and circuit breakers?
At 09:54 AM 10/23/2018, you wrote: >Hi, > >I'm curious if we should use the exact same >rating for fuses as are recommended for circuit breakers. generally, yes >I have all fuses with one CB as recommended by >the AEC, and for most devices they say something >"protect with a 1 amp circuit breaker".=C2 My >understanding is that fuses are "faster", so >more likely to blow in a case where a CB might >not have time to react - could be I have this >wrong.=C2 Is there a recommendation to use the >exact same value of fuse as recommended for >circuit breakers, or should we increase the fuse size? I am suspicious of installation instructions that call for 'downsized' protection with respect to wire size. This has the 'look and smell' of a design gaff . . . albeit a minor one. I was taught to make system integration and installation completely independent of contemporary design rules. In this example, suppose your electro-whizzy needs 3.2A maximum at any time. You state that in the specs . . . and stop there. The system integrator would be expected to gravitate to a 22AWG feeder on a 5A breaker . . . and in this case, a 5A fuse (de-rated to 75% per recommended practice) would be a good choice too. But if the box goes all the way in the tail of a Hawker 4000, the feeder might be upsized to 20AWG just to mitigate voltage drop issues . . . and the system integrator might well protect that wire with a 7A breaker. Bottom line is, it shouldn't matter. The 1A breaker requirement sounds like there may be some design feature INSIDE the electro-whizzy at risk for smoke due to some internal failure; a risk mitigated by adjusting installation requirements. Is there risk associated with replacing a breaker with a fuse? Maybe . . . breakers are a low slower than fuses and the electro-whizzy may have some transient draw that would irritate a fuse. If you get nuisance trips, no big deal. Put the next bigger fuse in. But it WOULD be interesting to talk with the engineer that built that feature into his/her design . . . I mean, there ARE worse things you could do . . . like let your electro-whizzy reset during starter inrush events. Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Oct 23, 2018
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com>
Subject: Re: Same rating for fuses and circuit breakers?
At 02:44 PM 10/23/2018, you wrote: >I'll jump in, because that's one of my pet peeves. First, the mfgr of a >widget shouldn't be asking the end user to supply protection for their device. Right on! Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Oct 23, 2018
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com>
Subject: Re: Same rating for fuses and circuit breakers?
At 03:49 PM 10/23/2018, you wrote: > >I seem to recall there is a reason that ammeters call for a 1 amp >fuse on each lead from the shunt. It certainly isn't for wire >protection, maybe to protect the meter movement Yeah, first saw them do that on the 336/337 series airplanes at the Pawnee plant. That was the idea . . . but the fusing constant for a AGC1 (then a 3AG1) was such that a 5A flow of current would take about 30 milliseconds to pop the fuse. That 1 mA meter movement would be in trouble a lot faster than that! Don't know if anyone tested that decision in the lab. There were some 50mV instruments with lower resistance (maybe 10mA?). The 1 ohm fuse has about 200 mOhms of resistance. Two fuses in series at 10 mA gives you a 4 mV drop at full scale . . . But I don't think anyone really paid much attention to the readings anyhow . . . ammeters are not really useful flight instruments. Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Oct 23, 2018
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com>
Subject: Re: Same rating for fuses and circuit breakers?
At 04:10 PM 10/23/2018, you wrote: > >One reason is to keep the number of spare fuses to a minimum. Why would you carry spare fuses in the airplane? Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Sebastien <cluros(at)gmail.com>
Date: Oct 23, 2018
Subject: Re: Same rating for fuses and circuit breakers?
Ha! I know the answer to this one! In case you land away from base after the fuse blows and you have repaired whatever caused the fuse to blow and then want to get home. On Tue, Oct 23, 2018, 17:47 Robert L. Nuckolls, III < nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> wrote: > At 04:10 PM 10/23/2018, you wrote: > > > One reason is to keep the number of spare fuses to a minimum. > > > Why would you carry spare fuses in the airplane? > > Bob . . . > ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Same rating for fuses and circuit breakers?
From: Dick Tasker <dick(at)thetaskerfamily.com>
Date: Oct 23, 2018
To use when you get to your destination when you troubleshoot the problem. Dick Tasker Robert L. Nuckolls, III wrote: > At 04:10 PM 10/23/2018, you wrote: >> >> One reason is to keep the number of spare fuses to a minimum. > > Why would you carry spare fuses in the airplane? > > Bob . . . > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Oct 24, 2018
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com>
Subject: Re: Same rating for fuses and circuit breakers?
At 09:11 PM 10/23/2018, you wrote: > > >To use when you get to your destination when you troubleshoot the problem. > >Dick Tasker Yup . . . keep 'em in the toolbox. Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
From: FLYaDIVE <flyadive(at)gmail.com>
Date: Oct 25, 2018
Subject: Re: Same rating for fuses and circuit breakers?
Hi Joe: Will you further explain the statement: "... glow when blown."? I do recall years ago there were fuse holders for AC that would glow when the fuse blew. It was a simple circuit of a NE2 bulb and a series resistor. They were wired in series across the fuse. When the fuse blew the circuit would become active and the NE2 would glow. Is this the same idea? Barry On Tue, Oct 23, 2018 at 2:33 PM user9253 wrote: > > Here is my opinion: > Use the same size. > Do not use fuses smaller than 3 amps. 3 amp fuses and larger are > available from Van's that glow when blown. > If a fuse nuisance blows for loads that have a high momentary current, use > the next larger size. Of course the wire must be able to carry the current. > The nice thing about fuses is that it is easy to change amp rating. > > -------- > Joe Gores > > > Read this topic online here: > > http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=483988#483988 > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Same rating for fuses and circuit breakers?
From: "user9253" <fransew(at)gmail.com>
Date: Oct 25, 2018
Barry, Yes, the principle is the same, except that a LED and series resistor are used instead of a neon bulb. Of course a load must be connected for the LED to glow. Vans Aircraft sells them at a very reasonable price. http://www.vansaircraft.com/cgi-bin/store.cgi?ident=1540512196-220-9&browse=electrical&product=misc -------- Joe Gores Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=484015#484015 ________________________________________________________________________________
From: don van santen <donvansanten(at)gmail.com>
Date: Oct 25, 2018
Subject: Re: Same rating for fuses and circuit breakers?
Same idea, built into the atc fuse. On Thu, Oct 25, 2018, 16:32 FLYaDIVE wrote: > Hi Joe: > > Will you further explain the statement: "... glow when blown."? > > I do recall years ago there were fuse holders for AC that would glow when > the fuse blew. It was a simple circuit of a NE2 bulb and a series > resistor. They were wired in series across the fuse. When the fuse blew > the circuit would become active and the NE2 would glow. > Is this the same idea? > > Barry > > > On Tue, Oct 23, 2018 at 2:33 PM user9253 wrote: > >> >> Here is my opinion: >> Use the same size. >> Do not use fuses smaller than 3 amps. 3 amp fuses and larger are >> available from Van's that glow when blown. >> If a fuse nuisance blows for loads that have a high momentary current, >> use the next larger size. Of course the wire must be able to carry the >> current. >> The nice thing about fuses is that it is easy to change amp rating. >> >> -------- >> Joe Gores >> >> >> >> >> Read this topic online here: >> >> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=483988#483988 >> >> >> >> >> >> >> ========== >> - >> 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: FLYaDIVE <flyadive(at)gmail.com>
Date: Oct 25, 2018
Subject: Re: Same rating for fuses and circuit breakers?
Right You Are Charlie: Here is another thought? In the AC world there is a thing know as a Ground Fault Interrupt (GFI). It detects a short so fast that YOU can put your hand in a sink of water and touch an outlet and YOU would not feel a thing. The GFI would Pop and YOU would be alive. Pretty impressive. So, why can't they design a circuit like that for DC? For our EXPENSIVE instruments! As for the CB protecting the wires and not the device... Well, I have heard that and read that for years. It does not protect the device ONLY because it does not function quick enough to prevent damage. But, as for protecting the wires... I feel that statement is a BUNK! If it was only to protect the wires WHY doesn't ALL wires of the same size have the same size CB? That statement sure sounds like C.Y.A.. The product manufacture did not want to go the extra distance - spelt - MONEY. To add protection to the product! When all else fails - Write a Disclaimer. Barry On Tue, Oct 23, 2018 at 3:57 PM Charlie England wrote: > I'll jump in, because that's one of my pet peeves. First, the mfgr of a > widget shouldn't be asking the end user to supply protection for their > device. Circuit protection protects circuits; not devices. If the mfgr > thinks their device needs a 1A fuse, it should be in the device. Ever seen > a piece of consumer or industrial electronics that came with a requirement > that you supply its fusing? (They tell you the *minimum* size circuit > needed; not a spec for device protection.) Second, a 1A fuse isn't going > to protect anything; the equipment will either die before the fuse blows, > or the fuse will be blowing needlessly on a more or less random (possibly > regular) basis. That's likely why Joe said not to use any fusing under 3A; > a policy I also use. > > Charlie > > On 10/23/2018 2:11 PM, Art Zemon wrote: > > Joe, > > Why do you say not to use a fuse smaller than 3 amps? My backup > ASI/altimeter came with installation instructions calling for a 1 amp > slow blow fuse > . > I splurged the $1.02 and installed it. > > -- Art Z. > > On Tue, Oct 23, 2018 at 1:52 PM user9253 wrote: > >> >> Here is my opinion: >> Use the same size. >> Do not use fuses smaller than 3 amps. >> > > > -- > https://CheerfulCurmudgeon.com/ > > *"We do not see the world as it is. We see the world as we are."* > > > Virus-free. > www.avast.com > > <#m_-5802026899523621861_DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2> > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: FLYaDIVE <flyadive(at)gmail.com>
Date: Oct 25, 2018
Subject: Re: Same rating for fuses and circuit breakers?
Joe: Thanks for the explanation and link. Barry On Thu, Oct 25, 2018 at 8:15 PM user9253 wrote: > > Barry, > Yes, the principle is the same, except that a LED and series resistor are > used instead of a neon bulb. Of course a load must be connected for the > LED to glow. Vans Aircraft sells them at a very reasonable price. > > http://www.vansaircraft.com/cgi-bin/store.cgi?ident=1540512196-220-9&browse=electrical&product=misc > > -------- > Joe Gores > > > Read this topic online here: > > http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=484015#484015 > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: FLYaDIVE <flyadive(at)gmail.com>
Date: Oct 25, 2018
Subject: Re: Same rating for fuses and circuit breakers?
Thanks Don, Ya know guys, the circuit is so simple it can be added to a CB. probably easier than a fuse. Good for the CB that is out of the standard field of view. Barry On Thu, Oct 25, 2018 at 8:33 PM don van santen wrote: > Same idea, built into the atc fuse. > > On Thu, Oct 25, 2018, 16:32 FLYaDIVE wrote: > >> Hi Joe: >> >> Will you further explain the statement: "... glow when blown."? >> >> I do recall years ago there were fuse holders for AC that would glow when >> the fuse blew. It was a simple circuit of a NE2 bulb and a series >> resistor. They were wired in series across the fuse. When the fuse blew >> the circuit would become active and the NE2 would glow. >> Is this the same idea? >> >> Barry >> >> >> On Tue, Oct 23, 2018 at 2:33 PM user9253 wrote: >> >>> >>> Here is my opinion: >>> Use the same size. >>> Do not use fuses smaller than 3 amps. 3 amp fuses and larger are >>> available from Van's that glow when blown. >>> If a fuse nuisance blows for loads that have a high momentary current, >>> use the next larger size. Of course the wire must be able to carry the >>> current. >>> The nice thing about fuses is that it is easy to change amp rating. >>> >>> -------- >>> Joe Gores >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> Read this topic online here: >>> >>> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=483988#483988 >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> ========== >>> - >>> 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 >>> ========== >>> >>> >>> >>> ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Oct 26, 2018
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com>
Subject: Re: Same rating for fuses and circuit breakers?
> >As for the CB protecting the wires and not the >device...=C2 Well, I have heard that and read that for years. >It does not protect the device ONLY because it >does not function quick enough to prevent damage. >But, as for protecting the wires...=C2 I feel that statement is a BUNK!=C2 =C2 >If it was only to protect the wires WHY doesn't >ALL wires of the same size have the same size CB? >That statement sure sounds like C.Y.A.. >The product manufacture did not want to go the >extra distance - spelt - MONEY.=C2 To add protection to the product! check out the narrative on wire and protection sizing in AC4-13 Circuit protection and wire size can be fine tuned but based mostly on the wire's insulation temperature limits, voltage drop, and environment through which the wire travels. 20 amps through a 22AWG wire in free air will not raise the temperature above the limits for Tefzel wire . . . yet we never see 22AWG operated and/or protected at such extreme. 5A is the legacy rule of thumb limit for 22AWG wire dating back to Mil-w-76 cotton over rubber insulated wire. It's a good rule of thumb that frees the system integrator from what could be a nightmare should his boss task him with 'optimizing' every strand of wire in every wire bundle. The cost/benefit ratio of such a philosophy is exceedingly poor. Having said that, there is noting in the rule of thumb that prohibits departure for calculated reasons . . . like those manufacturers whose products feature some electrical fragility that cries out for external relief. It would be interesting to see a system diagram on a TC aircraft that departs from the 22/5, 20/7, 18/10, 14/15 protocol for 10 degree temperature rise in free air. If one wished to adopt some other policy for temperature rise . . . say 21 degrees C, they're certainly free to do so . . . and the risks are low but so are the benefits. Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Oct 26, 2018
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com>
Subject: Re: Same rating for fuses and circuit breakers?
At 08:05 PM 10/25/2018, you wrote: >Thanks Don, > >Ya know guys, the circuit is so simple it can be >added to a CB.=C2 probably easier than a fuse. >Good for the CB that is out of the standard field of view. > >Barry But what is the cost/benefit ratio? 99.99% of all breakers/fuses installed in all vehicles at the factory go to the junkyard never having been tasked to do their job. For every fault that takes a system down by opening the power feeder protection, there are MANY more faults equally deleterious to system operation that do not open the feeder protection. When circuit protection does operate in a thoughtfully designed system, the thing is broke. Resetting the breaker or replacing the fuse will not bring it back. The pilot's first clue that something is amiss is when an expected event doesn't occur on the airplane . . . but what value is there in knowing the state of power feeder protection? The reason for malfunction is not relevant to the pilot's prime directive: effect a return to earth without bending airplanes or people. Indicating fuses are cute but the feature saves only seconds of diagnostic time which is done on the ground. Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Oct 26, 2018
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com>
Subject: Re: Same rating for fuses and circuit breakers?
At 07:29 PM 10/25/2018, you wrote: >Right You Are Charlie: > >Here is another thought? >In the AC world there is a thing know as a Ground Fault Interrupt (GFI) Yup, got 'em in airplanes too. After the Swiss Air 111 disaster there was a push to develop a breaker with soft-fault detection built in. TI and others rose to the occasion and you can buy such critters today . . . if your wallet is fat enough. Anybody work for Boeing or Airbus? Know anybody who might fill us in on just how many such devices have found their way onto there products? I'm betting its VERY few if any. Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Oct 26, 2018
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com>
Subject: Re: Same rating for fuses and circuit breakers?
> >I do recall years ago there were fuse holders >for AC that would glow when the fuse blew.=C2 It >was a simple circuit of a NE2 bulb and a series >resistor.=C2 They were wired in series across the >fuse.=C2 When the fuse blew the circuit would >become active and the NE2 would glow. >Is this the same idea? Yup . . . they're still made https://tinyurl.com/ych5z2u7 Just one of a family of devices called 'indicating' fuse holders. Some of these critters have a little spring loaded arm that pops up or a button that pops out. https://tinyurl.com/y8a9qkd5 These features have been used to make contact with a 'detector strip' of some type that will effect an alarm when a blown fuse does its thing . . . The idea isn't new . . . back in 1928 a clever fellow got a patent on a system for bridging an opaque cartridge fuse with a transparent device. He correctly reasoned that when the large fuse opens in relative obscurity, the external device would open as well and announce the condition. http://www.freepatentsonline.com/1868465.pdf Wonder if he ever collected a royalty on this . . . Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Oct 27, 2018
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com>
Subject: Re: Same rating for fuses and circuit breakers?
At 09:41 AM 10/26/2018, you wrote: >At 07:29 PM 10/25/2018, you wrote: >>Right You Are Charlie: >> >>Here is another thought? >>In the AC world there is a thing know as a Ground Fault Interrupt (GFI) > > Yup, got 'em in airplanes too. After the Swiss Air 111 > disaster there was a push to develop a breaker > with soft-fault detection built in. TI and others > rose to the occasion and you can buy such critters > today . . . if your wallet is fat enough. > > Anybody work for Boeing or Airbus? Know anybody > who might fill us in on just how many such devices > have found their way onto there products? I'm > betting its VERY few if any. Actually, That's wrong. The S.A.111 accident was precipitated by a 'soft' fault (intermittent arcing at current level too low to trip breaker, but releasing LOTS of energy into adjacent combustibles). Unlike the hard fault for which the legacy breakers are designed to clear, soft fault detection calls for software based monitoring for a noise signature indicative of the soft fault. Kinda black magic. So I'll correct my earlier assertion . . . GFIs don't exist for aircraft. In fact, they wouldn't work in a system that specifically uses airframe ground as the return power path. Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Bernie Willis <arcticarrow(at)gmail.com>
Subject: Thank You
Date: Oct 27, 2018
Hi Dave, Just want to thank you again for sharing your U-2 flying experiences with our local EAA Chapter 42. Regards, Bernie Willis, Chapter 42, President. ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Bernie Willis <arcticarrow(at)gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Thank You
Date: Oct 27, 2018
Sorry wrong address, Bernie > On Oct 27, 2018, at 7:39 AM, Bernie Willis wrote: > > > Hi Dave, > > Just want to thank you again for sharing your U-2 flying experiences with our local EAA Chapter 42. > > Regards, > Bernie Willis, > Chapter 42, President. > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: FLYaDIVE <flyadive(at)gmail.com>
Date: Oct 28, 2018
Subject: Re: Same rating for fuses and circuit breakers?
Bob: Of course GFI will not work on planes, not as yet! The present GFI for homes uses inductance in the AC circuit. Our planes are DC, inductance is not there, AC is not there! The type of Ground does not matter. Barry On Sat, Oct 27, 2018 at 10:59 AM Robert L. Nuckolls, III < nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> wrote: > At 09:41 AM 10/26/2018, you wrote: > > At 07:29 PM 10/25/2018, you wrote: > > Right You Are Charlie: > > Here is another thought? > In the AC world there is a thing know as a Ground Fault Interrupt (GFI) > ... Barry > > > > > So I'll correct my earlier assertion . . . GFIs > don't exist for aircraft. In fact, they wouldn't > work in a system that specifically uses airframe > ground as the return power path. > > Bob . . . > ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Same rating for fuses and circuit breakers?
From: "user9253" <fransew(at)gmail.com>
Date: Oct 28, 2018
A GFCI protects people from electricity. In an airplane, what we need is something to protect electricity from people. :-) -------- Joe Gores Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=484054#484054 ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Same rating for fuses and circuit breakers?
From: C&K <yellowduckduo(at)gmail.com>
Date: Oct 28, 2018
Actually I think you will find that a GFI activates when the outgoing and incoming current does not match. ie there is current going somewhere other than the intended load. I don't see how you can compare the two values if a device does not have a dedicated return ground wire. Residential GFI's trip upon seeing about 5 ma difference. I don't see that AC or DC matters but I'm open to learning something new. Ken On 28/10/2018 12:27 PM, FLYaDIVE wrote: > Bob: > > Of course GFI will not work on planes, not as yet! The present GFI for > homes uses inductance in the AC circuit. Our planes are DC, > inductance is not there, AC is not there! > The type of Ground does not matter. > > Barry > > > On Sat, Oct 27, 2018 at 10:59 AM Robert L. Nuckolls, III > > > wrote: > > At 09:41 AM 10/26/2018, you wrote: >> At 07:29 PM 10/25/2018, you wrote: >>> Right You Are Charlie: >>> >>> Here is another thought? >>> In the AC world there is a thing know as a Ground Fault >>> Interrupt (GFI) ... Barry > >> > > So I'll correct my earlier assertion . . . GFIs > don't exist for aircraft. In fact, they wouldn't > work in a system that specifically uses airframe > ground as the return power path. > > Bob . . . > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: FLYaDIVE <flyadive(at)gmail.com>
Date: Oct 28, 2018
Subject: Re: Same rating for fuses and circuit breakers?
Bob: You are a COMPANY MAN, you think too much of ridiculous things like the CO$T to install a device. The fellows out there do not think of the "cost/benefit ratio" , for if they did they would NEVER build a plane. Guys, if you think my statement is incorrect just sit down and work out thee TRUE hours you invested in the building of your plane. At a Very Conservative rate of say $2.00 / Hour - Just In Labor - Work out how much your plane has cost you. Then take the $2.00 / Hr rate and replace it with your TRUE hourly work rate that you are being paid in your current job. Even if you worked at McDonald's - Considering their hourly rate... Your plane would be worth Hundreds of Thousands of Dollars and that is JUST for the LABOR! On Fri, Oct 26, 2018 at 10:44 AM Robert L. Nuckolls, III < nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> wrote: > At 08:05 PM 10/25/2018, you wrote: > > Thanks Don, > > Ya know guys, the circuit is so simple it can be added to a CB.=C3=82 pr obably > easier than a fuse. > Good for the CB that is out of the standard field of view. > > Barry > > > But what is the cost/benefit ratio? 99.99% of all > breakers/fuses installed in all vehicles at the > factory go to the junkyard never having been > tasked to do their job. > > > For every fault that takes a system down by > opening the power feeder protection, there > are MANY more faults equally deleterious > to system operation that do not open the > feeder protection. > Barry - Yeah, so??? I don't see your point. Are you concerned about the CO$T again? Or the Quantity of indicating fuses/CB'ers installed? It does not have to be on every fuse/CB, only the ones the Builder/Pilot thinks they would like a bit more information from. > > When circuit protection does operate in > a thoughtfully designed system, the thing > is broke. Resetting the breaker or replacing > the fuse will not bring it back. > Barry - It WON'T!!!??? Then why even have a resealable CB? Why is the in-flight procedure of Resetting a CB only once while in the air, taught? There is one poor design on a certified plane where the Strobes and the Boost Pump are on the same CB. There have been reports where if the Boost Pump is left on during Start the CB will pop. Of course a smart pilot will shut-off the boost pump after the system is pressurized. But, human nature being what it is... Pilots will forget to shut-off the boost pump. So, I guess a resealable CB is a wast of money? > The pilot's first clue that something is > amiss is when an expected event doesn't > occur on the airplane . . . but what value > is there in knowing the state of power > feeder protection? The reason for malfunction > is not relevant to the pilot's prime > directive: effect a return to earth > without bending airplanes or people. > Barry - Yeah! There is NO Value in saving a few seconds and calming the mind when something goes wrong and does not function as it should. I guess that is why companies like E.I., JPI and Safe Air have separate Idiot Lights so they can be mounted directly in your field of view. Just to warn you seconds sooner... Any IFR pilots out there? Anyone have a Low Vacuum Warning Light? Get rid of it. You don't need it! Bob said so. Whoops, I'm VFR and I have one on my VFR plane! Not for long as I'm going G5. Indicating fuses are cute but the feature > saves only seconds of diagnostic time which > is done on the ground. > Barry - O! I guess you and no one else out there EVER experienced a fuse or CB to pop in the air??? I think you should go back and read past posts of electrical/alternator issues where they popped ONLY during flight! Your Green is showing! It was ONLY a thought. Barry > Bob . . . > ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Same rating for fuses and circuit breakers?
From: Dick Tasker <dick(at)thetaskerfamily.com>
Date: Oct 28, 2018
Inductance has nothing particularly to do with a GFCI and one could pretty easily make a GFCI to work with DC. However, the circuit requires a three wire source - hot, neutral and ground - which is why Bob is saying it won't work in airplanes with only a hot and ground. The GFCI measures the difference in current between the hot and the neutral wires. Any amount over a defined limit causes it to trip, assuming the difference is going into the ground wire rather the neutral return - probably a bad thing (leakage to a motor housing, submersion of the appliance, etc.). What you are really wanting is not a GFCI, but an electronic breaker that will respond instantly to an overload. Of course this is easily done. The problem is to make it work reliably and not nuisance trip on every minor transient in the system - which is why we still use fuses and/or breakers. Dick Tasker FLYaDIVE wrote: > Bob: > > Of course GFI will not work on planes, not as yet! The present GFI for homes uses inductance in the AC circuit. Our planes are DC, inductance is not there, AC is not there! > The type of Ground does not matter. > > Barry > > > On Sat, Oct 27, 2018 at 10:59 AM Robert L. Nuckolls, III > wrote: > > At 09:41 AM 10/26/2018, you wrote: >> At 07:29 PM 10/25/2018, you wrote: >>> Right You Are Charlie: >>> >>> Here is another thought? >>> In the AC world there is a thing know as a Ground Fault Interrupt (GFI) ... Barry > >> > > So I'll correct my earlier assertion . . . GFIs > don't exist for aircraft. In fact, they wouldn't > work in a system that specifically uses airframe > ground as the return power path. > > Bob . . . > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: FLYaDIVE <flyadive(at)gmail.com>
Date: Oct 28, 2018
Subject: Re: Same rating for fuses and circuit breakers?
Great Response Joe! GREAT! After all, LQQK at all that electricity as done for you! But, what have your you done for Electricity! I'm still smiling and laughing - GREAT RESPONSE! Barry ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Same rating for fuses and circuit breakers?
From: Dick Tasker <dick(at)thetaskerfamily.com>
Date: Oct 28, 2018
Not sure how long it has taken you to build your plane, but mine certainly isn't worth hundreds of thousands at the McDonald's rate. Yes, at the rate of my actual job it would start getting into that range, but I didn't build to save money (although some people do). I could have just purchased a plane, but I built it for the fun and education experience and ability to modify it how I want to. And Bob is not averse to spending money. He is just averse to spending money where it really has no useful benefit. But he certainly doesn't have a problem if you want to spend money on your plane for what you think is worth it. On the other hand, money spent on something with no significant benefit is money not available for gas and actually flying. Dick Tasker FLYaDIVE wrote: > Bob: > > You are a COMPANY MAN, you think too much of ridiculous things like the CO$T to install a device. > The fellows out there do not think of the "cost/benefit ratio" , for if they did they would NEVER build a plane. > Guys, if you think my statement is incorrect just sit down and work out thee TRUE hours you invested in the building of your plane. > At a Very Conservative rate of say $2.00 / Hour - Just In Labor - Work out how much your plane has cost you. > Then take the $2.00 / Hr rate and replace it with your TRUE hourly work rate that you are being paid in your current job. > Even if you worked at McDonald's - Considering their hourly rate... Your plane would be worth Hundreds of Thousands of Dollars and that is JUST for the LABOR! > > > On Fri, Oct 26, 2018 at 10:44 AM Robert L. Nuckolls, III > wrote: > > At 08:05 PM 10/25/2018, you wrote: >> Thanks Don, >> >> Ya know guys, the circuit is so simple it can be added to a CB. probably easier than a fuse. >> Good for the CB that is out of the standard field of view. >> >> Barry > > But what is the cost/benefit ratio? 99.99% of all > breakers/fuses installed in all vehicles at the > factory go to the junkyard never having been > tasked to do their job. > > For every fault that takes a system down by > opening the power feeder protection, there > are MANY more faults equally deleterious > to system operation that do not open the > feeder protection. > > Barry - Yeah, so??? I don't see your point. > Are you concerned about the CO$T again? > Or the Quantity of indicating fuses/CB'ers installed? > It does not have to be on every fuse/CB, only the ones the Builder/Pilot thinks they would like a bit more information from. > > > When circuit protection does operate in > a thoughtfully designed system, the thing > is broke. Resetting the breaker or replacing > the fuse will not bring it back. > > Barry - It WON'T!!!??? > Then why even have a resealable CB? > Why is the in-flight procedure of Resetting a CB only once while in the air, taught? > There is one poor design on a certified plane where the Strobes and the Boost Pump are on the same CB. There have been reports where if the Boost Pump is left on during Start the CB will pop. Of > course a smart pilot will shut-off the boost pump after the system is pressurized. But, human nature being what it is... Pilots will forget to shut-off the boost pump. So, I guess a resealable CB > is a wast of money? > > > The pilot's first clue that something is > amiss is when an expected event doesn't > occur on the airplane . . . but what value > is there in knowing the state of power > feeder protection? The reason for malfunction > is not relevant to the pilot's prime > directive: effect a return to earth > without bending airplanes or people. > > Barry - Yeah! There is NO Value in saving a few seconds and calming the mind when something goes wrong and does not function as it should. I guess that is why companies like E.I., JPI and Safe Air > have separate Idiot Lights so they can be mounted directly in your field of view. > Just to warn you seconds sooner... Any IFR pilots out there? Anyone have a Low Vacuum Warning Light? Get rid of it. You don't need it! Bob said so. > Whoops, I'm VFR and I have one on my VFR plane! > Not for long as I'm going G5. > Indicating fuses are cute but the feature > > saves only seconds of diagnostic time which > is done on the ground. > > Barry - O! I guess you and no one else out there EVER experienced a fuse or CB to pop in the air??? > I think you should go back and read past posts of electrical/alternator issues where they popped ONLY during flight! > > Your Green is showing! > > It was ONLY a thought. > > Barry > > > Bob . . . > ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Same rating for fuses and circuit breakers?
From: Harley Dixon <harley(at)AgelessWings.com>
Date: Oct 28, 2018
Don't forget to take into consideration the FUTURE costs of building your own plane. The MUCH lower cost of adding new, not necessarily STC'd, equipment, and the saving when doing your own maintenance and annuals...even at a high initial cost (IF you consider the hours when you would normally be watching football!) in the end, it's far less costly to own and operate a plane you've built. And, as Dick said, the experience and education of building your own and the satisfaction of flying something you built is priceless. And, that's why I built my Long EZ! Harley ------------------------------------------------------------------------ On 10/28/2018 1:41 PM, Dick Tasker wrote: > > > Not sure how long it has taken you to build your plane, but mine > certainly isn't worth hundreds of thousands at the McDonald's rate. > > Yes, at the rate of my actual job it would start getting into that > range, but I didn't build to save money (although some people do). I > could have just purchased a plane, but I built it for the fun and > education experience and ability to modify it how I want to. > > And Bob is not averse to spending money. He is just averse to > spending money where it really has no useful benefit. But he > certainly doesn't have a problem if you want to spend money on your > plane for what you think is worth it. On the other hand, money spent > on something with no significant benefit is money not available for > gas and actually flying. > > Dick Tasker > > FLYaDIVE wrote: >> Bob: >> >> You are a COMPANY MAN, you think too much of ridiculous things like >> the CO$T to install a device. >> The fellows out there do not think of the "cost/benefit ratio" , for >> if they did they would NEVER build a plane. >> Guys, if you think my statement is incorrect just sit down and work >> out thee TRUE hours you invested in the building of your plane. >> At a Very Conservative rate of say $2.00 / Hour - Just In Labor - >> Work out how much your plane has cost you. >> Then take the $2.00 / Hr rate and replace it with your TRUE hourly >> work rate that you are being paid in your current job. >> Even if you worked at McDonald's - Considering their hourly rate... >> Your plane would be worth Hundreds of Thousands of Dollars and that >> is JUST for the LABOR! >> >> >> >> >> On Fri, Oct 26, 2018 at 10:44 AM Robert L. Nuckolls, III >> > > wrote: >> >> At 08:05 PM 10/25/2018, you wrote: >>> Thanks Don, >>> >>> Ya know guys, the circuit is so simple it can be added to a CB. >>> probably easier than a fuse. >>> Good for the CB that is out of the standard field of view. >>> >>> Barry >> >> But what is the cost/benefit ratio? 99.99% of all >> breakers/fuses installed in all vehicles at the >> factory go to the junkyard never having been >> tasked to do their job. >> >> For every fault that takes a system down by >> opening the power feeder protection, there >> are MANY more faults equally deleterious >> to system operation that do not open the >> feeder protection. >> >> Barry - Yeah, so??? I don't see your point. >> Are you concerned about the CO$T again? >> Or the Quantity of indicating fuses/CB'ers installed? >> It does not have to be on every fuse/CB, only the ones the >> Builder/Pilot thinks they would like a bit more information from. >> >> >> When circuit protection does operate in >> a thoughtfully designed system, the thing >> is broke. Resetting the breaker or replacing >> the fuse will not bring it back. >> >> Barry - It WON'T!!!??? >> Then why even have a resealable CB? >> Why is the in-flight procedure of Resetting a CB only once while in >> the air, taught? >> There is one poor design on a certified plane where the Strobes and >> the Boost Pump are on the same CB. There have been reports where if >> the Boost Pump is left on during Start the CB will pop. Of course a >> smart pilot will shut-off the boost pump after the system is >> pressurized. But, human nature being what it is... Pilots will >> forget to shut-off the boost pump. So, I guess a resealable CB is a >> wast of money? >> >> >> The pilot's first clue that something is >> amiss is when an expected event doesn't >> occur on the airplane . . . but what value >> is there in knowing the state of power >> feeder protection? The reason for malfunction >> is not relevant to the pilot's prime >> directive: effect a return to earth >> without bending airplanes or people. >> >> Barry - Yeah! There is NO Value in saving a few seconds and calming >> the mind when something goes wrong and does not function as it >> should. I guess that is why companies like E.I., JPI and Safe Air >> have separate Idiot Lights so they can be mounted directly in your >> field of view. >> Just to warn you seconds sooner... Any IFR pilots out there? Anyone >> have a Low Vacuum Warning Light? Get rid of it. You don't need it! >> Bob said so. >> Whoops, I'm VFR and I have one on my VFR plane! >> Not for long as I'm going G5. >> Indicating fuses are cute but the feature >> >> saves only seconds of diagnostic time which >> is done on the ground. >> >> Barry - O! I guess you and no one else out there EVER experienced a >> fuse or CB to pop in the air??? >> I think you should go back and read past posts of >> electrical/alternator issues where they popped ONLY during flight! >> >> Your Green is showing! >> >> It was ONLY a thought. >> >> Barry >> >> >> >> Bob . . . >> > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Oct 28, 2018
From: Jeff Luckey <jluckey(at)pacbell.net>
Subject: Re: Same rating for fuses and circuit breakers?
All, There appears to be a lot of mythology surrounding GFCIs (Ground Fault Circ uit Interrupters) or GFI for short. Here's how they work: 1. GFI are anti-electrocution devices.=C2- Not over-current protection de vices. (A very common mis-conception) 2. The GFI measures the current on both legs of the circuit, the hot and th e neutral. 3. If it detects and imbalance between the two legs, it trips.=C2- It has nothing to do with the magnitude of the overall current.=C2- That's what the circuit breaker is for.=C2- I think the imbalance is as small as 5 m A (not sure but it is pretty small). The theory is that if, for example, the hot leg is conducting 1000 mA but t he current in the returning neutral is only 995mA, then 5mA of stray curren t is going somewhere bad, like thru your heart to ground.=C2- Side Note (for electrical contractors): Therefore a GFI cannot be use on a shared-neutral circuit - if you don't kn ow what that is, don't worry about it.=C2- It is a fairly common practice in house wiring. Comments:1. Since GFI are anti-electrocution devices, they are generally no t needed on low-voltage systems like the 12V ones in our planes. So they do n't really apply to OBAM stuff.2. In theory, you could make a 12v DC GFI us ing the same principle explained above.=C2- (But why bother?)=C2- It is not necessarily an AC or DC thing. -Jeff On Sunday, October 28, 2018 9:43 AM, FLYaDIVE wrot e: Bob: Of course GFI will not work on planes, not as yet! The present GFI for home s uses inductance in the AC circuit.=C2- Our planes are DC, inductance is not there, AC is not there!=C2-=C2-The type of Ground does not matter. =C2-=C2- Barry On Sat, Oct 27, 2018 at 10:59 AM Robert L. Nuckolls, III <nuckolls.bob@aero electric.com> wrote: At 09:41 AM 10/26/2018, you wrote: At 07:29 PM 10/25/2018, youwrote: Right You Are Charlie: Here is another thought? In the AC world there is a thing know as a Ground Fault Interrupt(GFI)=C2 - ...=C2- =C2- =C2-Barry =C2- =C2- So I'll correct my earlier assertion . . . GFIs =C2- don't exist for aircraft. In fact, they wouldn't =C2- work in a system that specifically uses airframe =C2- ground as the return power path. =C2- Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Oct 28, 2018
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com>
Subject: Re: Same rating for fuses and circuit breakers?
At 11:27 AM 10/28/2018, you wrote: >Bob: > >Of course GFI will not work on planes, not as >yet! The present GFI for homes uses inductance >in the AC circuit.=C2 Our planes are DC, >inductance is not there, AC is not there!=C2 =C2 >The type of Ground does not matter. Emacs! The type of 'ground' does matter. The contemporary GFCI watches for an imbalance of current flow between the power (line) and return (neutral) pathways of a power distribution system. Any small imbalance between N and L manifest as signal in winding #2 which is processed and used to trip the switches and disconnect power. In this case, 'ground' is some stray pathway out in the environment. In our airplanes, there is no "N" conductor, that's the airframe and we call it 'ground'. The GFI is a prophylactic against human hazards and not intended to protect wiring from catastrophic overload. If fact, the GFI cannot detect the catastrophic overload. A downstream fault between L and N will still present as a 'balanced' condition which will not trip the GFI. The upstream circuit breaker's job is to stand off results of a catastrophic overload. Conflating the functionality of GFIs and CBs is in error. All, There appears to be a lot of mythology surrounding GFCIs (Ground Fault Circuit Interrupters) or GFI for short. Here's how they work: 1. GFI are anti-electrocution devices. Not over-current protection devices. (A very common mis-conception) 2. The GFI measures the current on both legs of the circuit, the hot and the neutral. 3. If it detects and imbalance between the two legs, it trips. It has nothing to do with the magnitude of the overall current. That's what the circuit breaker is for. I think the imbalance is as small as 5 mA (not sure but it is pretty small). The theory is that if, for example, the hot leg is conducting 1000 mA but the current in the returning neutral is only 995mA, then 5mA of stray current is going somewhere bad, like thru your heart to ground. Side Note (for electrical contractors): Therefore a GFI cannot be use on a shared-neutral circuit - if you don't know what that is, don't worry about it. It is a fairly common practice in house wiring. Take it from a 'company man' . . . RIGHT ON. Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
From: John Tipton <john(at)tiptonuk.eu>
Date: Oct 28, 2018
Subject: Re: Same rating for fuses and circuit breakers?
This is getting silly now - Sent from my iPad ----x--O--x---- > On 28 Oct 2018, at 5:41 pm, Dick Tasker wrote: > > > Not sure how long it has taken you to build your plane, but mine certainly isn't worth hundreds of thousands at the McDonald's rate. > > Yes, at the rate of my actual job it would start getting into that range, but I didn't build to save money (although some people do). I could have just purchased a plane, but I built it for the fun and education experience and ability to modify it how I want to. > > And Bob is not averse to spending money. He is just averse to spending money where it really has no useful benefit. But he certainly doesn't have a problem if you want to spend money on your plane for what you think is worth it. On the other hand, money spent on something with no significant benefit is money not available for gas and actually flying. > > Dick Tasker > > FLYaDIVE wrote: >> Bob: >> >> You are a COMPANY MAN, you think too much of ridiculous things like the CO$T to install a device. >> The fellows out there do not think of the "cost/benefit ratio" , for if they did they would NEVER build a plane. >> Guys, if you think my statement is incorrect just sit down and work out thee TRUE hours you invested in the building of your plane. >> At a Very Conservative rate of say $2.00 / Hour - Just In Labor - Work out how much your plane has cost you. >> Then take the $2.00 / Hr rate and replace it with your TRUE hourly work rate that you are being paid in your current job. >> Even if you worked at McDonald's - Considering their hourly rate... Your plane would be worth Hundreds of Thousands of Dollars and that is JUST for the LABOR! >> >> >> >> >> On Fri, Oct 26, 2018 at 10:44 AM Robert L. Nuckolls, III > wrote: >> >> At 08:05 PM 10/25/2018, you wrote: >>> Thanks Don, >>> >>> Ya know guys, the circuit is so simple it can be added to a CB. probably easier than a fuse. >>> Good for the CB that is out of the standard field of view. >>> >>> Barry >> >> But what is the cost/benefit ratio? 99.99% of all >> breakers/fuses installed in all vehicles at the >> factory go to the junkyard never having been >> tasked to do their job. >> >> For every fault that takes a system down by >> opening the power feeder protection, there >> are MANY more faults equally deleterious >> to system operation that do not open the >> feeder protection. >> >> Barry - Yeah, so??? I don't see your point. >> Are you concerned about the CO$T again? >> Or the Quantity of indicating fuses/CB'ers installed? >> It does not have to be on every fuse/CB, only the ones the Builder/Pilot thinks they would like a bit more information from. >> >> >> When circuit protection does operate in >> a thoughtfully designed system, the thing >> is broke. Resetting the breaker or replacing >> the fuse will not bring it back. >> >> Barry - It WON'T!!!??? >> Then why even have a resealable CB? >> Why is the in-flight procedure of Resetting a CB only once while in the air, taught? >> There is one poor design on a certified plane where the Strobes and the Boost Pump are on the same CB. There have been reports where if the Boost Pump is left on during Start the CB will pop. Of course a smart pilot will shut-off the boost pump after the system is pressurized. But, human nature being what it is... Pilots will forget to shut-off the boost pump. So, I guess a resealable CB is a wast of money? >> >> >> The pilot's first clue that something is >> amiss is when an expected event doesn't >> occur on the airplane . . . but what value >> is there in knowing the state of power >> feeder protection? The reason for malfunction >> is not relevant to the pilot's prime >> directive: effect a return to earth >> without bending airplanes or people. >> >> Barry - Yeah! There is NO Value in saving a few seconds and calming the mind when something goes wrong and does not function as it should. I guess that is why companies like E.I., JPI and Safe Air have separate Idiot Lights so they can be mounted directly in your field of view. >> Just to warn you seconds sooner... Any IFR pilots out there? Anyone have a Low Vacuum Warning Light? Get rid of it. You don't need it! Bob said so. >> Whoops, I'm VFR and I have one on my VFR plane! >> Not for long as I'm going G5. >> Indicating fuses are cute but the feature >> >> saves only seconds of diagnostic time which >> is done on the ground. >> >> Barry - O! I guess you and no one else out there EVER experienced a fuse or CB to pop in the air??? >> I think you should go back and read past posts of electrical/alternator issues where they popped ONLY during flight! >> >> Your Green is showing! >> >> It was ONLY a thought. >> >> Barry >> >> >> >> Bob . . . >> > > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: FLYaDIVE <flyadive(at)gmail.com>
Date: Oct 28, 2018
Subject: Re: Same rating for fuses and circuit breakers?
Of course it is John, Of course it is! That is exactly my point! Barry ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Charlie England <ceengland7(at)gmail.com>
Subject: Reminder: Pumpkin Drop, next Saturday
Date: Oct 28, 2018
Just a reminder that our annual Pumpkin Drop is this week. Looks like we're going to have great weather, so come on down! --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Todd Bartrim <bartrim(at)gmail.com>
Date: Oct 30, 2018
Subject: IVOprop current limiter project
I've successfully completed this IVOprop current limiter project that designed by the collaborative effort of this group. After a bit of tweaking of the code by Paul Fisher and switching the position of the 2 zener diodes, it works perfectly. For those that are unaware of what this project is; The IVOprop as supplied uses a 10 amp circuit breaker to indicate end-of-travel. Now the IVO is a love-it or hate-it prop but even those that are in the love-it category will admit that waiting for a breaker to trip is not a very elegant way to know when the prop has reached it's end of travel. So over several years a project evolved on this list originally being completely hardware based and then evolving into this current micro controller based project. The original design was built by at least 2 individuals but it appeared that despite the work put in by members of this list, the micro controller based version had not been built. I had read with interest while the discussions were ongoing, but due to other commitments at the time, my project was on hold so I did not contribute. As I've recently returned to flight I decided I wanted to pursue this idea so I searched the archives and downloaded the material that Bob had hosted on his site in my efforts to revive this project. But what does it do, you might be asking??? Well it limits the current to 9.5 amps to the propeller pitch drive motor. When the prop blades reach their end of travel and come up against the soft stops, the current begins to sharply rise and when the controller senses that it reaches between 9.1 and 9.5 amps it will cut power to the drive and illuminate an LED on the panel to indicate that it has reached end of travel. The prop can be reversed immediately if required without having to reset the circuit breaker. The function is the same in both directions of travel. It is a far better solution. As always Electric Bob, deserves the lions share of credit for this, Paul Fisher wrote the code, but there were many others that contributed to it as well. Forgive but it's late as I type and I don't have time to search through the archives again to find all of the names of those that contributed to this effort. But I thank you, as I stood on your shoulders to finish this. I've put the marked-up schematic and BOM as well as the hex code and all other pertinent files in a Google Drive folder at https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1DeszjALTF6-L8dvuiy9jV7BY5q4t3G68?usp=sharing In this file there is everything needed to duplicate this project including the gerber files for having the PCB boards manufactured at far less cost than by ExpressPCB. These files were provided by ExpressPCB who made the boards for me, so they should be accurate. However rather than go through all that trouble, you can buy one of the spare kits that I've put together at cost. I had 6 boards, so I ordered the components for all of them. I built two of them so that I could do the testing on at least 2 to ensure it was going to work. Obviously, I've kept one for myself and I've already sold one of the kits. So I still have 3 kits for sale and one complete project. All of the PIC chips in each of the projects is programmed and as been tested in one of the complete projects on my plane, so there is no need to worry about learning to program these micro-controllers. It ended up costing me about $400 all in for this project due to the cost of getting the prototype boards made and shipped to Canada along with my error in ordering an overpriced and obsolete PIC programmer, before ordering the correct one at a more reasonable cost. So I'm asking $50 for the kits and $70 for the one completed controller. + $7 shipping to the US. The link above includes 3 pictures showing the kit contents, which are all individually labeled, as well as a populated board and a completed controller. I have a shear & brake here and a bunch of scrap aluminum so I banged up some small boxes that I've included free, but you will have to spend a few minutes tweaking them yourselves to make them pretty, or you could buy a real nice extruded aluminum case that is sure to make you faster. Not included is the mating D-sub connector and backshell as well as the panel mounted indicating LED and of coarse the switch, which you should already have with your prop. I already had these items for myself so I would've had to order these items for the extra kits and since some builders prefer crimped pins while some prefer soldered and there is a multitude of LED options to suit your panel, and I'm not getting into any sort of business here, I decided to just leave this to the individual. As this project is the product of this list, I'm offering up these kits here first, before I offer them elsewhere. I have no intentions on making anymore of these so when they are gone, the only way to get another is to use the files in the linked folder to build your own. Thanks, Todd Bartrim C-FSTB RV9 with tundra tires 13B turbo rotary ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: IVOprop current limiter project
From: Emil Sr <papa11(at)centurylink.net>
Date: Oct 30, 2018
On 10/30/2018 3:10 AM, Todd Bartrim wrote: > I've successfully completed this IVOprop current limiter project that > designed by the collaborative effort of this group. After a bit of > tweaking of the code by Paul Fisher and switching the position of the > 2 zener diodes, it works perfectly. > For those that are unaware of what this project is; > The IVOprop as supplied uses a 10 amp circuit breaker to indicate > end-of-travel. Now the IVO is a love-it or hate-it prop but even those > that are in the love-it category will admit that waiting for a breaker > to trip is not a very elegant way to know when the prop has reached > it's end of travel. So over several years a project evolved on this > list originally being completely hardware based and then evolving into > this current micro controller based project. The original design was > built by at least 2 individuals but it appeared that despite the work > put in by members of this list, the micro controller based version had > not been built. I had read with interest while the discussions were > ongoing, but due to other commitments at the time, my project was on > hold so I did not contribute. As I've recently returned to flight I > decided I wanted to pursue this idea so I searched the archives and > downloaded the material that Bob had hosted on his site in my efforts > to revive this project. > > But what does it do, you might be asking??? Well it limits the > current to 9.5 amps to the propeller pitch drive motor. When the prop > blades reach their end of travel and come up against the soft stops, > the current begins to sharply rise and when the controller senses that > it reaches between 9.1 and 9.5 amps it will cut power to the drive and > illuminate an LED on the panel to indicate that it has reached end of > travel. The prop can be reversed immediately if required without > having to reset the circuit breaker. The function is the same in both > directions of travel. It is a far better solution. > As always Electric Bob, deserves the lions share of credit for this, > Paul Fisher wrote the code, but there were many others that > contributed to it as well. Forgive but it's late as I type and I don't > have time to search through the archives again to find all of the > names of those that contributed to this effort. But I thank you, as I > stood on your shoulders to finish this. > > I've put the marked-up schematic and BOM as well as the hex code and > all other pertinent files in a Google Drive folder at > https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1DeszjALTF6-L8dvuiy9jV7BY5q4t3G68?usp=sharing > In this file there is everything needed to duplicate this project > including the gerber files for having the PCB boards manufactured at > far less cost than by ExpressPCB. These files were provided by > ExpressPCB who made the boards for me, so they should be accurate. > However rather than go through all that trouble, you can buy one of > the spare kits that I've put together at cost. I had 6 boards, so I > ordered the components for all of them. I built two of them so that I > could do the testing on at least 2 to ensure it was going to work. > Obviously, I've kept one for myself and I've already sold one of the kits. > So I still have 3 kits for sale and one complete project. All of the > PIC chips in each of the projects is programmed and as been tested in > one of the complete projects on my plane, so there is no need to worry > about learning to program these micro-controllers. > It ended up costing me about $400 all in for this project due to the > cost of getting the prototype boards made and shipped to Canada along > with my error in ordering an overpriced and obsolete PIC programmer, > before ordering the correct one at a more reasonable cost. > > So I'm asking $50 for the kits and $70 for the one completed > controller.+ $7 shipping to the US. > > The link above includes 3 pictures showing the kit contents, which are > all individually labeled, as well as a populated board and a completed > controller. > I have a shear & brake here and a bunch of scrap aluminum so I banged > up some small boxes that I've included free, but you will have to > spend a few minutes tweaking them yourselves to make them pretty, or > you could buy a real nice extruded aluminum case that is sure to make > you faster. > Not included is the mating D-sub connector and backshell as well as > the panel mounted indicating LED and of coarse the switch, which you > should already have with your prop. I already had these items for > myself so I would've had to order these items for the extra kits and > since some builders prefer crimped pins while some prefer soldered and > there is a multitude of LED options to suit your panel, and I'm not > getting into any sort of business here, I decided to just leave this > to the individual. > > As this project is the product of this list, I'm offering up these > kits here first, before I offer them elsewhere. I have no intentions > on making anymore of these so when they are gone, the only way to get > another is to use the files in the linked folder to build your own. > > Thanks, > Todd Bartrim > > C-FSTB > RV9 with tundra tires > 13B turbo rotary -----------I would like your built up controller, Please send address so I can send payment. thank you Emil Radtke ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Todd Bartrim <bartrim(at)gmail.com>
Date: Oct 30, 2018
Subject: Re: IVOprop current limiter project
Hi Emil and others; Just so we don't clutter up the list with too much of this discussion unrelated to the development, I can be contacted directly at bartrim(at)gmail.com The easiest way to pay me is through PayPal using bartrim(at)gmail.com as the recipient. And of coarse I'll need your mailing address to ship it to you. Total cost for the complete controller with shipping is $77. If you would like tracking with it, unfortunately the post office wants an extra $5 more. While this was intended to be a DIY kit, I would be willing to assemble another kit if requested. thanks, Todd Bartrim On Tue, Oct 30, 2018 at 7:14 AM Emil Sr wrote: > On 10/30/2018 3:10 AM, Todd Bartrim wrote: > > I've successfully completed this IVOprop current limiter project that > designed by the collaborative effort of this group. After a bit of tweaking > of the code by Paul Fisher and switching the position of the 2 zener > diodes, it works perfectly. > For those that are unaware of what this project is; > The IVOprop as supplied uses a 10 amp circuit breaker to indicate > end-of-travel. Now the IVO is a love-it or hate-it prop but even those that > are in the love-it category will admit that waiting for a breaker to trip > is not a very elegant way to know when the prop has reached it's end of > travel. So over several years a project evolved on this list originally > being completely hardware based and then evolving into this current micro > controller based project. The original design was built by at least 2 > individuals but it appeared that despite the work put in by members of this > list, the micro controller based version had not been built. I had read > with interest while the discussions were ongoing, but due to other > commitments at the time, my project was on hold so I did not contribute. As > I've recently returned to flight I decided I wanted to pursue this idea so > I searched the archives and downloaded the material that Bob had hosted on > his site in my efforts to revive this project. > > But what does it do, you might be asking??? Well it limits the current > to 9.5 amps to the propeller pitch drive motor. When the prop blades reach > their end of travel and come up against the soft stops, the current begins > to sharply rise and when the controller senses that it reaches between 9.1 > and 9.5 amps it will cut power to the drive and illuminate an LED on the > panel to indicate that it has reached end of travel. The prop can be > reversed immediately if required without having to reset the circuit > breaker. The function is the same in both directions of travel. It is a far > better solution. > As always Electric Bob, deserves the lions share of credit for this, > Paul Fisher wrote the code, but there were many others that contributed to > it as well. Forgive but it's late as I type and I don't have time to search > through the archives again to find all of the names of those that > contributed to this effort. But I thank you, as I stood on your shoulders > to finish this. > > I've put the marked-up schematic and BOM as well as the hex code and all > other pertinent files in a Google Drive folder at > > https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1DeszjALTF6-L8dvuiy9jV7BY5q4t3G68?usp=sharing > In this file there is everything needed to duplicate this project > including the gerber files for having the PCB boards manufactured at far > less cost than by ExpressPCB. These files were provided by ExpressPCB who > made the boards for me, so they should be accurate. > However rather than go through all that trouble, you can buy one of the > spare kits that I've put together at cost. I had 6 boards, so I ordered the > components for all of them. I built two of them so that I could do the > testing on at least 2 to ensure it was going to work. Obviously, I've kept > one for myself and I've already sold one of the kits. > So I still have 3 kits for sale and one complete project. All of the PIC > chips in each of the projects is programmed and as been tested in one of > the complete projects on my plane, so there is no need to worry about > learning to program these micro-controllers. > It ended up costing me about $400 all in for this project due to the cost > of getting the prototype boards made and shipped to Canada along with my > error in ordering an overpriced and obsolete PIC programmer, before > ordering the correct one at a more reasonable cost. > > So I'm asking $50 for the kits and $70 for the one completed controller. + > $7 shipping to the US. > > The link above includes 3 pictures showing the kit contents, which are all > individually labeled, as well as a populated board and a completed > controller. > I have a shear & brake here and a bunch of scrap aluminum so I banged up > some small boxes that I've included free, but you will have to spend a few > minutes tweaking them yourselves to make them pretty, or you could buy a > real nice extruded aluminum case that is sure to make you faster. > Not included is the mating D-sub connector and backshell as well as the > panel mounted indicating LED and of coarse the switch, which you should > already have with your prop. I already had these items for myself so I > would've had to order these items for the extra kits and since some > builders prefer crimped pins while some prefer soldered and there is a > multitude of LED options to suit your panel, and I'm not getting into any > sort of business here, I decided to just leave this to the individual. > > As this project is the product of this list, I'm offering up these kits > here first, before I offer them elsewhere. I have no intentions on making > anymore of these so when they are gone, the only way to get another is to > use the files in the linked folder to build your own. > > Thanks, > Todd Bartrim > > C-FSTB > RV9 with tundra tires > 13B turbo rotary > > > -----------I would like your built up controller, Please send address so I > can send payment. thank you Emil Radtke > ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: IVOprop current limiter project
From: "user9253" <fransew(at)gmail.com>
Date: Oct 30, 2018
Good job Bob Nuckolls and Todd Bartrim and Paul Fisher. _ Todd, I have downloaded the files. One of them, "IVO Prop Current Limiter" does not have a file extension. I was able to open it with MS Word and read what I assume is "C" code. (I am not a programmer) Is Word the best program to use? If not what is the preferred program for opening that file? Also, the gerber files seem to be missing. A note on one of the pictures says to mount Q11 with the heat conducting side down. Does "down" mean that the heat conductive surface is NOT touching the board? If so, then I assume that a separate heat sink in necessary. Or is the aluminum case used as a heat sink? I am happy with PCB boards that I have ordered in the past from Elecrow in China. https://www.elecrow.com/pcb-manufacturing.html -------- Joe Gores Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=484095#484095 ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Todd Bartrim <bartrim(at)gmail.com>
Date: Oct 30, 2018
Subject: Re: IVOprop current limiter project
Hi Joe; The file you refer to is indeed the C code that was written by Paul Fisher. You can read it by opening it with any text editor such as notepad, word and, gedit, etc. Or if you want to try compiling it yourself you can use MPLAB X IDE, from microchip.com (its free), bit you don't need to as Paul has already compiled it into a hex code for us. That is the code that needs to be programmed to the PIC12F683 microcontroller chip using MPLAB X IPE (also free) and a PIC3 programmer (not free). The Q11 mosfet is indeed mounted on the bottom side of the board with the heat conducting surface facing away from the board so that it conducts heat away into the aluminum case. Included in the BOM is a heat conduction pad that is sandwiched between the mosfet and the case. I used a #4 screw through the board, Q11, pad and the case. This is probably overkill, as I find there to be no detectable heat on the outside of the case when in operation. I think you would have to be constantly adjusting the prop pitch to see any heat build-up. Is there not a sub-folder showing called "PCB board Gerber files"? It is showing for me. If you can't see it then maybe it didn't get the same sharing permission as the root folder did? In that files are the Gerber files exactly as supplied by ExpressPCB, along with the original .PCB file. I had looked at elecrow ro build the boards bit I'm not familiar with Gerber files enough to ensure I could correctly convert the .PCB file. I didn't get these files until after I paid ExpressPCB for the batch of boards. I think the reason they supply them with each order is that they recognize that their service is uneconomical to use for production beyond prototypes. Todd On Tue, Oct 30, 2018, 11:18 user9253, wrote: > > Good job Bob Nuckolls and Todd Bartrim and Paul Fisher. > _ > Todd, > I have downloaded the files. One of them, "IVO Prop Current Limiter" does > not have a file extension. > I was able to open it with MS Word and read what I assume is "C" code. > (I am not a programmer) > Is Word the best program to use? If not what is the preferred program > for opening that file? > Also, the gerber files seem to be missing. > A note on one of the pictures says to mount Q11 with the heat conducting > side down. > Does "down" mean that the heat conductive surface is NOT touching the > board? If so, then I > assume that a separate heat sink in necessary. Or is the aluminum case > used as a heat sink? > I am happy with PCB boards that I have ordered in the past from Elecrow > in China. > https://www.elecrow.com/pcb-manufacturing.html > > -------- > Joe Gores > > > Read this topic online here: > > http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=484095#484095 > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: IVOprop current limiter project
From: "user9253" <fransew(at)gmail.com>
Date: Oct 30, 2018
Todd, Thanks for the explanation. You are right about the Gerber files. The other 7 files have pictures. I missed the Gerber file folder because I was looking for a picture. My bad. I have now downloaded the Gerber files. I use "Eagle" for making schematics and boards and generating Gerber files. Unfortunately it is not intuitive or user friendly unless used frequently. If I do not use the program for a long time, I have to relearn it. There have been threads in the past on this forum discussing other easier to use software. -------- Joe Gores Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=484099#484099 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Oct 31, 2018
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com>
Subject: Re: IVOprop current limiter project
At 01:11 PM 10/30/2018, you wrote: > >Good job Bob Nuckolls and Todd Bartrim and Paul Fisher. Thank you. This is a good example of what has been described as 'spontaneous organization', 'the invisible hand', 'division of labor', and countless other phrases for centuries. Simply put, individuals with time, talents and resources to move a particular activity forward steps up to the task and gets 'er done. The whole is at-risk until all the bits an pieces are in place irrespective of size and difficulty. Every contribution is of paramount importance. I am pleased to have been a participant in this enhancement to the state of science and art of our craft. I'll get the drawings updated. I'd be pleased to post the data package in the DIY archives on aeroelectric.com Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Oct 31, 2018
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com>
Subject: Re: IVOprop current limiter project
At 02:49 PM 10/30/2018, you wrote: > >Todd, >Thanks for the explanation. You are right about the Gerber >files. The other 7 files have pictures. I missed the Gerber file >folder because I was looking for a picture. My bad. I have now >downloaded the Gerber files. > I use "Eagle" for making schematics and boards and generating > Gerber files. Unfortunately it is not intuitive or user friendly > unless used frequently. If I do not use the program for a long > time, I have to relearn it. There have been threads in the past on > this forum discussing other easier to use software. There are several offerings out there. My particular fav is ExpressPCB whiche does have a schematic capture and bill of materials utility. Having 'cut my teeth' on the schematic styles of the now century old ARRL/QST publications, I've never warmed up to the schematic/net-list features of ExpressPCB. My artwork layout skills have roots in punched out donuts and rolls of black, red or blue tape on 1/10th grid mylar. So I was pleased that ExpressPCB was particularly friendly to a layout artist suffering from what might be considered arcane habits. ExpressPCB has excellent prototyping services with 3-5 day turnaround . . . saved my arse numerous times over the past 20 years. You DO have to order one set of prototypes before you can pay an extra fee for Gerber files. No big deal since you probably want to stuff at least one proof of concept board before you order up a batch of production. Further, like the AutoCAD symbols library I've posted to aeroelectric.com, I have a library of custom ExpressPCB components I can put up on the server for anyone who's interested. Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Question on Grounding
From: "Rocketman1988" <Rocketman(at)etczone.com>
Date: Oct 31, 2018
I have an RV-10 that has a dedicated ground cable running from the aft battery to the firewall. This cable is connected to the firewall/panel (airframe) ground AND is connected near the battery, to the airframe. My question is: Would it be better to remove the cable in the aft near the battery and have only one connection to the airframe, the one at the firewall/panel? Or is it ok to have two points of contact, one forward and one aft? Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=484119#484119 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Oct 31, 2018
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com>
Subject: Re: Question on Grounding
At 11:40 AM 10/31/2018, you wrote: > > >I have an RV-10 that has a dedicated ground cable running from the >aft battery to the firewall. This cable is connected to the >firewall/panel (airframe) ground AND is connected near the battery, >to the airframe. > >My question is: > >Would it be better to remove the cable in the aft near the battery >and have only one connection to the airframe, the one at the firewall/panel? > >Or is it ok to have two points of contact, one forward and one aft? Resistance in the wire is higher than thru the airframe . . . the only thing it adds is weight. But it doesn't hurt anything from an electrical perspective. Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Question on Grounding
From: "Rocketman1988" <Rocketman(at)etczone.com>
Date: Oct 31, 2018
Thanks, Bob. I will just leave both attached... Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=484123#484123 ________________________________________________________________________________
From: FLYaDIVE <flyadive(at)gmail.com>
Date: Oct 31, 2018
Subject: Re: Question on Grounding
BOB! Are you on DRUGS! I got to here your explanation on this one! You are really saying that the resistance through the air frame is LESS than that of a singe run of COPPER wire? WIRE HELL! It's CABLE, what, a #2 AWG. AHhhhh let me guess??? You are thinking that just because there is more surface area, the resistance will be lower? This is DC not RF! Well, ZERO is always ZERO. And the shortest Zero between two points wins. That would be the Cable. What about all the lap joints? Add some time to lap joints and you have a failure mode. Maybe not much resistance, but even 1 mo is more than a cable. And when you really consider it... Since the CABLE is run in parallel with the air frame. BOTH paths are winners. Sure it adds weight. But I will gladly add weight and eliminate all those possible failure points. Gee, isn't it Piper that tried using ONLY the air frame as a ground and had all types of failures, not only to the wiring but to the starter as well, as it was drawing excessive current and had a higher current draw? And then they got smart and started worrying about WEIGHT. So they went to ALUMINUM Cables. SMART! Like dropping a brick on your foot, smart! Those engineers must have gone to the same school as the engineers that used aluminum wire for house wiring... Remember those house fires? Which lead to higher insurance rates. Aluminum, which led to an AD on their planes, an AD to replace the aluminum wire with Copper. Totally Shocked, Barry On Wed, Oct 31, 2018 at 2:09 PM Robert L. Nuckolls, III < nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> wrote: > At 11:40 AM 10/31/2018, you wrote: > > Rocketman(at)etczone.com> > > I have an RV-10 that has a dedicated ground cable running from the aft > battery to the firewall. This cable is connected to the firewall/panel > (airframe) ground AND is connected near the battery, to the airframe. > > My question is: > > Would it be better to remove the cable in the aft near the battery and > have only one connection to the airframe, the one at the firewall/panel? > > Or is it ok to have two points of contact, one forward and one aft? > > > Resistance in the wire is higher than > thru the airframe . . . the only thing > it adds is weight. But it doesn't hurt > anything from an electrical perspective. > > > Bob . . . > ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: E-Bus Fuse Size
From: "user9253" <fransew(at)gmail.com>
Date: Oct 31, 2018
A pilot recently experienced an instrument panel blackout at night. When he turned on the E-Bus switch, the panel briefly came back on, but soon went black again. Luckily the weather was good and he landed safely. You can read about it here. http://www.vansairforce.com/community/showthread.php?t=165520 The E-Bus was protected by 15 amp fuses. Evidently the second and third owners of the aircraft connected more loads to the E-Ebus, eventually overloading it. If two fuses are connected in series, even if one is bigger, either one or both could blow in case of hard ground fault. Should the E-Bus have main fuses? If so, then how much larger should the main fuse be than a branch circuit fuse? -------- Joe Gores Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=484131#484131 ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Question on Grounding
From: iiNet <stuart(at)stuarthutchison.com.au>
Date: Nov 01, 2018
Sorry, far more shocked by your comments Barry. #2 AWG is only required for start currents and is overkill for relatively l ow current in-flight loads. There is already a big #2 AWG wire for positive t o the starter motor and having another one for ground is simply unnecessary. As they say, worry about the grams added to the aeroplane and let the kilog rams take care of themselves. Yes, arcing between the stands of ally wire caused fires, which is why Eric J ones at Perihelion Design sells copper-clad (extruded) wire to stop oxidatio n and varying potential between strands. So, choose copper (heavy) or copper -clad ally (larger diameter but 45% lighter), but there is no need to add a g round wire for normal inflight loads that are very easily serviced by an all y airframe. An extra big wire does little to improve start performance (if the wiring ha s gas tight connections to the airframe, which would also apply to any extra wire connected in parallel), so it adds nothing but unnecessary weight. The argument for separate power and ground wires and a forest of common ground t abs for smaller electrical items it=99s is a totally different story. Kind regards, Stu Sent from my iPhone > On 1 Nov 2018, at 11:08, FLYaDIVE wrote: > > BOB! > > Are you on DRUGS! > > I got to here your explanation on this one! > > You are really saying that the resistance through the air frame is LESS th an that of a singe run of COPPER wire? > WIRE HELL! It's CABLE, what, a #2 AWG. > AHhhhh let me guess??? You are thinking that just because there is more s urface area, the resistance will be lower? > This is DC not RF! > Well, ZERO is always ZERO. And the shortest Zero between two points wins. > That would be the Cable. > What about all the lap joints? Add some time to lap joints and you have a failure mode. Maybe not much resistance, but even 1 mo is more than a cabl e. > And when you really consider it... Since the CABLE is run in parallel wit h the air frame. BOTH paths are winners. > > Sure it adds weight. But I will gladly add weight and eliminate all those possible failure points. > Gee, isn't it Piper that tried using ONLY the air frame as a ground and ha d all types of failures, not only to the wiring but to the starter as well, a s it was drawing excessive current and had a higher current draw? > And then they got smart and started worrying about WEIGHT. So they went t o ALUMINUM Cables. SMART! Like dropping a brick on your foot, smart! Thos e engineers must have gone to the same school as the engineers that used alu minum wire for house wiring... Remember those house fires? Which lead to h igher insurance rates. Aluminum, which led to an AD on their planes, an AD t o replace the aluminum wire with Copper. > > Totally Shocked, > Barry > >> On Wed, Oct 31, 2018 at 2:09 PM Robert L. Nuckolls, III <nuckolls.bob@aer oelectric.com> wrote: >> At 11:40 AM 10/31/2018, you wrote: one.com> >>> >>> I have an RV-10 that has a dedicated ground cable running from the aft b attery to the firewall. This cable is connected to the firewall/panel (airf rame) ground AND is connected near the battery, to the airframe. >>> >>> My question is: >>> >>> Would it be better to remove the cable in the aft near the battery and h ave only one connection to the airframe, the one at the firewall/panel? >>> >>> Or is it ok to have two points of contact, one forward and one aft? >> >> Resistance in the wire is higher than >> thru the airframe . . . the only thing >> it adds is weight. But it doesn't hurt >> anything from an electrical perspective. >> >> >> Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Question on Grounding
From: Charlie England <ceengland7(at)gmail.com>
Date: Oct 31, 2018
Hi Barry, If you squeeze that aluminum airframe into an air-free cylinder, what gauge wire would be the same diameter? #0? #000? #0000000000? Give it some thought. And if you think aluminum is a bad choice for an electrical conductor, you might want to move out of your house. (Check the triplex coming from the pole to the meter base. Might be worth checking the run from the meter to your panel, too.) Oh, you might want to stay away from any structure that uses power off the grid, too. (See those high tension lines running across the country?) Aluminum got that bad rap due to improper mix of wire type & connector type. Look at the cheap wall switches & outlets that use the spring terminals in back for wire; they are marked for only copper. But if you look at the higher quality screw terminal versions, many (most?) are marked AL/CU; certified for either copper or aluminum wire. Guess which got used back in the day when aluminum got that bad rap. Charlie On 10/31/2018 7:08 PM, FLYaDIVE wrote: > BOB! > > Are you on DRUGS! > > I got to here your explanation on this one! > > You are really saying that the resistance through the air frame is > LESS than that of a singe run of COPPER wire? > WIRE HELL! It's CABLE, what, a #2 AWG. > AHhhhh let me guess??? You are thinking that just because there is > more surface area, the resistance will be lower? > This is DC not RF! > Well, ZERO is always ZERO. And the shortest Zero between two points wins. > That would be the Cable. > What about all the lap joints? Add some time to lap joints and you > have a failure mode. Maybe not much resistance, but even 1 mo is more > than a cable. > And when you really consider it... Since the CABLE is run in parallel > with the air frame. BOTH paths are winners. > > Sure it adds weight. But I will gladly add weight and eliminate all > those possible failure points. > Gee, isn't it Piper that tried using ONLY the air frame as a ground > and had all types of failures, not only to the wiring but to the > starter as well, as it was drawing excessive current and had a higher > current draw? > And then they got smart and started worrying about WEIGHT. So they > went to ALUMINUM Cables. SMART! Like dropping a brick on your foot, > smart! Those engineers must have gone to the same school as the > engineers that used aluminum wire for house wiring... Remember those > house fires? Which lead to higher insurance rates. Aluminum, which > led to an AD on their planes, an AD to replace the aluminum wire with > Copper. > > Totally Shocked, > Barry > > On Wed, Oct 31, 2018 at 2:09 PM Robert L. Nuckolls, III > > > wrote: > > At 11:40 AM 10/31/2018, you wrote: >> > >> >> I have an RV-10 that has a dedicated ground cable running from >> the aft battery to the firewall. This cable is connected to the >> firewall/panel (airframe) ground AND is connected near the >> battery, to the airframe. >> >> My question is: >> >> Would it be better to remove the cable in the aft near the >> battery and have only one connection to the airframe, the one at >> the firewall/panel? >> >> Or is it ok to have two points of contact, one forward and one aft? > > Resistance in the wire is higher than > thru the airframe . . . the only thing > it adds is weight. But it doesn't hurt > anything from an electrical perspective. > > > Bob . . . > --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Question on Grounding
From: Kelly McMullen <kellym(at)aviating.com>
Date: Oct 31, 2018
Sorry Barry, If anyone is on drugs it is you. I don't know of any TC aircraft that does not use the aluminum skin or steel tube frame for the ground path. Take Mooney for instance. The battery(ies) location is behind the baggage compartment. Forward of the baggage compartment the airframe is steel tubes, with aluminum covering attached with #4 sheet metal screws. The ground path is battery to the aluminum monocoque where it is mounted, connected to that steel tube frame, connected to the stainless firewall. Cessna mounted the battery where needed for W&B, grounded to the aluminum airframe. Vans has a pretty good reputation for experimental kits. Their wiring diagram shows battery grounded to the airframe. Of course the builder can deviate if they wish. Piper's problems were aluminum CABLES and connectors, not the airframe or method of grounding. Kelly On 10/31/2018 5:08 PM, FLYaDIVE wrote: > BOB! > > Are you on DRUGS! > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Question on Grounding
From: "user9253" <fransew(at)gmail.com>
Date: Oct 31, 2018
I agree with Bob -------- Joe Gores Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=484136#484136 ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Question on Grounding
From: Earl Schroeder <n233ee(at)gmail.com>
Date: Oct 31, 2018
Me too > On Oct 31, 2018, at 9:38 PM, user9253 wrote: > > > I agree with Bob > > -------- > Joe Gores > > > > > Read this topic online here: > > http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=484136#484136 > > > > > > > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: John B <jbsoar(at)gmail.com>
Date: Oct 31, 2018
Subject: Re: Question on Grounding
Bob is correct. The airframe makes the ground wire superfluous. This assumes that no corrosion develops between the fasteners and the various fuselage skins and parts. After two or three decades, corrosion developed in the airframes, and a formal ground wire, of copper, became necessary for consistent engine starting. On a new RV-type aircraft, that heavy #2 wire is just getting a free ride. It is unnecessary, electrically, UNTIL the airframe corrodes to the point that excessive resistance is developed. IF it corrodes at all. Modern epoxy primers and finishes may prevent corrosion. That 50-year-old Piper sitting on the ramp in the rain likely corroded quite quickly, and became one of those airplanes that was "hard to start," and had other electrical problems, almost always caused by an inconsistent ground. Technically, Bob is right. Again. Many words were devoted to this very subject in the Aeroelectric Connection book. John B On Wed, Oct 31, 2018 at 7:14 PM FLYaDIVE wrote: > BOB! > > Are you on DRUGS! > > I got to here your explanation on this one! > > You are really saying that the resistance through the air frame is LESS > than that of a singe run of COPPER wire? > WIRE HELL! It's CABLE, what, a #2 AWG. > AHhhhh let me guess??? You are thinking that just because there is more > surface area, the resistance will be lower? > This is DC not RF! > Well, ZERO is always ZERO. And the shortest Zero between two points wins. > That would be the Cable. > What about all the lap joints? Add some time to lap joints and you have a > failure mode. Maybe not much resistance, but even 1 mo is more than a > cable. > And when you really consider it... Since the CABLE is run in parallel > with the air frame. BOTH paths are winners. > > Sure it adds weight. But I will gladly add weight and eliminate all those > possible failure points. > Gee, isn't it Piper that tried using ONLY the air frame as a ground and > had all types of failures, not only to the wiring but to the starter as > well, as it was drawing excessive current and had a higher current draw? > And then they got smart and started worrying about WEIGHT. So they went > to ALUMINUM Cables. SMART! Like dropping a brick on your foot, smart! > Those engineers must have gone to the same school as the engineers that > used aluminum wire for house wiring... Remember those house fires? Which > lead to higher insurance rates. Aluminum, which led to an AD on their > planes, an AD to replace the aluminum wire with Copper. > > Totally Shocked, > Barry > > On Wed, Oct 31, 2018 at 2:09 PM Robert L. Nuckolls, III < > nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> wrote: > >> At 11:40 AM 10/31/2018, you wrote: >> >> Rocketman(at)etczone.com> >> >> I have an RV-10 that has a dedicated ground cable running from the aft >> battery to the firewall. This cable is connected to the firewall/panel >> (airframe) ground AND is connected near the battery, to the airframe. >> >> My question is: >> >> Would it be better to remove the cable in the aft near the battery and >> have only one connection to the airframe, the one at the firewall/panel? >> >> Or is it ok to have two points of contact, one forward and one aft? >> >> >> Resistance in the wire is higher than >> thru the airframe . . . the only thing >> it adds is weight. But it doesn't hurt >> anything from an electrical perspective. >> >> >> Bob . . . >> > ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Question on Grounding
From: "user9253" <fransew(at)gmail.com>
Date: Nov 01, 2018
> Are you on DRUGS! Violation of "AeroElectric-List Usage Guidelines" - Feel free to disagree with other viewpoints, BUT keep your tone polite and respectful. Don't make snide comments, personally attack other listers, or take the moral high ground on an obviously controversial issue. This will only cause a pointless debate that will hurt feelings, waste bandwidth and resolve nothing. -------- Joe Gores Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=484142#484142 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Nov 01, 2018
From: Matt Dralle <dralle(at)matronics.com>
Subject: PLEASE READ - Matronics Email List 2018 Fund Raiser
During November! Dear Listers, Each November I hold a PBS-like fund raiser to support the continued operation and upgrade of the Email List and Fourm Services at Matronics. It's solely through the Contributions of List members (you) that these Matronics Lists are possible. You have probably noticed that there are no banner ads or pop-up windows on any of the Matronics Lists or related web sites such as the Forums site http://forums.matronics.com , Wiki site http://wiki.matronics.com , or other related pages such as the List Search Engine http://www.matronics.com/search , List Browse http://www.matronics.com/listbrowse , etc. This is because I believe in a List experience that is completely about the sport we all enjoy - namely Airplanes and not about annoying advertisements. During the month of November I will be sending out List messages every couple of days reminding everyone that the Fund Raiser is underway. I ask for your patience and understanding during the Fund Raiser and throughout these regular messages. The Fund Raiser is only financial support mechanism I have to pay all of the bills associated with running these lists. YOUR personal Contribution counts! This year we have a really HUGE and TERRIFIC line up of free gifts to go along with the various Contribution levels. In fact, there are 9 great gifts to choose from! There's something for everyone, to be sure. Please make your List Contribution using any one of three secure methods including using a Credit Card, PayPal, or by Personal Check. All three methods afford you the opportunity to select one of this year's free gifts with a qualifying Contribution amount!! To make your Contribution, please visit the secure web site: http://www.matronics.com/contribution I would like to thank everyone in advance for their generous financial AND moral support over the years! Thank you! Matt Dralle Matronics Email List Administrator RV-4/RV-6/RV-8 Builder/Rebuilder/Pilot ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Bob Verwey <bob.verwey(at)gmail.com>
Date: Nov 01, 2018
Subject: IVO Prop current limiter
Guys how difficult would it be to have an adjustment for the current trip setpoint? I'm thinking of this as a good option for a hydraulic pump application on an aircraft, it makes sense because of the versatility and lightness. Best... Bob Verwey 082 331 2727 On Mon, 29 May 2017 at 18:04, Robert L. Nuckolls, III < nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> wrote: > At 11:06 PM 5/27/2017, you wrote: > > with the engine off, the prop and circuit behaved normally. With the > engine running, the prop current is shut down almost immediately, though a > small bit of pitch change does occur prior to cut-off. > > -------- > Doug > > > Could this have something to do with the higher system voltage when the > engine is running? > > > possibly . . . but I think not. The > current limiter is configured to 'latch' > into an OFF state approx 200 mS after > a current limit on the order of 9A is > achieved. > > The 'latch' is subject to premature triggering > if subjected to noise which I suspect is coming > from the ship's alternator. > > > [image: Emacs!] > > > Doug, > > Try tacking this combination of components onto > your assembly. The experiment is to see if adding > a smoothing capacitor to the circuit's power > source will sufficiently attenuate the antagonistic > energies. The 100 uF cap is the 'smoother' while > the 10 ohm resistor mitigates inrush currents impressed > on the circuit when the directional control switch > closes . . . > > > Bob . . . > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: FLYaDIVE <flyadive(at)gmail.com>
Date: Nov 01, 2018
Subject: Re: Question on Grounding
Will do Joe, Sorry and thank you. Barry On Thu, Nov 1, 2018 at 6:23 AM user9253 wrote: > > > > Are you on DRUGS! > > Violation of "AeroElectric-List Usage Guidelines" > - Feel free to disagree with other viewpoints, BUT keep your tone > polite and respectful. Don't make snide comments, personally attack > other listers, or take the moral high ground on an obviously > controversial issue. This will only cause a pointless debate that > will hurt feelings, waste bandwidth and resolve nothing. > > -------- > Joe Gores > > > Read this topic online here: > > http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=484142#484142 > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Nov 01, 2018
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com>
Subject: Re: E-Bus Fuse Size
At 07:35 PM 10/31/2018, you wrote: > >A pilot recently experienced an instrument panel blackout at night. What was the failure that took down his main bus? > When he turned on the E-Bus switch, the panel briefly came back > on, but soon went black again. Luckily the weather was good and he > landed safely. You can read about it here. >http://www.vansairforce.com/community/showthread.php?t=165520 >The E-Bus was protected by 15 amp fuses. Evidently the second and >third owners of the aircraft connected more loads to the E-Ebus, >eventually overloading it. Yup . . . ignorance is your worst enemy . . . sometimes the foundation for fatal mistakes. >If two fuses are connected in series, even if one is bigger, either >one or both could blow in case of hard ground fault. > Should the E-Bus have main fuses? >If so, then how much larger should the main fuse be than a branch >circuit fuse? The z-figures are too often treated as "the way to set up my airplane" . . . they are ARCHITECTURE drawings that consider options for minimizing risk under various failure modes. The values for wire and fuses are exemplar, not necessarily applicable to any one builder's project. The very FIRST step in planning the ship's final configuration is to do a LOAD ANALYSIS. It's real simple. The web-page at https://tinyurl.com/9rt6ymn offers two type of tools. One based on paper- pencil-pink-pearl technology. The other uses Excel. Either method gets the job done. I prefer the paper/pencil approach . . . it fits in the 3-ring binder of shop notes. There is a form that can be downloaded from http://www.aeroelectric.com/PPS/Load_Analysis/Blank_Form.pdf You need one page for EACH bus in the aircraft. Just how many busses is driven by choice of architecture. Devices fed by those busses is driven by your "plan-b" analysis for dealing with single failures of any electro-whizzie. The sums of running loads for each bus are critical to calculating ship's endurance mode loads and sizing the battery to meet endurance mode design goals. These pages do another good thing. They are the INDEX for a page-per-system wire book. Each fuse/breaker on a bus gets sized, paired with appropriate wire and tagged as to what page that system's wiring details will be found. Once the e-bus running loads are established, ONLY THEN does one have sufficient information to size the normal and alternate feed protection. One COULD take the uber-conservative approach and wire these paths with say 10AWG wire protected with MAX40 fuses . . . or you can use data described in the load-analysis to size the wire/protection with at least 100% headroom based on running loads. Those are BUS feeders and need to be ROBUST with respect to total running loads on the bus. The original e-busses had typical running loads on the order of 3-4 amps. But as endurance mode support (SD-8 etc) got bigger, the constellation of e-bus hardware went up too. Had the original builder of this aircraft provided such information with the sale of his project, the future owners would at least possess information necessary for well crafted modifications to their aircraft. I've done my share of b*#$$n and m(#$&g about the uber-regulated TC aircraft environment but the hat-dance- of-paperwork associated with this topic in TC aircraft has solid foundation. When modifying the airplane, tho shalt not mess with the aerodynamics, bust the edges of the envelope for weight/ balance. You will validate structural integrity of the installed device -AND- it's attach points. Lastly . . . revisit the electrical load analysis for validation of performance and FMEA. I'm pleased that this incident didn't have a sad outcome. It's a good thing that we learn from his experience. Feel free to cross post this narrative to the Van's support forums. Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Nov 01, 2018
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com>
Subject: Re: IVO Prop current limiter
At 08:41 AM 11/1/2018, you wrote: >Guys how difficult would it be to have an adjustment for the current >trip setpoint? I'm thinking of this as a good option for a hydraulic >pump application on an aircraft, it makes sense because of the >versatility and lightness. The IVO controller is nothing more than an electronic circuit breaker with tightly calibrated trip current and trip delay. This product was made practical by design choices of the IVO prop drive mechanism. It is difficult if not impossible to fit the pitch actuator with limit switches. The original designers elected to size motor torque, gearbox robustness and mechanical limit stops such that no mechanical damage is incurred by allowing the mechanism to routinely visit hard stops at the end of travel. Many actuators I've worked with are not so robust . . . repeated encounters with hard stops severely limits service life or poses risk of damage. The IVO actuator's circuit breaker proved to be both electrical fault protection -AND- an indicator for having reached end of travel. Like crowbar ov protection, the prop pitch breaker simply pops when the system reaches mechanical limits. The IVO controller was simply an extension of this design philosophy to make the end-of- travel-trip both self resetting -AND- event annunciating. Hence it is more a controller than circuit breaker. Unlike the IVO prop, the hydraulic pump does not routinely trip the feeder protection. Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: E-Bus Fuse Size
From: "user9253" <fransew(at)gmail.com>
Date: Nov 01, 2018
> What was the failure that took down his main bus? Bob, thanks for your reply. Sorry that I did not explain the failure well. It was not the main power bus that lost power. It was the E-Bus. The E-bus was wired per AeroElectric diagrams with two power inputs, one from the main bus and one from the battery. Both inputs had 15 amp fuses. The fuses blew because of builder error: too heavy of a load. When two fuses are in series, what should the fuse ampacity ratio be to be sure that only the smaller fuse blows and not both? 2 to 1, or 5 to 1, or 10 to 1, or what? -------- Joe Gores Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=484227#484227 ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Question on Grounding
From: John Morgensen <john(at)morgensen.com>
Date: Nov 01, 2018
Thank you, Joe. On 11/1/2018 3:17 AM, user9253 wrote: > > >> Are you on DRUGS! > Violation of "AeroElectric-List Usage Guidelines" > - Feel free to disagree with other viewpoints, BUT keep your tone > polite and respectful. Don't make snide comments, personally attack > other listers, or take the moral high ground on an obviously > controversial issue. This will only cause a pointless debate that > will hurt feelings, waste bandwidth and resolve nothing. > > -------- > Joe Gores > > > Read this topic online here: > > http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=484142#484142 > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Question on Grounding
From: "Rocketman1988" <Rocketman(at)etczone.com>
Date: Nov 01, 2018
Sorry I asked... Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=484233#484233 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Nov 01, 2018
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com>
Subject: Re: E-Bus Fuse Size
At 12:09 PM 11/1/2018, you wrote: > > > > What was the failure that took down his main bus? > >Bob, thanks for your reply. >Sorry that I did not explain the failure well. It was not the main >power bus that lost power. It was the E-Bus. The E-bus was wired >per AeroElectric diagrams with two power inputs, one from the main >bus and one from the battery. Both inputs had 15 amp fuses. The >fuses blew because of builder error: too heavy of a load. >When two fuses are in series, what should the fuse ampacity ratio be >to be sure that only the smaller fuse blows and not both? 2 to 1, >or 5 to 1, or 10 to 1, or what? > >-------- >Joe Gores Joe, the complete answer will take a bit . . . but I'll get to it. In the mean time, I've been massaging the history of the e-bus. It is clear that the spirit, design goals and intent for e-bus configuration have evolved several generations over the past 30 years. I'm considering an update to the idea that removes all risks for not having considered the pesky details of fuse physics. Let's graduate the e-bus up to the same design philosophy as bus structures in most other aircraft. http://www.aeroelectric.com/PPS/Adobe_Architecture_Pdfs/Z36P1.pdf The design cited above would support all practical e-bus loads from a LongEz to any heavy-hauler in the OBAM aviation world. While beefier than the Long-Ez needs, weight penalty is small and besides, its all in the nose where the canard pushers need the ballast anyhow. The bus is still crew controlled for crash safety and protected by a current limiter that meets the spirit and intent of protection for bus feeders while being totally immune to nuisance tripping by the opening of any subordinate protection. Next pass through the z-figures will show this configuration. Comments welcome . . . Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: E-Bus Fuse Size
From: Rick Beebe <rick(at)beebe.org>
Date: Nov 01, 2018
If two fuses are really in series I would think the smaller one would almost always blow first and then the second wouldn't have power on it any more. In this incident, the fuses were really in parallel and he actively switched from the main feed to the alt feed. Since the load was still higher than 15 amps the second one blew as well. Had he turned some things off before switching he probably would have been just fine. A realization he has come to, btw. Along with the realization that he really needs to decipher the wiring and re-assign devices to the appropriate buss. --Rick On 11/1/2018 1:09 PM, user9253 wrote: > > >> What was the failure that took down his main bus? > Bob, thanks for your reply. > Sorry that I did not explain the failure well. It was not the main power bus that lost power. It was the E-Bus. The E-bus was wired per AeroElectric diagrams with two power inputs, one from the main bus and one from the battery. Both inputs had 15 amp fuses. The fuses blew because of builder error: too heavy of a load. > When two fuses are in series, what should the fuse ampacity ratio be to be sure that only the smaller fuse blows and not both? 2 to 1, or 5 to 1, or 10 to 1, or what? > > -------- > Joe Gores > > > Read this topic online here: > > http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=484227#484227 > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: E-Bus Fuse Size
From: "user9253" <fransew(at)gmail.com>
Date: Nov 01, 2018
What I meant by being in series are the input fuse to the E-bus and one of the E-Bus loads. My concern is what will happen in case a load circuit shorts to ground. For a fraction of a second, the current arcing across a fuse will exceed the fuse value. That high arcing current could be enough to blow an upstream fuse, even if that upstream fuse has a higher current rating. Ever notice that circuit breakers in a home service entrance panel are labeled "10K Amps" even though the breaker size is 15 or 20 amps? The reason is that when the circuit breaker trips with a dead short, the current arcing across the opening contacts is only limited by the power company's ability to provide it. Thus the circuit breaker is capable of withstanding very high arcing current up to 10K amps for a fraction of a second without blowing itself apart. -------- Joe Gores Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=484236#484236 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Nov 01, 2018
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com>
Subject: Re: E-Bus Fuse Size
At 12:09 PM 11/1/2018, you wrote: > > > > What was the failure that took down his main bus? > >Bob, thanks for your reply. >Sorry that I did not explain the failure well. It was not the main >power bus that lost power. It was the E-Bus. The E-bus was wired >per AeroElectric diagrams with two power inputs, one from the main >bus and one from the battery. Both inputs had 15 amp fuses. The normal feed path normally doesn't have circuit protection. The e-bus and main bus should be located adjacent to each other and tied together through the back-feed prevention diode with SHORT leads as shown in Z-13/8. Loss of bus due loss of feeder should never have occurred. The only time we need protection in the alternate path is when the alternate feed path control is a panel mounted switch. Wire in the alternate feed path is relatively small but protected with fuse that's pretty stiff compared to the RUNNING loads on the bus. I've shown 15A in most of the drawings but upsized to 30A in Z02. For the incident in question, any weakness in the feeder protection should have been rooted out with flight testing . . . an activity that is MANDATED for one-off mods in TC aircraft. When you have an alternate feed path relay, that path becomes a crew-controlled inter-bus feeder. With the relay located at the battery the feeder can be made cold for crash safety, then we can upsize both the feeder and it's protection. > The fuses blew because of builder error: too heavy of a load. >When two fuses are in series, what should the fuse ampacity ratio be >to be sure that only the smaller fuse blows and not both? 2 to 1, >or 5 to 1, or 10 to 1, or what? It's a bit more complicated than that. Fuses, indeed ALL thermally actuated protective devices, have an actuation time constant that varies inversely as the square of current. This is a rough figure of merit that lets you compare fuses of the same 'rating' but of different design philosophy. For example, a 5A "slow blow' fuse has a higher fusing constant than its 'fast blow' cousin of the same 5A rating. As a general rule we don't operate thermal devices at more than 75% of their rating so that pre-heating of the thermal element is minimized. A thermal device may stay closed at 80% of rating but since it's already warmed up, response interval to a step rise in current is much faster. In the case of a fuse protected feeder to an e-bus, normal e-bus loads WILL induce some heating in the feeder protection thus pushing the fusing response down the curve. As I suggested earlier, operating with a bus feeder fuse 2x the normal running loads is probably sufficient but protecting with an extra robust (3x) or LONG time constant device (like a current limiter) is certainly an option. The short answer to your question is: The ability of upstream protection to hold against a downstream fault cleared by lighter protection is a function of fusing-time depression induced by pre-heating due to normal running loads. You can size by rules of thumb but VERIFY with operational testing. It was a failure to operationally test combined with poorly thought out modifications to recommended architecture that brought down a nearly new LA4 and got some people hurt. See: http://www.aeroelectric.com/Reference_Docs/Accidents/N811HB/02_N11HB_Configuration.wmv http://www.aeroelectric.com/Reference_Docs/Accidents/N811HB/01_Fuse%20vs%20Breaker.wmv Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Question on Grounding
From: "ronaldcox" <flyboyron(at)gmail.com>
Date: Nov 02, 2018
Rocketman1988 wrote: > Sorry I asked... And that is exactly why the rule is there. We need the level of our discussion to be such that NO ONE is ever sorry they asked. Every year or two someone shows up here and decides they need to kick over the chairs and pee in all the corners. Fortunately, it usually works itself out amicably, as I hope it has here. No need to be sorry. Your question was not out of line. It's exactly what we're all here for. The sharing of questions and ideas, and hopefully some answers. Don't let this scare you away. -------- Ron Cox Glasair Super II F/T Under Construction at C77 - Still just about to fly! Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=484240#484240 ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Dick Gurley <rngurley(at)att.net>
Date: Nov 02, 2018
Subject: Splice wires
What is the proper technique for splicing two #14 wires to one #16 wire. Sorry for the newbie question. Thank you Sent from my iPhone ________________________________________________________________________________
From: skywagon185guy <skywagon185(at)gmail.com>
Date: Nov 02, 2018
Subject: Re: E-Bus Fuse Size
Joe, . . . didn't you mean "parallel" instead of series. . . ?? On Wed, Oct 31, 2018 at 5:40 PM user9253 wrote: > > A pilot recently experienced an instrument panel blackout at night. When > he turned on the E-Bus switch, the panel briefly came back on, but soon > went black again. Luckily the weather was good and he landed safely. You > can read about it here. > http://www.vansairforce.com/community/showthread.php?t=165520 > The E-Bus was protected by 15 amp fuses. Evidently the second and third > owners of the aircraft connected more loads to the E-Ebus, eventually > overloading it. > If two fuses are connected in series, even if one is bigger, either one or > both could blow in case of hard ground fault. > Should the E-Bus have main fuses? > If so, then how much larger should the main fuse be than a branch circuit > fuse? > > -------- > Joe Gores > > > Read this topic online here: > > http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=484131#484131 > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Nov 02, 2018
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com>
Subject: Re: Splice wires
At 10:09 AM 11/2/2018, you wrote: > >What is the proper technique for splicing two #14 wires to one #16 >wire. Sorry for the newbie question. Thank you > >Sent from my iPhone Lots of ways work just fine. you can use a crimped butt splice, although you'd have to use a yellow splice and double up one of the wires. You can do a soldered lap-joint covered in heat shrink. But I'm curious as to the mixture of wire sizes. What power do these wires carry and what is the circuit protection for those wires? Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Nov 02, 2018
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com>
Subject: Re: E-Bus Fuse Size
At 10:12 PM 11/1/2018, you wrote: > >What I meant by being in series are the input fuse to the E-bus and >one of the E-Bus loads. My concern is what will happen in case a >load circuit shorts to ground. For a fraction of a second, the >current arcing across a fuse will exceed the fuse value. That high >arcing current could be enough to blow an upstream fuse, even if >that upstream fuse has a higher current rating. Ever notice that >circuit breakers in a home service entrance panel are labeled "10K >Amps" even though the breaker size is 15 or 20 amps? The reason is >that when the circuit breaker trips with a dead short, the current >arcing across the opening contacts is only limited by the power >company's ability to provide it. Thus the circuit breaker is >capable of withstanding very high arcing current up to 10K amps for >a fraction of a second without blowing itself apart. That's not a concern. Consider the ac power distribution in your house. A hand-held appliance may have some small protective device inside it . . . then you move up the chain to a breaker in your entry box. There may be a mains breaker upstream in the same box. There are probably fuses in the transformer behind your house. The neighborhood distribution system has yet more upstream fuses. From there on up the chain, fuses are generally replaced with circuit breakers all the way back to the power plant. Any one of those protective devices can be faulted without opening the upstream protection . . . IN SPITE of whatever pre-heating may be present due to other running loads sharing the same feeder. You can be sure that the I(squared)t fusing constant for every device is much greater than any downstream device, much less than any upstream device. The protection architecture behaves gracefully irrespective of the system's source impedance . . . which sets the maximum, instantaneous fault current. The thing that made our fuse choices more critical was the fact some devices were fed by upstream devices of the same class . . . i.e. plastic automotive fuses. This is not inherently a bad thing but it does take some careful design combined with verification testing. I slipped up in not evolving the protection philosophy along with step with expanded design goals for the e-bus. This placed the uninformed builder at risk for the 'Dark E-bus Syndrome'. Going foreward with Z36 should eliminate that risk. Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: E-Bus Fuse Size
From: "user9253" <fransew(at)gmail.com>
Date: Nov 02, 2018
> Joe, . . . didn't you mean "parallel" instead of series. . . ?? No, I meant series. There is a fuse protecting the E-Bus and there are individual loads on the E-Bus each protected by a fuse. The fuse for the whole E-bus and a load fuse are in series. The fuse protecting the whole E-Bus needs to be chosen so that a hard short to ground on an individual load does not blow both the load fuse and the main E-Bus fuse. Bob has addressed this issue with his proposed Z-36 using a MANL30 protecting a heavy duty E-Bus. Builders keep adding more and more loads to an E-bus that was originally designed for minimum loads. A person I know was working on an apartment kitchen range outlet. He stuck a screwdriver in where it should not have been and tripped not only the circuit breaker for the range, but also the main breaker for the whole building. He had to get the apartment manager to unlock the utility room and reset the building main breaker. -------- Joe Gores Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=484248#484248 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Nov 02, 2018
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com>
Subject: Re: E-Bus Fuse Size
> A person I know was working on an apartment kitchen range > outlet. He stuck a screwdriver in where it should not have been > and tripped not only the circuit breaker for the range, but also > the main breaker for the whole building. He had to get the > apartment manager to unlock the utility room and reset the building > main breaker. Defective or mis-applied breaker . . . it's a fundamental design REQUIREMENT to prevent fault effects from propagating outward or upward in a complex system. Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Dick Gurley <rngurley(at)att.net>
Date: Nov 02, 2018
Subject: Re: Splice wires
Thank you Bob - The two wires come from a heated Garmin pitot tube system. Garmin twisted a nd soldered the two wires together at the factory. The Garmin G3X manual cal ls for 14 gauge wire for the length required (>21 feet). The manual also cal ls for a 20 amp fuse for power onto the control box. The max current draw is listed at 12 amps. I measured the provided twisted and soldered wire to obtain a 12 gauge equiv alent. Where can I learn about a soldered lap joint with heat shrink Than you again Dick Sent from my iPhone > On Nov 2, 2018, at 11:57 AM, Robert L. Nuckolls, III <nuckolls.bob@aeroele ctric.com> wrote: > > At 10:09 AM 11/2/2018, you wrote: >> >> What is the proper technique for splicing two #14 wires to one #16 wire. S orry for the newbie question. Thank you >> >> Sent from my iPhone > > Lots of ways work just fine. you can use a crimped > butt splice, although you'd have to use a yellow > splice and double up one of the wires. > > You can do a soldered lap-joint covered > in heat shrink. > > But I'm curious as to the mixture > of wire sizes. What power do these wires carry and > what is the circuit protection for those wires? > > ========================== ========================== ========================== ========================== ========================== ========================== ========================== ==== ________________________________________________________________________________
From: skywagon185guy <skywagon185(at)gmail.com>
Date: Nov 02, 2018
Subject: Re: E-Bus Fuse Size
. . . you are certainly right; I didn't consider that you were talking about "branches". My email gets staged with the earlier first and I did not see your follow-up until I had already stepped on my xxx with a reply. "Must remember to read the entire thread. . .=F0=9F=99=84 " On Fri, Nov 2, 2018 at 10:25 AM user9253 wrote: > > > > Joe, . . . didn't you mean "parallel" instead of series. . . ?? > > No, I meant series. There is a fuse protecting the E-Bus and there are > individual loads on the E-Bus each protected by a fuse. The fuse for the > whole E-bus and a load fuse are in series. The fuse protecting the whole > E-Bus needs to be chosen so that a hard short to ground on an individual > load does not blow both the load fuse and the main E-Bus fuse. Bob has > addressed this issue with his proposed Z-36 using a MANL30 protecting a > heavy duty E-Bus. Builders keep adding more and more loads to an E-bus > that was originally designed for minimum loads. > A person I know was working on an apartment kitchen range outlet. He > stuck a screwdriver in where it should not have been and tripped not only > the circuit breaker for the range, but also the main breaker for the whol e > building. He had to get the apartment manager to unlock the utility room > and reset the building main breaker. > > -------- > Joe Gores > > > Read this topic online here: > > http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=484248#484248 > > =========== =========== =========== =========== =========== =========== > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Dual Battery Dual Alternator Power Distribution System
From: "lwesterlund" <lance.westerlund(at)yahoo.com>
Date: Nov 02, 2018
Im looking for some help in reviewing a draft Dual Battery/ Dual Alternator (DBDA) power distribution architecture for an RV-14A. I started with Bob Nuckolls Z-14 system and Ive attempted to modify it to capitalize on the dual power feed capabilities of the newest generation of avionics. My mission is IFR in the Pacific Northwest where theres lot of clouds and lots of rocks in those clouds. Accordingly, the proposed system utilizes two alternators and two EarthX batteries. The 60W primary alternator will handle all normal loads at 60% capacity. The 20-30W accessory-pad mounted auxiliary alternator will handle its normal loads at 50% capacity, and when called upon, all IFR critical loads indefinitely at 66%+ loading. The two batteries provide a third level of redundancy. The batteries are not wired for cross connection for starting. I removed that from Bob's Z-14 - if I cant start the engine with just the primary battery, its time to get a new battery. Power is distributed through two buses: 1. The Primary Bus feeds all dual feed components as well as the non-critical single feed components. Ive elected to use the Vertical Power X Pro to control these loads. I realize the VPX does somewhat increase the risk of a single point of failure (not withstanding its two independent controllers and two buses) but even if the VPX did go dark, I could still get home on the completely independent Aux Bus with at least as much capability and safety as I get flying spam cans now. 2. The Aux Bus provides redundant power to all critical IFR dual feed components (PFD, ADAHRS) as well as to several always-nice-to-have dual feed components (MFD, AP, Transponder). It also provides sole power to the WAAS GPS/NAV/COM (which only has a single power feed) and several other redundant loads. The Aux Bus will be set to run at a slightly lower voltage than the Primary Bus, so the Primary Alternator will normally carry the full load (excepting the GTN650, stall warning, and optical fuel level detector). Should Primary Bus voltage fall during starting, or due to a Pri Alternator failure, the dual feed components will automatically be picked up by the Aux Bus with no pilot intervention required. Regarding the ubiquitous always-hot battery bus, my hypothesis is that its no longer necessary given advances in technology. In Z-14 (and earlier in Chapter 17 or The AeroElectric Connection), Bob lists the following loads as worthy of a direct connection to the battery: Ignition Fuel pump(s) Dome light Clock Radio mem My initial attempts at developing an architecture included a battery bus for those loads. However, as I started to work through failure modes, the list of battery bus-worthy loads got smaller and smaller. For instance, with dual P-mags (which the manufacturer recommends not connecting to an always hot battery bus) you only need power to one P-mag at start. Above 700 RPM both with self-excite so even in the unlikely event you lose both bus contactors, the plugs will fire and the engine will spin. The only recommended battery bus load that gives me a little pause is the fuel pump. But, as shown, a simple single pole double throw switch should let me connect to either bus. I would need to lose both buses and the mechanical fuel pump to lose fuel to the engine. Absent battle damage, it seems like the chance of fuel starvation due to an electrical problem is pretty remote. Regarding bus management, normal operation would be to turn on the G5 (to check G5 back-up battery operation) then the Aux Bus during pre-start to check voltage and set up the avionics. The Primary Bus, electric fuel pump and P-mags would be turned on just prior to engine start-up. If the twirley thingy in front spins, youre good to go. When done flying, the procedure would be to turn off the Primary Bus (to confirm load pick-up by the Aux Alt), then secure the Aux Bus, then the G5 which has its own battery, and finally the P-mags. In the event of an electrical fire in IMC, opening the Primary Battery relay would dump about 70% of loads and feeds. I would still have a full complement of IFR critical equipment running on the Aux Bus. If opening the Primary Battery Relay doesnt isolate power to the fire, opening the Aux Battery relay would dump the balance of loads and feeds. At that point, Id still have self-excite power to run the P-mags and the back-up battery to power the G5 EFIS to keep the plane upright. In VFR conditions, I would dump both Pri and Aux buses immediately. So, what I have I missed? Or misunderstood? Or miscalculated? Does eliminating the battery bus increase risk in some unintended way? Im 100% sure Ive missed something small, complex, and nuanced. Im also pretty sure Ive missed something really, really big. Any feedback would be much appreciated. Thanks. Lance Beaverton, OR, RV-14A - Emp & Fuse Done, Finish Kit in Progress, QB Wings Ordered Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=484257#484257 Attachments: http://forums.matronics.com//files/rv_power_distribution_v4_137.pdf ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Art Zemon <art(at)zemon.name>
Date: Nov 02, 2018
Subject: Re: Splice wires
On Fri, Nov 2, 2018 at 2:21 PM Dick Gurley wrote: > Where can I learn about a soldered lap joint with heat shrink > Dick, I wrote it up with photos in my blog post Physical & Electrical Considerations when Mounting Avionics . That post also includes a link to Bob's shop notes on "Poor Man's Solder Sleeves" which have all of the detailed instructions that you will need. Also see my photos near the bottom of my blog post Wiring Harness Installed because there are some splices with 1 wire coming into the splice and 2 wires going out the other side. Cheers, -- Art Z. -- https://CheerfulCurmudgeon.com/ *"Be kind, for everyone you meet is fighting a hard battle."* ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Nov 03, 2018
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com>
Subject: Re: Splice wires
At 11:59 AM 11/2/2018, you wrote: >Thank you Bob - > >The two wires come from a heated Garmin pitot tube system. Garmin >twisted and soldered the two wires together at the factory. The >Garmin G3X manual calls for 14 gauge wire for the length required >(>21 feet). The manual also calls for a 20 amp fuse for power onto >the control box. The max current draw is listed at 12 amps. > >I measured the provided twisted and soldered wire to obtain a 12 >gauge equivalent. > >Where can I learn about a soldered lap joint with heat shrink https://tinyurl.com/c5v2xvm Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Nov 03, 2018
From: Matt Dralle <dralle(at)matronics.com>
Subject: Please Make A Contribution To Support Your Lists
Dear Listers, There is no advertising income to support the Matronics Email Lists and Forums. The operation is supported 100% by your personal Contributions during the November Fund Raiser. Please make your Contribution today to support the continued operation and upgrade of these services. You can pick up a really nice gift for making your Contribution too! You may use a Credit Card or Paypal at the Matronics Contribution Site here: http://www.matronics.com/contribution or, you can send a personal check to the following address: Matronics / Matt Dralle 581 Jeannie Way Livermore, CA 94550 Thank you in advance for your generous support! Matt Dralle Matronics Email List and Forum Administrator ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Dual Battery Dual Alternator Power Distribution
System
From: Bill Watson <Mauledriver(at)nc.rr.com>
Date: Nov 03, 2018
Lance, I've been flying an RV-10 with a Z-14 for over 7 years and 1,000 hours. I think it's the 'Bee's Knees'. I've lost a LR3 controller. I've slow-killed a few batteries due to some bad management and some clocks on a battery bus. I have a panel full of yesterday's avionics with dual feed capabilities. Some people think the Z-14 is overkill but it has never given me a moment's worry about not having the juice to complete a flight as planned. In fact, it has enabled me to confidently plan flights with a dead battery or a dead controller until those components could be replaced in my home shop. The main suggestion I would offer is not to start by modifying the Z-14. Rather implement it as designed. Do it straight up and operate it as designed. It's a 'belts and suspenders' design in the first place. You might even be diminishing it's capabilities by modifying it the ways you have described. Main power distribution diagram hopefully attached. The thing that initially caught my eye about the Z-14 is it's simple symmetry - dual everything with a cross feed. Some comments made below: (No expert here so take my comments FWIW) On 11/2/2018 6:48 PM, lwesterlund wrote: > > Im looking for some help in reviewing a draft Dual Battery/ Dual Alternator (DBDA) power distribution architecture for an RV-14A. I started with Bob Nuckolls Z-14 system and Ive attempted to modify it to capitalize on the dual power feed capabilities of the newest generation of avionics. > > My mission is IFR in the Pacific Northwest where theres lot of clouds and lots of rocks in those clouds. Accordingly, the proposed system utilizes two alternators and two EarthX batteries. The 60W primary alternator will handle all normal loads at 60% capacity. The 20-30W accessory-pad mounted auxiliary alternator will handle its normal loads at 50% capacity, and when called upon, all IFR critical loads indefinitely at 66%+ loading. The two batteries provide a third level of redundancy. > > The batteries are not wired for cross connection for starting. I removed that from Bob's Z-14 - if I cant start the engine with just the primary battery, its time to get a new battery. I would include and use the cross connection for starting. I started with the same thought since I mainly wanted to be able to operate my panel independent of the engine start so I would light up the bus with most of the avionics on it for flight planning, filing, clearances, waiting out local wx, then start on other battery. I'm using Odyssey 680s which, when combined with the light weight starter that was a standard part of the Vans engine package, gave me marginal starts. But it always started even in the winter. With that said, that's the wrong way to do it. First, don't use the 'light weight' starter if there is such an option on the RV14 engine - they turn fast but without much punch. Second, always start with both batteries. I'm told that's for good battery health. Then fly with the cross feed disconnected so that any failures on either side become quickly evident. > Power is distributed through two buses: > 1. The Primary Bus feeds all dual feed components as well as the non-critical single feed components. Ive elected to use the Vertical Power X Pro to control these loads. I realize the VPX does somewhat increase the risk of a single point of failure (not withstanding its two independent controllers and two buses) but even if the VPX did go dark, I could still get home on the completely independent Aux Bus with at least as much capability and safety as I get flying spam cans now. > > 2. The Aux Bus provides redundant power to all critical IFR dual feed components (PFD, ADAHRS) as well as to several always-nice-to-have dual feed components (MFD, AP, Transponder). It also provides sole power to the WAAS GPS/NAV/COM (which only has a single power feed) and several other redundant loads. Two potential problems here as I see it. First, by not using a cross feed contactor as laid out in the Z-14, you are bypassing the ability to run EVERYTHING in your aircraft if there is an alternator or controller failure. Second, (it may only apply to my particular configuration with (3) GRT HX MFDs with no on/off switches so I'll save it). But I initially had my dual input gear (the 3 GRTs and the G430) connected to both buses but over time came to understand that it was unnecessary redundancy with the cross feed capability and sometimes it was a liability. Maybe we can discuss the experiences that led me there later. > The Aux Bus will be set to run at a slightly lower voltage than the Primary Bus, so the Primary Alternator will normally carry the full load (excepting the GTN650, stall warning, and optical fuel level detector). Should Primary Bus voltage fall during starting, or due to a Pri Alternator failure, the dual feed components will automatically be picked up by the Aux Bus with no pilot intervention required. This sounds good. I added a TCW power stabilizer to keep the avionics on during deep discharge starts. The reality as I've experienced it is that there is no reasonable scenario where power is suddenly lost on one bus. Rather by monitoring the voltages on each bus during flight (and assuming batteries don't suddenly blow up) and paying attention to an alarm saying a bus has dipped below charging voltage, an alternator or controller failure will become evident with more than enough time to tuck it away and cross feed the buses to complete the flight as planned. The battery will keep everything running in the mean time. An MFD may fail, but that's a different thing. Think of the Z-14 like a twin engine plane - you don't plan on dual simultaneous engine failure - you plan on recovery from a single engine failure. On a Z-14 you identify which side failed, what failed, tuck it away and hit the cross feed and proceed to your destination. Unlike a sudden engine failure, the sudden failure of an electrical system component just causes the voltage to slowly fall on one side. Your robust battery is your backup until 'the dead foot and dead engine is identified, feathered, etc' > > Regarding the ubiquitous always-hot battery bus, my hypothesis is that its no longer necessary given advances in technology. In Z-14 (and earlier in Chapter 17 or The AeroElectric Connection), Bob lists the following loads as worthy of a direct connection to the battery: > Ignition > Fuel pump(s) > Dome light > Clock > Radio mem I totally agree. You may still end up with a so-called battery bus which is really just one or more fuse protected components attached directly to a battery. The electric fuel pump is a backup device and doesn't need to be on a direct battery connection. My GRTs use to have internal clocks that required an always not batt bus which led to some battery problems. Fortuanately they got rid of the always on requirement and picked up the time from the GPS(?). Dome lights or a USB power plug might be nice to have but lights can be left on and USB devices left plugged in (like my new Sentry) and threaten to kill a battery. Dual batteries means that it's manageable even on a remote Bahamian island airport, but a completely unnecessary risk. I have a battery bus with only a cigarette lighter/power plug left on it and that is mentally placarded against use. > > My initial attempts at developing an architecture included a battery bus for those loads. However, as I started to work through failure modes, the list of battery bus-worthy loads got smaller and smaller. For instance, with dual P-mags (which the manufacturer recommends not connecting to an always hot battery bus) you only need power to one P-mag at start. Above 700 RPM both with self-excite so even in the unlikely event you lose both bus contactors, the plugs will fire and the engine will spin. > > The only recommended battery bus load that gives me a little pause is the fuel pump. But, as shown, a simple single pole double throw switch should let me connect to either bus. I would need to lose both buses and the mechanical fuel pump to lose fuel to the engine. Absent battle damage, it seems like the chance of fuel starvation due to an electrical problem is pretty remote. > > Regarding bus management, normal operation would be to turn on the G5 (to check G5 back-up battery operation) then the Aux Bus during pre-start to check voltage and set up the avionics. The Primary Bus, electric fuel pump and P-mags would be turned on just prior to engine start-up. If the twirley thingy in front spins, youre good to go. > > When done flying, the procedure would be to turn off the Primary Bus (to confirm load pick-up by the Aux Alt), then secure the Aux Bus, then the G5 which has its own battery, and finally the P-mags. The way I manage my Z-14 is turn on bus2 to light up the panel and get the IFR stuff going. I light up bus1 so both radios work (there's a reason), then cross connect for the start and takeoff. I could disconnect the cross feed so that the voltage readouts would make any electrical failures apparent but I don't. After takeoff I disconnect the cross feed for the flight. Just before landing (or whenever I remember since I don't use a before landing checklist), I reconnect the cross feed to insure both batteries get a full top off before shutdown. Landing at night with everything on and the engine at idle will tend to drain one of the batteries a bit so I cross feed to prevent that. I don't worry about having one side setup at a lower charging voltage than the other. I set them at the max recommended by the battery manufacturer - 14.7 volts. Since I fly with them disconnected, both alternators are doing whatever they have to do and the both batteries stay fully charged. If anything dips below say 14.4 volts, even momentarily while in flight, I get concerned. I think I have the low voltage alarm on my engine monitor screen is set at 14 volts - the low voltage light on the LR3 are separate. > > In the event of an electrical fire in IMC, opening the Primary Battery relay would dump about 70% of loads and feeds. I would still have a full complement of IFR critical equipment running on the Aux Bus. If opening the Primary Battery Relay doesnt isolate power to the fire, opening the Aux Battery relay would dump the balance of loads and feeds. At that point, Id still have self-excite power to run the P-mags and the back-up battery to power the G5 EFIS to keep the plane upright. In VFR conditions, I would dump both Pri and Aux buses immediately. Here's where I'm probably missing it because I don't really have a plan for an electrical fire in IMC short of shutting everything down except for my backup instruments which currently include an ADI with it's own backup and some pnuematics. I may need some education here. > > So, what I have I missed? Or misunderstood? Or miscalculated? Does eliminating the battery bus increase risk in some unintended way? Im 100% sure Ive missed something small, complex, and nuanced. Im also pretty sure Ive missed something really, really big. Any feedback would be much appreciated. Thanks. > > Lance > Beaverton, OR, RV-14A - Emp & Fuse Done, Finish Kit in Progress, QB Wings Ordered > > --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus ________________________________________________________________________________
From: skywagon185guy <skywagon185(at)gmail.com>
Date: Nov 04, 2018
Subject: Re: Splice wires
Art Z., amazing that you find the time to keep your well designed multifaceted blog up to date and handle all of your projects and interests. ...Bravo..! On Fri, Nov 2, 2018 at 11:06 PM Robert L. Nuckolls, III < nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> wrote: > At 11:59 AM 11/2/2018, you wrote: > > Thank you Bob - > > The two wires come from a heated Garmin pitot tube system. Garmin twisted > and soldered the two wires together at the factory. The Garmin G3X manual > calls for 14 gauge wire for the length required (>21 feet). The manual also > calls for a 20 amp fuse for power onto the control box. The max current > draw is listed at 12 amps. > > I measured the provided twisted and soldered wire to obtain a 12 gauge > equivalent. > > Where can I learn about a soldered lap joint with heat shrink > > > https://tinyurl.com/c5v2xvm > > > Bob . . . > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Art Zemon <art(at)zemon.name>
Date: Nov 04, 2018
Subject: Re: Splice wires
Thanks and LOL. My cheat is that I am doing a blog instead of a formal builder's log. Cheers, -- Art Z. On Sun, Nov 4, 2018 at 1:22 PM skywagon185guy wrote: > Art Z., amazing that you find the time to keep your well > designed multifaceted blog up to date and handle all of your projects and > interests. ...Bravo..! > -- https://CheerfulCurmudgeon.com/ *"Be kind, for everyone you meet is fighting a hard battle."* ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Mark Wheeler <markwheelermd(at)icloud.com>
Subject: Re: Splice wires
Date: Nov 04, 2018
Thanks Kirk. It=99s been a PITA for both of us. > On Nov 4, 2018, at 7:22 PM, Art Zemon wrote: > > Thanks and LOL. My cheat is that I am doing a blog instead of a formal builder's log. > > Cheers, > -- Art Z. > > On Sun, Nov 4, 2018 at 1:22 PM skywagon185guy > wrote: > Art Z., amazing that you find the time to keep your well designed multifaceted blog up to date and handle all of your projects and interests. ...Bravo..! > > -- > https://CheerfulCurmudgeon.com/ > > "Be kind, for everyone you meet is fighting a hard battle." ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Bob Verwey <bob.verwey(at)gmail.com>
Date: Nov 05, 2018
Subject: Re: Splice wires
.and modest too! You are a man amongst men, Art! Best... Bob Verwey 082 331 2727 On Mon, 5 Nov 2018 at 05:28, Art Zemon wrote: > Thanks and LOL. My cheat is that I am doing a blog instead of a formal > builder's log. > > Cheers, > -- Art Z. > > On Sun, Nov 4, 2018 at 1:22 PM skywagon185guy > wrote: > >> Art Z., amazing that you find the time to keep your well >> designed multifaceted blog up to date and handle all of your projects an d >> interests. ...Bravo..! >> > > -- > https://CheerfulCurmudgeon.com/ > > *"Be kind, for everyone you meet is fighting a hard battle."* > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Nov 05, 2018
From: Matt Dralle <dralle(at)matronics.com>
Subject: Coming Soon - The List of Contributors - Please Make
A Contribution Today! Each year at the end of the List Fund Raiser, I post a message acknowledging everyone that so generously made a Contribution to support the Lists. Its my way of publicly thanking everyone that took a minute to show their appreciation for the Lists. Please take a moment and assure that your name is on that List of Contributors (LOC)! As a number of members have pointed out over the years, the List seems at least as valuable a building / entertainment tool as your typical magazine subscription! Assure that your name is on this year's LOC! Show others that you appreciate the Lists. Making a Contribution to support the Lists is fast and easy using your Credit card or Paypal on the Secure Web Site: http://www.matronics.com/contribution or by dropping a personal check in the mail to: Matt Dralle / Matronics 581 Jeannie Way Livermore CA 94550 I would like to thank everyone that has so generously made a Contribution thus far in this year's List Fund Raiser! Remember that its YOUR support that keeps these Lists going and improving! Don't forget to include a little comment about how the Lists have helped you! Best regards, Matt Dralle Matronics Email List Administrator ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Nov 05, 2018
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com>
Subject: A rich slice of aviation history
https://youtu.be/x4PlcKf-XRw Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Dual Battery Dual Alternator Power Distribution
System
From: "lwesterlund" <lance.westerlund(at)yahoo.com>
Date: Nov 05, 2018
Mauledriver, Thanks for the quick and detailed response. I completely agree that Z-14 is an amazingly robust architecture. The one limitation, as I see it, is that it doesnt take advantage of the dual power feeds for capable equipment. You wrote: But I initially had my dual input gear (the 3 GRTs and the G430) connected to both buses but over time came to understand that it was unnecessary redundancy with the cross feed capability and sometimes it was a liability. Maybe we can discuss the experiences that led me there later. Please help me to understand why using the redundant feeds might be a bad idea. Thanks. Lance Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=484447#484447 ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Dual Battery Dual Alternator Power Distribution
System
From: "bobmeyers" <bobmeyers(at)meyersfamily.org>
Date: Nov 05, 2018
I used Z-14 for my 14. I have over 220 hours on it now and am very pleased with it. It is pretty much a straight up implementation except for not using the automatic cross feed at engine start. My only comment about your proposed set up is your plan for the aux bus. Almost all of my Garmin equipment comes with dual power inputs. I have each go to Bus 1 and Bus 2. There are a few avionics items that don't have dual power inputs. For those I just used a couple of bridge rectifiers and feed them from Bus 1 and Bus 2 just like the ones that have the built in dual power inputs. This technique is shown in the Aeroelectric book. All heavy load items, lights, pitot heat etc are only hooked up to Bus 1 so I would have to manually switch on a cross feed switch to power those with a loss of the main alternator. My only load shedding item is pitot heat, The secondary alternator will handle everything else with no problem. I flip on both buses when entering the airplane and everything is ready to go by the time I have strapped in and am ready to begin the engine startup checklist. I do understand Bob N's preference for a one battery two alternator setup but in my case I elected the heavier Z-14. With my wife and I, full fuel and baggage, we are still 50 pounds under max gross. If the weight was going to be 20 pounds over max gross, I would have used Z-13. Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=484448#484448 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Nov 05, 2018
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com>
Subject: Re: Dual Battery Dual Alternator Power Distribution
System >Please help me to understand why using the redundant feeds might be >a bad idea. Thanks. Not necessary . . . already built in . . . There is no bus in Z-14 at risk for complete loss of power. Bizjets often offer double or triple fed busses . . . the Beechjet 400 had one. But the FMEA in that airplane is a snarl of snakes. I wrote a proposal once for splitting the battery capacity into two separate devices and doing a Z14-like architecture. Everyone thought it would be a good thing . . . everyone knew that the re-certification costs would be breathtaking. Everyong knew that there was no customer demand for the feature. With the cross-feed capability, no single failure will put any bus into a battery-only configuration . . . much less total loss of power. Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Complex Electrical for Lancair
From: "scuperhead" <craig(at)skybolt.net>
Date: Nov 05, 2018
Hi Guys, Need some help here. I have a Lancair 360 build that has a 28 volt air conditioner that pulls 50 amps max. Everything else is 14 volt. I have a B and C 60 amp alternator that can run either 14 or 28 volt. I also have a 40 amp B and C that can run 14 or 28. There are two 14 volt EarthX batteries in series that make up the system. Here are the options i am considering. 1. Run the 60 amp at 28 volt and the 40 amp to one of the 14 volt batteries that all the 14 volt items are on. I dont expect the 14 volt buss demand to exceed 20 amps. 2. Run both at 28 volt and use a step down converter for all the 14 volt systems. Any comments or other suggestions would be appreciated. Thank you, Craig -------- Blue Skies, Craig Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=484451#484451 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Nov 05, 2018
From: Robert Reed <robertr237(at)att.net>
Subject: Re: Dual Battery Dual Alternator Power Distribution
System Bob, Thank you for making that point clear about no bus at risk for complete los s of power in the Z-14 design.=C2- I am no expert on the electrical syste ms and won't even claim a novice status but I do claim to be very logical a nd I could not see a total failure situation in the Z-14 as long as you had a cross feed engaged and you have not lost everything.=C2- That is the r eason that I decided to go with the Z-14 for my plane and I don't think I w ill be disappointed.=C2- The reality is that it was not that difficult to understand or incorporate.=C2- Besides I like having the extra battery p ower for starting. Thanks for your designs, Bob Reed From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com Sent: Monday, November 5, 2018 1:56 PM Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: Dual Battery Dual Alternator Power Dis tribution System Please help me tounderstand why using the redundant feeds might be a bad id ea.Thanks. =C2-Not necessary . . . already built in . . . =C2-There is no bus in Z-14 at risk for =C2-complete loss of power.=C2- Bizjets often offer =C2-double or triple fed busses . . . the =C2-Beechjet 400 had one. But the FMEA in that =C2-airplane is a snarl of snakes. =C2-I wrote a proposal once for splitting the =C2-battery capacity into two separate devices =C2-and doing a Z14-like architecture. Everyone =C2-thought it would be a good thing . . . everyone =C2-knew that the re-certification costs would be =C2-breathtaking. Everyong knew that there was =C2-no customer demand for the feature. =C2-With the cross-feed capability, no single failure =C2-will put any bus into a battery-only configuration . . . =C2-much less total loss of power. =C2- Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Henry Hallam <henry(at)pericynthion.org>
Date: Nov 05, 2018
Subject: Re: Complex Electrical for Lancair
Hi Craig, On Mon, Nov 5, 2018 at 12:28 PM scuperhead wrote: > Need some help here. I have a Lancair 360 build that has a 28 volt air > conditioner that pulls 50 amps max. Everything else is 14 volt. I have a > B and C 60 amp alternator that can run either 14 or 28 volt. I also have a > 40 amp B and C that can run 14 or 28. There are two 14 volt EarthX > batteries in series that make up the system. I sometimes wish my Lancair 360 had air conditioning, but damn - that sounds like a bit of a mess electrically. > Here are the options i am considering. > > 1. Run the 60 amp at 28 volt and the 40 amp to one of the 14 volt > batteries that all the 14 volt items are on. I dont expect the 14 volt buss > demand to exceed 20 amps. > The trouble with this is that if you don't connect the 28V one to batteries at all, then it won't regulate properly. If you do connect it to the two batteries in series, but also have one of those batteries driving loads and being charged with a separate alternator, the two batteries will become unbalanced. This is a particularly bad problem with EarthX lithium batteries. > 2. Run both at 28 volt and use a step down converter for all the 14 volt > systems. > This could be a better bet. Assuming you do want to keep the air con, I would consider converting to a primarily 28V system - see which of the currently-14V loads could be inexpensively changed to run on 28V, and add a step-down converter for the remainder. Some starters can be rewired for 28V operation (or just swap the starter, it's only a few hundred bucks). Most modern avionics will run on either voltage. Light bulbs are easily changed. Good luck, Henry ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Nov 05, 2018
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com>
Subject: Re: Dual Battery Dual Alternator Power Distribution
System At 02:41 PM 11/5/2018, you wrote: >Bob, > >Thank you for making that point clear about no bus at risk for >complete loss of power in the Z-14 design. I am no expert on the >electrical systems and won't even claim a novice status but I do >claim to be very logical and I could not see a total failure >situation in the Z-14 as long as you had a cross feed engaged and >you have not lost everything. That is the reason that I decided to >go with the Z-14 for my plane and I don't think I will be >disappointed. The reality is that it was not that difficult to >understand or incorporate. Besides I like having the extra battery >power for starting. Keep in mind that normal ops are with the cross-feed feature OPEN. This avoids having one alternator shut down without a low-voltage annunciation. Every bus (other than battery busses) has FOUR sources of energy available for mitigation of any single failure event. It was the designer's mis-application of "multiple feed busses" that set up a recipe for failure in the N811HB accident in California. That accident was a particular disappointment . . . the builder attended one of my seminars and had a copy of the book. Neither he nor his professional assistant were members of the List. Preventing the circumstance that primed that accident was stone simple. The 4th video on this page illustrates the advantage powering the dual ignition system from independent Z14 batteries https://tinyurl.com/msfmldj Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Craig Schulze <craig(at)skybolt.net>
Subject: Re: Complex Electrical for Lancair
Date: Nov 05, 2018
This is the first one I have done that is all electric. Cooled great on th e bench testing. I have a compressor driven on my lancair. Has to be the best thing I have ever done to it. Craig From: "owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com" <owner-aeroelectric-li st-server(at)matronics.com> on behalf of Henry Hallam m> Date: Monday, November 5, 2018 at 1:22 PM Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Complex Electrical for Lancair Hi Craig, On Mon, Nov 5, 2018 at 12:28 PM scuperhead > wrote: Need some help here. I have a Lancair 360 build that has a 28 volt air con ditioner that pulls 50 amps max. Everything else is 14 volt. I have a B a nd C 60 amp alternator that can run either 14 or 28 volt. I also have a 40 amp B and C that can run 14 or 28. There are two 14 volt EarthX batteries in series that make up the system. I sometimes wish my Lancair 360 had air conditioning, but damn - that sound s like a bit of a mess electrically. Here are the options i am considering. 1. Run the 60 amp at 28 volt and the 40 amp to one of the 14 volt batteries that all the 14 volt items are on. I dont expect the 14 volt buss demand t o exceed 20 amps. The trouble with this is that if you don't connect the 28V one to batteries at all, then it won't regulate properly. If you do connect it to the two b atteries in series, but also have one of those batteries driving loads and being charged with a separate alternator, the two batteries will become unb alanced. This is a particularly bad problem with EarthX lithium batteries. 2. Run both at 28 volt and use a step down converter for all the 14 volt sy stems. This could be a better bet. Assuming you do want to keep the air con, I wou ld consider converting to a primarily 28V system - see which of the current ly-14V loads could be inexpensively changed to run on 28V, and add a step-d own converter for the remainder. Some starters can be rewired for 28V opera tion (or just swap the starter, it's only a few hundred bucks). Most modern avionics will run on either voltage. Light bulbs are easily changed. Good luck, Henry ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Craig Schulze <craig(at)skybolt.net>
Subject: Re: Complex Electrical for Lancair
Date: Nov 05, 2018
The 28 volt alternator will be connected to two EarthX batteries in series. The other alternator would be regulated to 14 volt and connected to one o f those batteries. Craig From: "owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com" <owner-aeroelectric-li st-server(at)matronics.com> on behalf of Henry Hallam m> Date: Monday, November 5, 2018 at 1:22 PM Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Complex Electrical for Lancair Hi Craig, On Mon, Nov 5, 2018 at 12:28 PM scuperhead > wrote: Need some help here. I have a Lancair 360 build that has a 28 volt air con ditioner that pulls 50 amps max. Everything else is 14 volt. I have a B a nd C 60 amp alternator that can run either 14 or 28 volt. I also have a 40 amp B and C that can run 14 or 28. There are two 14 volt EarthX batteries in series that make up the system. I sometimes wish my Lancair 360 had air conditioning, but damn - that sound s like a bit of a mess electrically. Here are the options i am considering. 1. Run the 60 amp at 28 volt and the 40 amp to one of the 14 volt batteries that all the 14 volt items are on. I dont expect the 14 volt buss demand t o exceed 20 amps. The trouble with this is that if you don't connect the 28V one to batteries at all, then it won't regulate properly. If you do connect it to the two b atteries in series, but also have one of those batteries driving loads and being charged with a separate alternator, the two batteries will become unb alanced. This is a particularly bad problem with EarthX lithium batteries. 2. Run both at 28 volt and use a step down converter for all the 14 volt sy stems. This could be a better bet. Assuming you do want to keep the air con, I wou ld consider converting to a primarily 28V system - see which of the current ly-14V loads could be inexpensively changed to run on 28V, and add a step-d own converter for the remainder. Some starters can be rewired for 28V opera tion (or just swap the starter, it's only a few hundred bucks). Most modern avionics will run on either voltage. Light bulbs are easily changed. Good luck, Henry ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Dual Battery Dual Alternator Power Distribution
System
From: "lwesterlund" <lance.westerlund(at)yahoo.com>
Date: Nov 05, 2018
Bob, Thanks for the quick reply and the video. Id be curious to know what you recommend regarding an architecture that incorporates the Vertical Power system (or something like it) and p-mag ignitions. Assuming you use the VPX as the main power distribution bus in Z-14, doesnt it essentially become a potential single point of failure for all loads on that bus? I understand that the Pro version has two controllers and two internal buses, but if the entire box went up in smoke, or had to be pulled, it would kill everything downstream; the two batteries and the two alternators could no longer connect to the loads even with the cross connect capability. What I penciled out was a way to take advantage of the VPX and dual feed avionics to allow you to still get power to all flight critical components. Kill any component, including the VPX, and you still have at least one alternator and one battery on-line. It seems like a reasonable way to leverage the robust nature of the Z-14 design while availing oneself of the newest technology that allows one to monitor and control power real time. So back to the original question-whats the best way to integrate the VPX into a dual bat/ dual alt system? Lance Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=484460#484460 ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Complex Electrical for Lancair
From: "scuperhead" <craig(at)skybolt.net>
Date: Nov 05, 2018
Hi Henry, Flaps, electric boost pump, and landing gear have to run at 14 volt as well as my Electo Air Ignition. The radios, lights can be 28. The Vertical Power pro can run on either and will step down for trim but not flaps. So far I am favoring option 1. This creates an automatic backup should either alternator fail. AC is the only item I would run at 28 volts and that doesn't need to be on in a failure situation. The starter has the option for 14 or 28 with a jumper select. I think the key is setting the regulators at the exact correct voltage to keep both batteries in balance. Craig -------- Blue Skies, Craig Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=484461#484461 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Nov 05, 2018
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com>
Subject: Re: Complex Electrical for Lancair
At 05:16 PM 11/5/2018, you wrote: > >Hi Henry, > >Flaps, electric boost pump, and landing gear have to run at 14 volt >as well as my Electo Air Ignition. The radios, lights can be >28. The Vertical Power pro can run on either and will step down for >trim but not flaps. > >So far I am favoring option 1. This creates an automatic backup >should either alternator fail. AC is the only item I would run at >28 volts and that doesn't need to be on in a failure situation. The >starter has the option for 14 or 28 with a jumper select. > >I think the key is setting the regulators at the exact correct >voltage to keep both batteries in balance. I've been pondering this configuration and I'm not sure there is a concern for 'keeping things balanced'. With independent, voltage regulated, engine driven power sources, the two batteries have no interaction. The 12v battery is a security blanket for the 14v system irrespective of the upper battery. The only 'battery duties' to be performed by the 12v + 12v stack is to isolated the 28v alternator from compressor motor inrush currents . . . an event that is tens of milliseconds long and very low energy event. Once the a/c motor is running and the 28v bus stable, the battery is free to recharge for the inrush event . . . after that it just sits there fat, dumb and happy. The fault condition to be managed is failure or shutdown of the 28v alternator whereupon I think I would plan for a auto-shutdown of the a/c motor if the 28v bus voltage falls below 25 or so for more than say 5 seconds. If all else in the aircraft can run happily at 14v, then the lower battery is always in place to do it's expected house-keeping tasks. The existence of the upper battery-alternator should be transparent to the lower battery- alternator except during the 28v alternator event which I think is easily managed. In this case, the batteries need not be the same size but it wouldn't hurt if they were. You could swap them between slots say every oil change. Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Complex Electrical for Lancair
From: "scuperhead" <craig(at)skybolt.net>
Date: Nov 05, 2018
Hi Bob, I like your thinking on this and I agree with everything you said. I really think that this is the way to go and I like your idea of a cut off at say 25 volts. I would run the starter on 28. The Ac has a soft start so there is never a spike on start and the max it could ramp to is 50 amps on a hot day. Not so hot days are 35 to 40 amps. -------- Blue Skies, Craig Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=484466#484466 ________________________________________________________________________________
From: A R Goldman <argoldman(at)aol.com>
Date: Nov 05, 2018
Subject: Re: Complex Electrical for Lancair
Just a thought=94- Most modern avionics are pretty happy with either 12(14) or 24(28) V no need to reduce there. For others that require 12v, if necessary, a reducer of mu ch smaller size. Lead acid batter Agree totally with the charging /using/differentialy can be a problem KISS. Use gen 2 wth a voltage set slightly lower but still in charging range to become active as an aux easier to monitor state and charging Rich Sent from my iPhone > On Nov 5, 2018, at 3:10 PM, Henry Hallam wrote: > > Hi Craig, > >> On Mon, Nov 5, 2018 at 12:28 PM scuperhead wrote: > >> Need some help here. I have a Lancair 360 build that has a 28 volt air c onditioner that pulls 50 amps max. Everything else is 14 volt. I have a B a nd C 60 amp alternator that can run either 14 or 28 volt. I also have a 40 a mp B and C that can run 14 or 28. There are two 14 volt EarthX batteries in series that make up the system. > > I sometimes wish my Lancair 360 had air conditioning, but damn - that soun ds like a bit of a mess electrically. > >> Here are the options i am considering. >> >> 1. Run the 60 amp at 28 volt and the 40 amp to one of the 14 volt batteri es that all the 14 volt items are on. I dont expect the 14 volt buss demand t o exceed 20 amps. > > The trouble with this is that if you don't connect the 28V one to batterie s at all, then it won't regulate properly. If you do connect it to the two b atteries in series, but also have one of those batteries driving loads and b eing charged with a separate alternator, the two batteries will become unbal anced. This is a particularly bad problem with EarthX lithium batteries. > >> 2. Run both at 28 volt and use a step down converter for all the 14 volt s ystems. > > This could be a better bet. Assuming you do want to keep the air con, I wo uld consider converting to a primarily 28V system - see which of the current ly-14V loads could be inexpensively changed to run on 28V, and add a step-do wn converter for the remainder. Some starters can be rewired for 28V operati on (or just swap the starter, it's only a few hundred bucks). Most modern av ionics will run on either voltage. Light bulbs are easily changed. > > Good luck, > Henry ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Nov 05, 2018
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com>
Subject: Re: Complex Electrical for Lancair
At 08:36 PM 11/5/2018, you wrote: > >Hi Bob, > >I like your thinking on this and I agree with everything you said. I >really think that this is the way to go and I like your idea of a >cut off at say 25 volts. I would run the starter on 28. The Ac has >a soft start so there is never a spike on start and the max it could >ramp to is 50 amps on a hot day. Not so hot days are 35 to 40 amps. Then both batteries should be the same size and starter-capable . . . PC680 or beefier. Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Complex Electrical for Lancair
From: "scuperhead" <craig(at)skybolt.net>
Date: Nov 05, 2018
Hi Bob, Both batteries are EarthX replacements for PC680. I have used EarthX batteries before and they are way better than the PC680. -------- Blue Skies, Craig Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=484476#484476 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Nov 06, 2018
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com>
Subject: Re: Complex Electrical for Lancair
At 10:52 PM 11/5/2018, you wrote: > >Hi Bob, > >Both batteries are EarthX replacements for PC680. I have used >EarthX batteries before and they are way better than the PC680. Agreed . . . please keep us aprised of your experience in the proposed configuration. LiPO4 does pose a challenge over SVLA due to the spread between nominal charge/ discharge voltages. Your 28v lo-volt shutdown sensor may need to be more precise . . . or perhaps you'll want to put a CURRENT sensor on the top battery that effects a/c shutdown if the battery is being DISCHARGED for some significant magnitude/time. Flight tests are called for . . . and this List is your source for crafting the optimum architecture and hardware . . . Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Nov 07, 2018
From: Matt Dralle <dralle(at)matronics.com>
Subject: [PLEASE READ] Why I Have A Fund Raiser...
Since the beginning, the Matronics List and Forum experience has been free from advertising. I have been approached by fair number of vendors wanting to tap into the large volume of activity across the various lists hosted here, but have always flatly refused. Everywhere you go on the Internet these days, a user is pummeled with flashing banners and videos and ads for crap that they don't want. Yahoo, Google and that ilk are not "free". The user must constantly endure their barrage of commercialism thrust into their face at an ever increasing rate. Enough is enough, and the Lists at Matronics choose not to succumb to that. That being said, running a service of this size is not "free". It costs a lot of money to maintain the hardware, pay for the electricity, Commercial-greade Internet Connection, air conditioning, maintenance contracts, etc, etc. etc. I choose to hold a PBS-like fund raiser each year during the month of November where I simply send out a short email every other day asking the members to make a small contribution to support the operation. That being said, that contribution is completely voluntary and non-compulsory. Many members choose not to contribute and that's fine. However, a very modest percentage of the members do choose to make a contribution and it is that financial support that keeps the Lists running. And that's it. To my way of thinking, it is a much more pleasant way of maintaining the Lists and Forums. The other 11 months of the year, you don't see a single advertisement or request for support. That's refreshing and that is a List and Forum that I want to belong to. I think other people feel the same way. Won't you please take a minute to make your Contribution today and support these Lists? http://www.matronics.com/contribution Or, drop a personal check in the mail to: Matt Dralle / Matronics 581 Jeannie Way Livermore CA 94550 USA Thank you for your support! Matt Dralle Email List Admin. ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Art Zemon <art(at)zemon.name>
Date: Nov 07, 2018
Subject: Re: [PLEASE READ] Why I Have A Fund Raiser...
> > Matt, Have you considered switching from running your own server to paying for Google G Suite? For a total of $50 per year, that would include an unlimited number Google Groups without ads and with full tech support. -- Art Z. -- https://CheerfulCurmudgeon.com/ *"Be kind, for everyone you meet is fighting a hard battle."* ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Dual Battery Dual Alternator Power Distribution
System
From: Bill Watson <Mauledriver(at)nc.rr.com>
Date: Nov 08, 2018
I do actually use the redundant feeds on my GRT screens but each unit is redundantly connected to 1 bus. One feed goes through a power stabilizer and the other directly to the bus. One of the things I wanted to be able to do was to run parts of avionics bus with engine off, without endangering a start by running down my battery. I knew from my previous IFR flying experience that being able to run the panel without killing the starter battery was useful in fllight planning and waitiing out local weather. I have (3) GRT HX MFDs. They do not have integral on/off switches and I chose not to add any. They are all on 1 bus along with the the G430. When that bus is switched on, one battery starts to drain pretty quickly. When I first installed them I connected them to only 1 bus and things worked as desired. During some upgrades and load rebalancing I decided to connect them to both buses without really thinking it through. I mean, belts and suspenders must be better, right? That was a mistake because now I could not control where the load from the (3) MFDs went unless I turned off 1 bus (and during flight planning and clearance receptions I ideally want the whole panel with dual comms up and running). But I did add a power stabilizer to avoid brownouts during tough starts. With that added, I did use the redundant feeds to connect to the power stabilizer and the bus directly, with both connections fed from the same bus. That now works as desired. As as been discussed elsewhere here, the proliferation of backup batteries can be a problem. Each of those batteries should be maintained as carefully as the main battery in a single battery system. What's the use of the backup if it doesn't perform in a predictable way when needed? So I will soon be running with zero backup batteries and depending entirely on the robustness of the Z-14. Even my backup EFIS will depend entirely on the Z-14 for power. It seems that one key thing I had to understand about the bus architectures and the Z-14 in particular is that they are designed and built in a manner as robust as say the control system. There are a few fat wire connections at a few points with only a few very reliable components that could possibly fail. The failure of an alternator or controller is signaled and bypassed while the battery keeps everything running, etc. With dual buses, batts and alts, having redundant power feeds on individual components is redundant. One relies on the redundant bus architecture to handle power failures. On 11/5/2018 2:03 PM, lwesterlund wrote: > > Mauledriver, > > Thanks for the quick and detailed response. > > I completely agree that Z-14 is an amazingly robust architecture. The one limitation, as I see it, is that it doesnt take advantage of the dual power feeds for capable equipment. You wrote: > > But I initially had my dual input gear (the 3 GRTs and the G430) connected to > both buses but over time came to understand that it was unnecessary > redundancy with the cross feed capability and sometimes it was a > liability. Maybe we can discuss the experiences that led me there later. > > Please help me to understand why using the redundant feeds might be a bad idea. Thanks. > > Lance > > > Read this topic online here: > > http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=484447#484447 > > --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Dual Battery Dual Alternator Power Distribution
System
From: "lwesterlund" <lance.westerlund(at)yahoo.com>
Date: Nov 08, 2018
Again, thanks for the detailed reply. Your approach certainly makes sense when using a conventional power bus. Afterall, what could possibly go wrong with a solid brass bus bar? Its darn near bullet-proof. As I asked in my reply to Bobs response, what if you are using the VPX system? As robust as it is, its still not as failure proof as a solid hunk of metal. Even with dual power feeds, it becomes a single point of failure. Hence my proposed design. If theres a better way that leverages that technology, Im all ears. But I dont think you can just plop the VPX into the Z-14 architecture without modifying it to resolve the new SPOF. I appreciate that the more conservative approach from a power system risk management perspective is to simply use Z-14 as published. Im interested in the VPX because, IMO, it helps to reduce other elements of risk. For instance, it prevents deploying the flaps above Vfe, will detect and alert an open circuit (like the pitot heater), and will control wig-wag lights. Any thoughts or suggestions or insights on how to include a VPX in a dual bat dual alt system would be much appreciated. Lance Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=484638#484638 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Nov 09, 2018
From: Matt Dralle <dralle(at)matronics.com>
Subject: List Contribution - Value of the List...
If you look forward to checking your List email everyday (and a lot of you have written to say that you do!), then you're probably getting at least $20 or $30 worth of Entertainment from the Lists each year. You'd pay twice that for a subscription to some magazine or even a dinner out. Isn't the List worth at least that much to you? Wouldn't it be great if you could pay that amount and get a well-managed media source free of advertising, SPAM, and viruses? Come to think of it, you do... :-) Won't you please take a minute to make your Contribution today and support these Lists? http://www.matronics.com/contribution Or, drop a personal check in the mail to: Matt Dralle / Matronics 581 Jeannie Way Livermore CA 94550 USA I want to say THANK YOU to everyone that has made a Contribution thus far during this year's List Fund Raiser!! These Lists are made possible exclusively through YOUR generosity!! Thank you for your support! Matt Dralle Email List Admin. ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Nov 09, 2018
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com>
Subject: Re: Dual Battery Dual Alternator Power Distribution
System At 07:14 PM 11/8/2018, you wrote: >"lwesterlund" > >Again, thanks for the detailed reply. Your >approach certainly makes sense when using a >conventional power bus. Afterall, what could >possibly go wrong with a solid brass bus bar? It=99s darn near bullet-proof. > >As I asked in my reply to Bob=99s response, what >if you are using the VPX system? As robust as it >is, it=99s still not as failure proof as a solid >hunk of metal. Even with dual power feeds, it >becomes a single point of failure. Hence my proposed design. Set the VPX system up per installation instructions. Add second alternator/battery with a cross-feed to the VPX system. Make the aux bus your E-bus This isolates the VPX system's FMEA shortfalls (assuming there are any) from E-bus while retaining the feature that everything has 4-sources of energy that can be exploited as needed. No dual feeds, 'emergency' switches, complex Plan-B, etc. KISS Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Dual Battery Dual Alternator Power Distribution
System
From: "DAVIDSON" <davidson@rose-hulman.edu>
Date: Nov 09, 2018
[quote="lAs I asked in my reply to Bobs response, what if you are using the VPX system? As robust as it is, its still not as failure proof as a solid hunk of metal. Even with dual power feeds, it becomes a single point of failure. Hence my proposed design. [/quote] I have an RV-7 in gestation. Here is my plan for implementing VPX-Pro in a dual-battery (same) dual-alternator (60A and 20A) EFII-4R system. 1) Both batteries feed to battery bus (copper bar). Each battery contactor has it's own switch. 2) Starter contactor on battery bus. Starter has momentary switch. 3) Battery bus connected to feed bus (copper bar) via 60A shunt. 4) Both alternators feed to feed bus via ANL (60A and 30A). Each alternator field circuit has it's own switch. 5) Feed bus connects through firewall. 6) A 100A relay feeds the X-BUS (VPX-Pro). 7) A 100A relay feeds the E-BUS (12 circuit fuse box). 8) All circuits are driven by X-BUS. 9) 12 circuits are also driven by E-BUS (essential). 10) The 12 circuits (common to both buses) each feed to a 25A diode bridge rectifier with the plus connection going to the device (sometimes switched). The 12 common circuits are: Primary Fuel (switched) Backup Fuel (switched) Primary Alt Field (switched) Primary Alt Vsense Secondary Alt Field (switched) Secondary Alt Vsense Ignition A Ignition B ECU A ECU B Injectors Starter (switched) It is okay to run with both batteries online or I can choose to start engine with both then take one offline in cruise. It is okay for both X-BUS and E-BUS to be online, but I plan to fly 99% on X-BUS so I can monitor on DYNON SKYVIEW. It is okay for both alternators to be online. The 60A regulator is set at 14.2V and the 20A regulator is set at 13.7V. It is okay for both fuel pumps to be on, but 99.9% of time I'll be on one or the other. The starter switch is hot when E-BUS is closed, but only hot when engine not running when X-BUS is closed. Feedback welcome. --kevin-- Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=484723#484723 ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Dual Battery Dual Alternator Power Distribution
System
From: Bill Watson <Mauledriver(at)nc.rr.com>
Date: Nov 09, 2018
You are welcome! Looks like Bob has responded with a good solution that follows the KISS principle, a hard to adhere to principle when all options are available to the experimental builder. Note that I took a fair amount of friendly heat from Bob when I was considering the Z-14 for my '10 back in 2008-9. I think he called my panel 'everything including the kitchen sink' and considered the Z-14 overkill even for a 'kitchen sink' installation. As I mentioned before, I fell for the simple symmetry of the design. But beauty and simplicity are in the eye of the beholder I suppose though it took a few years of operation before I learned to not only to implement the design as specified, but then to operate it in the proper way. Having done the former and slowly adopted the latter, I now can fully appreciate the robustness of the thing. I'm currently starting an upgrade of my panel to include (1) larger GRT HXr screen and replacement of some pneumatic backup instruments and a Trutrak ADI with the Horis EFIS from kanardia. Your VPX/flap protection caught my eye because of a decision I just made about my flap switch. So I've included that and a few other comments below just for kicks. On 11/8/2018 8:14 PM, lwesterlund wrote: > > Again, thanks for the detailed reply. Your approach certainly makes sense when using a conventional power bus. Afterall, what could possibly go wrong with a solid brass bus bar? Its darn near bullet-proof. Right. I would note that I don't really have any 'bus bars' per se. I have 2 auto-grade fuse panels with power cables running from the alternators/battery connection. That's all very solid and simple along with crossfeed cabling at the battery mount. Very bullet-proof. Fuse Panel by RH foot well <http://www.mykitlog.com/users/display_log.php?user=mauledriver&project=224&category=4043&log=64539&row=1> > > As I asked in my reply to Bobs response, what if you are using the VPX system? As robust as it is, its still not as failure proof as a solid hunk of metal. Even with dual power feeds, it becomes a single point of failure. Hence my proposed design. The first version of the VPX was available for my plane but just like electronic ignition, I decided to keep those things old school; dual Mags and hardwiring of everything in the power distribution systems. If I did it again, I'd probably go with electronic ignition and investigate the VPX again. > > If theres a better way that leverages that technology, Im all ears. But I dont think you can just plop the VPX into the Z-14 architecture without modifying it to resolve the new SPOF. > > I appreciate that the more conservative approach from a power system risk management perspective is to simply use Z-14 as published. Im interested in the VPX because, IMO, it helps to reduce other elements of risk. For instance, it prevents deploying the flaps above Vfe, will detect and alert an open circuit (like the pitot heater), and will control wig-wag lights. Flaps: I currently use physically identical but labeled Honeywell rockers for all my switches including the flap switch. I used physical location to distinguish it from say landing lights. My Panel with Honeywell Rockers <http://www.mykitlog.com/users/display_log.php?user=mauledriver&project=224&category=4053&log=122434&row=2> With this current upgrade I was considering using a more classic flap switch with a big toggle. Aerosport Flap Switch But now it's clear to me that it's too easy to accidentally hit that switch in cruise flight. We move around on long flights and my wife sometimes crawls to and from the back seat. The AP disconnect on the stick has been accidentally hit more than once. The trim hat has been hit. But that little Honeywell rocker is pretty much safe from accidental acuation. I'm going to stick with it and just highlight it graphically in case someone else ever flies my plane. > > Any thoughts or suggestions or insights on how to include a VPX in a dual bat dual alt system would be much appreciated. Good Luck, you are going to love the RV-10! > > > Read this topic online here: > > http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=484638#484638 > > --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Art Zemon <art(at)zemon.name>
Date: Nov 09, 2018
Subject: Fuse Replacement
A little fun for a Friday evening -- Art Z. Sent from my phone. Please excuse brevity and bizarre typos. ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Fuse Replacement
From: Kelly McMullen <kellym(at)aviating.com>
Date: Nov 09, 2018
It could be embellished by adding a penny and a dime. On 11/9/2018 5:35 PM, Art Zemon wrote: > A little fun for a Friday evening > > -- Art Z. > > Sent from my phone. Please excuse brevity and bizarre typos. ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Fuse Replacement
From: "user9253" <fransew(at)gmail.com>
Date: Nov 09, 2018
The 2000 amp wrench reminds me of an incident that I had at work many years ago. I was assigned to troubleshoot and repair a battery charger. This charger was supplied by 480 volt 3 phase power. The battery was 48 volts and as big as a large desk. The battery powered an electric hi-lo. I locked out the 480 volt supply but never thought about unplugging the remote "dead" battery. Even discharged batteries have some stored energy. My wrench shorted out between the bolt holding a large diode and a heatsink. And the wrench welded itself in place. That is when I realized the remote battery was plugged in. As I walked away, the wrench turned red hot. At 6 feet away, the wrench turned white hot and melted in half. The whole incident lasted about 5 seconds or so. Is that considered slow blow? :D -------- Joe Gores Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=484734#484734 ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Wig-Wag wiring
From: "JOHN TIPTON" <jmtipton(at)btopenworld.com>
Date: Nov 10, 2018
Hi Guys (Bob) I'm going to incorporate the Perihelion design Wig-Wag (c version) module Http://www.periheliondesign.com/wigwagmnl.htm in my landing lights, the call out, wiring diagram 'B' for a single switch is a DP3T, I'm trying to relate this to 'Table 11-1' (S700 series toggle switches) is it a 2-10, if so can you help with the connections John Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=484736#484736 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Nov 10, 2018
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com>
Subject: Re: Wig-Wag wiring
At 04:45 AM 11/10/2018, you wrote: > > >Hi Guys (Bob) > >I'm going to incorporate the Perihelion design Wig-Wag (c version) module > >Http://www.periheliondesign.com/wigwagmnl.htm > >in my landing lights, the call out, wiring diagram 'B' for a single >switch is a DP3T, I'm trying to relate this to 'Table 11-1' (S700 >series toggle switches) is it a 2-10, if so can you help with the connections > >John > Emacs! To the best of my knowledge, the device depicted does not exist in a toggle switch. A 2-10 can be wired for SINGLE pole, three position operation which would need a couple of diodes added to implement the 'both-on' function in the center with the OFF being full down. A 2-1 switch can be used with no added diodes but the operation would be BOTH (down), OFF (center) and WIGWAG (up). I can sketch a schematic for either . . . your choice. What kind of landing lights are you installing? Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Wig-Wag wiring
From: "user9253" <fransew(at)gmail.com>
Date: Nov 10, 2018
I do not trust switches that depend entirely on rivets to conduct current. http://www.bandc.aero/toggleswitch-doublepole.aspx Click on the small pictures on the above website. Notice that the rivets go through plastic. If that plastic flows over time, the electrical connection could fail. The most economical and perhaps easiest to wire switch is a DPDT with center off. ON-OFF-ON Do NOT buy a switch that has parentheses, for instance (ON)-OFF-ON. Parentheses indicates a momentary position. Once you have the switch in hand, it is easy to figure out how to connect it by using a test light or ohm meter. DP3T switches are available from electronic parts suppliers like Mouser and Digikey. https://www.mouser.com/Electromechanical/Switches/Toggle-Switches/_/N-5g2jZ1yzvvqx?P=1z0z28fZ1z0z2o3&Ns=Pricing|0 DPDT switches: https://www.mouser.com/Electromechanical/Switches/Toggle-Switches/_/N-5g2jZ1yzvvqx?P=1z0z2xkZ1z0z2qcZ1z0z810Z1z0z80lZ1yy48toZ1yyg5u9Z1z0jl5uZ1z0zlgaZ1z0sf9tZ1z0zlgkZ1yzs6ii&Ns=Pricing%7c0 A center off switch could be mounted so that the on positions are left and right instead of up and down. -------- Joe Gores Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=484740#484740 ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Sebastien <cluros(at)gmail.com>
Date: Nov 10, 2018
Subject: Re: LED Noise Filter
Thought I should update the list with our results. I manufactured a couple filters as per the diagram above and Bob's suggested components. Took our noisiest light to my friends avionics shop and powered it without the filter while looking for noise on the power lines. We saw very very little noise on the power lines so we decided to have a look at the frequency noise and from 5 feet away the radio noise was very noticeable. Wish I had recorded the actual numbers. In any case the noise from one light was enough to break the squelch on a radio, and enough to noticeable hear even while listening to a strong radio signal. So while loosing hope that the filters would cure the problem but without being able to come up with a better plan, we installed them in the aircraft and gave them a try. Total success. It is now barely possible to hear any noise when operating the lights in the hangar, once the engine is started no noise is noticeable. Thank you all for your help. On Mon, Oct 1, 2018 at 6:53 AM William Daniell wrote: > for anyone that's interested this one worked for me. I have all Dynon > instruments and comms > > Amazon: "Abrams T3-W Led Grille Emergency Vehicle Warning Strobe Lights > - White" > > > William Daniell > LONGPORT > +57 310 295 0744 > > > On Sun, Sep 30, 2018 at 7:18 PM Ernest Christley > wrote: > >> I've had excellent results using these devices. N167EZ uses them for >> marker, strobe, taxi and landing lights. I've inspected them with an >> oscilloscope. Nothing but DC. And, I've never heard radio inteference >> from them. Especially of interest, I built the strobe by using an >> electronic automotive turn signal flasher to alternate between two 30W >> supplies, that each drive an array of three 10W LEDs. While testing them >> out in the sunlight, the easiest way to know they were working (a 601XL is >> hard to turn around and look back in) was to take my headset off and listen >> for the flasher's clacking. >> >> >> >> http://www.mpja.com/LED-Driver-30W-Output-12-24VDC-Input/productinfo/31559+PS/ >> >> >> On Sunday, September 30, 2018 9:58 AM, Sebastien >> wrote: >> >> >> Certainly Will. We already have 2 batches of these trying to randomly >> find some that are better. No noise at all sounds ideal :). >> >> On Sun, Sep 30, 2018, 04:35 William Daniell >> wrote: >> >> Having been through this one (cheap chinese landing light)... >> I bought an USD20 light which completely blocked all comms within 20 feet. >> I bought another one, American designed made in China for USD30 - and no >> noise at all. I can dig out the manufacturer if youre interested. >> Will >> William Daniell >> LONGPORT >> +57 310 295 0744 >> >> >> On Sun, Sep 30, 2018 at 12:16 AM Sebastien wrote: >> >> >> https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B01KJ94Q1K/ref=oh_aui_detailpage_o01_s00?ie=UTF8&psc=1 >> >> If they were the +$300 ones made for aircraft I would call the >> manufacturer but these are 15% of the price of the aviation ones so I >> understand why the builder chose them. If we can fix this for $20 worth of >> parts it makes sense to me. >> >> On Sat, Sep 29, 2018 at 8:43 PM Robert L. Nuckolls, III < >> nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> wrote: >> >> At 03:52 PM 9/29/2018, you wrote: >> >> VHF Radio. Basically background static. On some of the lights it's barely >> noticeable and you have to listen carefully to hear it, on at least one >> light it creates enough VHF noise to break squelch on the radio and creates >> a very noticeable amount of static. >> >> >> Okay, and what is the LED product we're talking about? >> Have you had any conversation wthe the manufacturer? >> >> >> Bob . . . >> >> >> >> ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Wig-Wag wiring
From: "user9253" <fransew(at)gmail.com>
Date: Nov 10, 2018
Wiring diagram using a DPDT switch. -------- Joe Gores Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=484743#484743 Attachments: http://forums.matronics.com//files/wig_wag_343.jpg ________________________________________________________________________________
From: John Tipton <john(at)tiptonuk.eu>
Date: Nov 10, 2018
Subject: Re: Wig-Wag wiring
Hi Bob Thank you for your prompt reply: the (ongoing) build is a RV9a currently wit h the =98Duckworks=99 standard fit, traditional landing lights, w ith 100w HID bulbs, through 14awg and a 2-10 (MS spec) switch al a figure: 1 1-17 Our intention is to (as technology has moved on) to fit LED landing lights, t herefore your wiring of a 2-10 for LED=99s with the Wig-Wag would be a ppreciated Regards: John Sent from my iPad ----x--O--x---- > On 10 Nov 2018, at 1:38 pm, Robert L. Nuckolls, III <nuckolls.bob@aeroelec tric.com> wrote: > > At 04:45 AM 11/10/2018, you wrote: rld.com> >> >> Hi Guys (Bob) >> >> I'm going to incorporate the Perihelion design Wig-Wag (c version) module >> >> Http://www.periheliondesign.com/wigwagmnl.htm >> >> in my landing lights, the call out, wiring diagram 'B' for a single switc h is a DP3T, I'm trying to relate this to 'Table 11-1' (S700 series toggle s witches) is it a 2-10, if so can you help with the connections >> >> John >> > > <337ad9d.jpg> > > To the best of my knowledge, the device > depicted does not exist in a toggle switch. > A 2-10 can be wired for SINGLE pole, three > position operation which would need a > couple of diodes added to implement the > 'both-on' function in the center with the > OFF being full down. > > A 2-1 switch can be used with no added > diodes but the operation would be BOTH (down), > OFF (center) and WIGWAG (up). > > I can sketch a schematic for either . . . > your choice. > > What kind of landing lights are you installing? > > > > > Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Ida May Covey <icovey(at)embarqmail.com>
Date: Nov 10, 2018
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List Digest: 7 Msgs - 11/09/18
What a wonderful World! > On Nov 10, 2018, at 2:30 AM, AeroElectric-List Digest Server wrote: > > * > > ================================================= > Online Versions of Today's List Digest Archive > ================================================= > > Today's complete AeroElectric-List Digest can also be found in either of the > two Web Links listed below. The .html file includes the Digest formatted > in HTML for viewing with a web browser and features Hyperlinked Indexes > and Message Navigation. The .txt file includes the plain ASCII version > of the AeroElectric-List Digest and can be viewed with a generic text editor > such as Notepad or with a web browser. > > HTML Version: > > http://www.matronics.com/digest/digestview.php?Style=82701&View=html&Chapter 18-11-09&Archive=AeroElectric > > Text Version: > > http://www.matronics.com/digest/digestview.php?Style=82701&View=txt&Chapter 18-11-09&Archive=AeroElectric > > > =============================================== > EMail Version of Today's List Digest Archive > =============================================== > > > ---------------------------------------------------------- > AeroElectric-List Digest Archive > --- > Total Messages Posted Fri 11/09/18: 7 > ---------------------------------------------------------- > > > Today's Message Index: > ---------------------- > > 0. 04:05 AM - List Contribution - Value of the List... (Matt Dralle) > 1. 06:47 AM - Re: Re: Dual Battery Dual Alternator Power Distribution System (Robert L. Nuckolls, III) > 2. 07:36 AM - Re: Dual Battery Dual Alternator Power Distribution System (DAVIDSON) ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Nov 10, 2018
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com>
Subject: Re: Wig-Wag wiring
At 11:27 AM 11/10/2018, you wrote: >Hi Bob > >Thank you for your prompt reply: the (ongoing) >build is a RV9a currently with the >=98Duckworks=99 standard fit, traditional >landing lights, with 100w HID bulbs, through >14awg and a 2-10 (MS spec) switch al a figure: 11-17 > >Our intention is to (as technology has moved on) >to fit LED landing lights, therefore your wiring >of a 2-10 for LED=99s with the Wig-Wag would be appreciated > >Regards: John Here 'tis . . . Emacs! Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Nov 10, 2018
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com>
Subject: Re: Wig-Wag wiring
At 09:36 AM 11/10/2018, you wrote: > >I do not trust switches that depend entirely on rivets to conduct current. It is true that we've chronicled a hand full of failures in the S700 series switches here on the List over the years . . . but few of the total were precipitated by loosening of the rivets. Here is one failure analysis conducted on a Lister's experience: https://tinyurl.com/2a2qqp This style of switch by Carling was used on tens of thousands of TC aircraft for a couple decades. Aircraft represent a tiny fraction of total sales for the product line. The failure rate, while not zero, has been exceedingly small and driven mostly by the latest generation of strobe lights that feature constant power high voltage supplies . . . they draw substantially more current during pre-flight ops with the engine not running. I think a search of the List archives will turn up some threads on other failures, most having root cause OTHER than loose rivets. Bottom line is that while there is good cause to be skeptical of the rivets-thru- plastic joints, experience has demonstrated the mechanical stability of Carling's choice of plastic. Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
From: John Tipton <john(at)tiptonuk.eu>
Date: Nov 10, 2018
Subject: Re: Wig-Wag wiring
Brilliant - thank you John Sent from my iPad ----x--O--x---- > On 10 Nov 2018, at 6:30 pm, Robert L. Nuckolls, III <nuckolls.bob@aeroelec tric.com> wrote: > > At 11:27 AM 11/10/2018, you wrote: >> Hi Bob >> >> Thank you for your prompt reply: the (ongoing) build is a RV9a currently w ith the =98Duckworks=99 standard fit, traditional landing lights , with 100w HID bulbs, through 14awg and a 2-10 (MS spec) switch al a figure : 11-17 >> >> Our intention is to (as technology has moved on) to fit LED landing light s, therefore your wiring of a 2-10 for LED=99s with the Wig-Wag would b e appreciated >> >> Regards: John > > Here 'tis . . . > > <44257b6.jpg> > > > Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
From: John Tipton <john(at)tiptonuk.eu>
Date: Nov 10, 2018
Subject: Re: Wig-Wag wiring
PS: I have a spare Bridge Rectifier, can I use two of the diodes John Sent from my iPad ----x--O--x---- > On 10 Nov 2018, at 6:30 pm, Robert L. Nuckolls, III <nuckolls.bob@aeroelec tric.com> wrote: > > At 11:27 AM 11/10/2018, you wrote: >> Hi Bob >> >> Thank you for your prompt reply: the (ongoing) build is a RV9a currently w ith the =98Duckworks=99 standard fit, traditional landing lights , with 100w HID bulbs, through 14awg and a 2-10 (MS spec) switch al a figure : 11-17 >> >> Our intention is to (as technology has moved on) to fit LED landing light s, therefore your wiring of a 2-10 for LED=99s with the Wig-Wag would b e appreciated >> >> Regards: John > > Here 'tis . . . > > <44257b6.jpg> > > > Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Charlie England <ceengland7(at)gmail.com>
Date: Nov 10, 2018
Subject: Re: Wig-Wag wiring
John, Those are Schottky diodes (which sow up as 'obsolete' on the Digikey web page). Lots of Shottky dual diodes, and singles as well, on ebay & Amazon. ex (but no provision for heat sink): https://smile.amazon.com/AKOAK-Schottky-Blocking-Diodes-15SQ045/dp/B01CXOQM J8/ref=sr_1_4?ie=UTF8&qid=1541891561&sr=8-4&keywords=schottky+dio de On Sat, Nov 10, 2018 at 4:35 PM John Tipton wrote: > PS: I have a spare Bridge Rectifier, can I use two of the diodes > > John > > Sent from my iPad > > ----x--O--x---- > > On 10 Nov 2018, at 6:30 pm, Robert L. Nuckolls, III < > nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> wrote: > > At 11:27 AM 11/10/2018, you wrote: > > Hi Bob > > Thank you for your prompt reply: the (ongoing) build is a RV9a currently > with the =98Duckworks=99 standard fit, traditional landing li ghts, with 100w > HID bulbs, through 14awg and a 2-10 (MS spec) switch al a figure: 11-17 > > Our intention is to (as technology has moved on) to fit LED landing > lights, therefore your wiring of a 2-10 for LED=99s with the Wig-Wa g would be > appreciated > > Regards: John > > > Here 'tis . . . > > <44257b6.jpg> > > > Bob . . . > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Wig-Wag wiring
From: "user9253" <fransew(at)gmail.com>
Date: Nov 10, 2018
How abouit DSTF3060CR Schottky, 2 diodes in one TO-220-2 package, available at Mouser? Save on shipping cost by ordering Schottky diodes and current limiters from same source. -------- Joe Gores Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=484765#484765 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Nov 11, 2018
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com>
Subject: Re: Wig-Wag wiring
At 04:30 PM 11/10/2018, you wrote: >PS: I have a spare Bridge Rectifier, can I use two of the diodes Yes. You use the common annode (-) terminal as the power input from the switch. Tie the AC (~) terminals to each light. Ingnore the common cathode (+) termial. Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Nov 11, 2018
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com>
Subject: Re: Wig-Wag wiring
At 06:10 PM 11/10/2018, you wrote: > >How abouit DSTF3060CR Schottky, 2 diodes in one TO-220-2 package, >available at Mouser? That would work, but the el-cheapo bridge would be good too . . . > Save on shipping cost by ordering Schottky diodes and current > limiters from same source. Current limiters not necessary for anything but the really BIG incandescent lamps . . . and even then, their benefit is probably hard to quantify. Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Wig-Wag wiring
From: "user9253" <fransew(at)gmail.com>
Date: Nov 11, 2018
> Current limiters not necessary for anything > but the really BIG incandescent lamps . . . and > even then, their benefit is probably hard > to quantify. I only mentioned current limiters because a highly respected contributor to this forum had included them in his drawing posted above. :-) -------- Joe Gores Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=484779#484779 ________________________________________________________________________________
From: John Tipton <john(at)tiptonuk.eu>
Date: Nov 11, 2018
Subject: Re: Wig-Wag wiring
Hi Bob Thank you: and for LED landing lights just a simple swap over - yes John Sent from my iPad ----x--O--x---- > On 11 Nov 2018, at 1:49 pm, Robert L. Nuckolls, III <nuckolls.bob@aeroelec tric.com> wrote: > > At 04:30 PM 11/10/2018, you wrote: >> PS: I have a spare Bridge Rectifier, can I use two of the diodes > > > Yes. You use the common annode (-) terminal > as the power input from the switch. Tie the > AC (~) terminals to each light. Ingnore the > common cathode (+) termial. > > Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Nov 11, 2018
From: Matt Dralle <dralle(at)matronics.com>
Subject: A List Contribution - It's Your Personal Squelch Button...
There is an automatic "squelch button" of sorts for the Fund Raiser messages. Here's how it works... As soon as a List member makes a Contribution through the Matronics Fund Raiser web site, their email address is automatically added to this year's Contributor List and they instantly cease to receive further Fund Raiser messages for the rest of the month! Its just that simple! :-) I really do appreciate each and every one of your individual Contributions to support the Lists. It is your support that enables me to upgrade the hardware and software that are required to run a List Site such as this one. It also goes to pay for the commercial-grade Internet connection and to pay the huge electric bill to keep the computer gear running and the air conditioner powered on. I run all of the Matronics Email List and Forums sites here locally which allows me to control and monitor every aspect of the system for the utmost in reliably and performance. Your personal Contribution matters because, when combined with other Listers such as yourself, it pays the bills to keep this site up and running. I accept exactly ZERO advertising dollars for the Matronics Lists sites. I can't stand the pop-up ads and all other commercials that are so prevalent on the Internet these days and I particularly don't want to have it on my Email List sites. If you appreciate the ad-free, grass-roots, down-home feel of the Matronics Email Lists, please make a Contribution to keep it that way!! http://www.matronics.com/contribution or, you can send a personal check to the following address: Matronics / Matt Dralle 581 Jeannie Way Livermore, CA 94550 Thank you! Matt Dralle Matronics Email List Administrator [Note that there are certain circumstances where you might still see a Contribution related message. For example, if someone replies to one of the messages, when using the List Browse feature, or when accessing List message via the Forum. The system keys on the given email address and since most of these are anonymous public access methods, there is no simple way to filter them.] ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Nov 11, 2018
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com>
Subject: Re: Wig-Wag wiring
> > > Current limiters not necessary for anything > > but the really BIG incandescent lamps . . . and > > even then, their benefit is probably hard > > to quantify. > >I only mentioned current limiters because a highly respected >contributor to this forum had included them in his drawing posted above. :-) Yeah, my bad. The conditional callout for current limiters got cropped off the original art from Eric's website. Did some dynamic studies of the current draw by incandescent lamps in wig-wag systems about a decade back. Seems 55w and larger lamps don't have time to cool off between flashes. The only time they present the typical cold-lamp inrush is on first light . . . every subsequent flash is quite benign for 'start up' current. Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Bill Steer <steerr(at)bellsouth.net>
Subject: Antenna position
Date: Nov 11, 2018
I searched the archives for an answer to this question, but couldn't find one. Probably didn't search far enough. I'm building an Excalibur. There doesn't appear to be any place on top for a VHF antenna, so I'm putting it on the bottom, under the front seat. The Excalibur has short legs, so I'm using the 90 degree antenna from ACS. The question is - where should this antenna be positioned on the relatively small ground plane - with the connection in the center of the ground plane, or with the connection near the front of the ground plane so the majority of the trailing antenna is directly under the ground plane? Thanks very much for any help/advice. Bill --- This email has been checked for viruses by AVG. https://www.avg.com ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Nov 11, 2018
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com>
Subject: Re: Antenna position
At 04:40 PM 11/11/2018, you wrote: > >I searched the archives for an answer to this >question, but couldn't find one.=C2 Probably didn't search far enough. > >I'm building an Excalibur. There doesn't appear >to be any place on top for a VHF antenna, so I'm >putting it on the bottom, under the front >seat.=C2 The Excalibur has short legs, so I'm >using the 90 degree antenna from ACS.=C2 The >question is - where should this antenna be >positioned on the relatively small ground plane >- with the connection in the center of the >ground plane, or with the connection near the >front of the ground plane so the majority of the >trailing antenna is directly under the ground plane? > >Thanks very much for any help/advice. Center the ground plane . . . Antenna 'hardware' at the base has the lion's share of antenna CURRENT which is the stuff of radiation. It's effectiveness is enhanced by low resistance, central location in the ground plane. Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "jim" <jimkale(at)roadrunner.com>
Subject: Antenna position
Date: Nov 11, 2018
I am helping with the construction of an Excalibur and I too am trying to determine where to put the VHF com antenna. Any information about exactly where you are locating this antenna, and which commercial antenna you are using would be appreciated. Photos of the installation would be very nice also. Jimkale(at)roadrunner.com From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com On Behalf Of Robert L. Nuckolls, III Sent: Sunday, November 11, 2018 6:14 PM Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Antenna position At 04:40 PM 11/11/2018, you wrote: > I searched the archives for an answer to this question, but couldn't find one.=C2 Probably didn't search far enough. I'm building an Excalibur. There doesn't appear to be any place on top for a VHF antenna, so I'm putting it on the bottom, under the front seat.=C2 The Excalibur has short legs, so I'm using the 90 degree antenna from ACS.=C2 The question is - where should this antenna be positioned on the relatively small ground plane - with the connection in the center of the ground plane, or with the connection near the front of the ground plane so the majority of the trailing antenna is directly under the ground plane? Thanks very much for any help/advice. Center the ground plane . . . Antenna 'hardware' at the base has the lion's share of antenna CURRENT which is the stuff of radiation. It's effectiveness is enhanced by low resistance, central location in the ground plane. Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Nov 11, 2018
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com>
Subject: Antenna position
>I'm building an Excalibur. There doesn't appear >to be any place on top for a VHF antenna, so I'm >putting it on the bottom, under the front >seat.=C2 The Excalibur has short legs, so I'm >using the 90 degree antenna from ACS.=C2 The >question is - where should this antenna be >positioned on the relatively small ground plane >- with the connection in the center of the >ground plane, or with the connection near the >front of the ground plane so the majority of the >trailing antenna is directly under the ground plane? Is that fabric over steel-tube? What is the nature of your 'ground' plane. Is it off center between the keel and first outboard stringer? Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Rick Beebe <rick(at)beebe.org>
Subject: Pin curious
Date: Nov 11, 2018
I'm wiring up a CAN Bus for a Garmin G3X system the Garmin-recommended way by soldering a short pigtail to the two CAN HI wires and another to the two CAN LO wires as they pass by a device. It got me curious about pins. Are the machined, 4-crimp pins really that superior to the stamped sheet metal ones? I could easily crimp both wires into one of the latter and save a ton of time. It's an academic question as I'm already well down the road to getting this all soldered up, but I'm curious. --Rick ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Nov 12, 2018
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com>
Subject: Re: Pin curious
At 10:32 PM 11/11/2018, you wrote: >I'm wiring up a CAN Bus for a Garmin G3X system the >Garmin-recommended way by soldering a short pigtail to the two CAN >HI wires and another to the two CAN LO wires as they pass by a >device. It got me curious about pins. Are the machined, 4-crimp pins >really that superior to the stamped sheet metal ones? 'that superior' isn't quantified. I don't think any open barrel d-sub pins have made it to a 'qualified products list' for military procurement. At the same time, millions of miles of wiring in all manner of over-the-road vehicles has been terminated in open-barrel pins for decades. I don't think you'll find a machined pin called out in any vehicle's bill of materials. The bottom line for BOTH technologies is driven by tooling and craftsmanship. Applied with adequate tools and skill, the two technologies are essentially interchangeable. Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Antenna position
From: Bill Steer <steerr(at)bellsouth.net>
Date: Nov 12, 2018
It's fabric over aluminum tube. The ground plane is a sheet of 0.032" aluminum, 17" x 17". On 11/11/2018 10:04 PM, Robert L. Nuckolls, III wrote: >> >> I'm building an Excalibur. There doesn't appear to be any place >> on top for a VHF antenna, so I'm putting it on the bottom, under >> the front seat. The Excalibur has short legs, so I'm using the >> 90 degree antenna from ACS. The question is - where should this >> antenna be positioned on the relatively small ground plane - with >> the connection in the center of the ground plane, or with the >> connection near the front of the ground plane so the majority of >> the trailing antenna is directly under the ground plane? >> > > Is that fabric over steel-tube? What is the > nature of your 'ground' plane. Is it off center > between the keel and first outboard stringer? > > > Bob . . . > --- This email has been checked for viruses by AVG. https://www.avg.com ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Nov 12, 2018
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com>
Subject: Re: Antenna position
At 07:50 AM 11/12/2018, you wrote: >Oh, and it's centered between the lower stringers. Okay, you'll need to beef it up structurally. Given the flexibility of the .032 I think I'd add a doubler of .062 and 6 x 6 or more. You could bond it to the .032 with something like E6000. It only needs to have electrical integrity to the .032 in proximity to the area under the antenna mounting. Is the antenna a one-holer or flanged base? Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Antenna position
From: Bill Steer <steerr(at)bellsouth.net>
Date: Nov 12, 2018
The antenna is a one-holer, Bob. Bill On 11/12/2018 10:47 AM, Robert L. Nuckolls, III wrote: > At 07:50 AM 11/12/2018, you wrote: > >> Oh, and it's centered between the lower stringers. > > Okay, you'll need to beef it up structurally. Given > the flexibility of the .032 I think I'd add a doubler > of .062 and 6 x 6 or more. > > You could bond it to the .032 with something > like E6000. It only needs to have electrical > integrity to the .032 in proximity to the > area under the antenna mounting. Is the antenna > a one-holer or flanged base? > > > Bob . . . > --- This email has been checked for viruses by AVG. https://www.avg.com ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Nov 13, 2018
From: Matt Dralle <dralle(at)matronics.com>
Subject: Just A Few Days Left...
Dear Listers, There are just a few days left for this year's List Fund Raiser. If you've been putting off making a Contribution until the last minute, well, this is it! The last minute, that is... :-) There are some GREAT new gift selections to choose from this year. I personally want at least three of them! There's probably something you can't live without too! And, best of all it supports your Lists! Please remember that there isn't any sort of commercial advertising on the Lists and the *only* means of keeping these Lists running is through your Contributions during this Fund Raiser. Please make a Contribution today! http://www.matronics.com/contribution Or, drop a personal check in the mail to: Matt Dralle / Matronics 581 Jeannie Way Livermore CA 94550 Thank you! Matt Dralle Matronics Email List Administrator ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Nov 13, 2018
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com>
Subject: Re: Antenna position
At 03:42 PM 11/12/2018, you wrote: >The antenna is a one-holer, Bob. > >Bill 'one holers' tend to put stronger flexing moments at the mounting surface . . . but this isn't a 200 mph airplane either. have you gathered any lessons-learned from the Excalibur community? I've often pondered the notion of trying a 'rubber duck' antenna off a hand-held for applications like this. I suspect the range will not be seriously compromised while mechanical stresses at the base would be minimized. Mechanical and electrical attachment would be achieved with a feed-thru connector Emacs! Hmmm . . . just some random thoughts early in the morning . . . might find a hole in the logic after a few more cups of coffee! Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Charlie England <ceengland7(at)gmail.com>
Date: Nov 13, 2018
Subject: Cheap bench supply?
Anyone have experience with the recent ebay offerings for cheap lab supplies? Example below. I tried searching my old AEC emails, but the most recent reference I found was for a much more expensive model. It'll get minimal use; just final checkout of my project's wiring and then rare uses after that, so don't want to spend $hundreds. 0-30v/0-10a bench supply Thanks, Charlie ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Nov 13, 2018
From: Ernest Christley <echristley(at)att.net>
Subject: Re: Cheap bench supply?
Looks very much like the onei bought from mpja.com. mine works perfectly. Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android On Tue, Nov 13, 2018 at 5:56 PM, Charlie England wr ote: Anyone have experience with the recent ebay offerings for cheap lab supplies? Example below. I tried searching my old AEC emails, but the most recent reference I found was for a much more expensive model. It'll get min imal use; just final checkout of my project's wiring and then rare uses aft er that, so don't want to spend $hundreds.=C2-0-30v/0-10a bench supply Thanks, Charlie ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Charlie England <ceengland7(at)gmail.com>
Date: Nov 13, 2018
Subject: Re: Cheap bench supply?
Thanks, Ernest. Anyone else? On Tue, Nov 13, 2018 at 5:18 PM Ernest Christley wrote: > Looks very much like the onei bought from mpja.com. mine works perfectly. > > Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android > > > On Tue, Nov 13, 2018 at 5:56 PM, Charlie England > wrote: > Anyone have experience with the recent ebay offerings for cheap lab > supplies? Example below. I tried searching my old AEC emails, but the most > recent reference I found was for a much more expensive model. It'll get > minimal use; just final checkout of my project's wiring and then rare uses > after that, so don't want to spend $hundreds. > 0-30v/0-10a bench supply > > > Thanks, > > Charlie > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Brian Lester <brian.lester(at)gmail.com>
Date: Nov 13, 2018
Subject: Re: Cheap bench supply?
A bit more expensive but I got this from amazon. DC Power Supply Variable,0-30 V / 0-10 A Eventek KPS3010D Adjustable Switching Regulated Power Supply Digital https://www.amazon.com/dp/B073TW8H2S/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_api_qY16BbT9P9Y2P But honestly the stuff on eBay looks about the same at a better price. -Brian On Tue, Nov 13, 2018 at 6:44 PM Charlie England wrote: > Thanks, Ernest. Anyone else? > > On Tue, Nov 13, 2018 at 5:18 PM Ernest Christley > wrote: > >> Looks very much like the onei bought from mpja.com. mine works perfectly. >> >> Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android >> >> >> On Tue, Nov 13, 2018 at 5:56 PM, Charlie England >> wrote: >> Anyone have experience with the recent ebay offerings for cheap lab >> supplies? Example below. I tried searching my old AEC emails, but the most >> recent reference I found was for a much more expensive model. It'll get >> minimal use; just final checkout of my project's wiring and then rare uses >> after that, so don't want to spend $hundreds. >> 0-30v/0-10a bench supply >> >> >> Thanks, >> >> Charlie >> >> ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Cheap bench supply?
From: "Eric Page" <edpav8r(at)yahoo.com>
Date: Nov 13, 2018
Charlie, Ive had a 0-60V 5A unit very similar to that one for several years. The electrolytic on its output once sizzled and smoked, but was easy to replace with a good Rubycon. You can expect any of the Chinese PSUs to have dubious caps from brands youve never heard of (CapXon, anyone?). The adjustment pots arent from the ALPS catalog, so its not what Id call a precision instrument, but if youre not designing medical devices, itll probably get the job done, cheaply. Eric Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=484991#484991 ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Richard Girard <aslsa.rng(at)gmail.com>
Date: Nov 13, 2018
Subject: Re: Cheap bench supply?
Charlie, this is the one I bought on Amazon. . https://www.amazon.com/Dr-meter-Single-Output-Switchable-Alligator-included /dp/B07D4FQ4CP/ref=sr_1_17?ie=UTF8&qid=1542159852&sr=8-17&keywords =bench+power+supply Rick Girard On Tue, Nov 13, 2018 at 6:29 PM Brian Lester wrote : > A bit more expensive but I got this from amazon. DC Power Supply > Variable,0-30 V / 0-10 A Eventek KPS3010D Adjustable Switching Regulated > Power Supply Digital > https://www.amazon.com/dp/B073TW8H2S/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_api_qY16BbT9P9Y2P > > But honestly the stuff on eBay looks about the same at a better price. > -Brian > On Tue, Nov 13, 2018 at 6:44 PM Charlie England > wrote: > >> Thanks, Ernest. Anyone else? >> >> On Tue, Nov 13, 2018 at 5:18 PM Ernest Christley >> wrote: >> >>> Looks very much like the onei bought from mpja.com. mine works >>> perfectly. >>> >>> Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android >>> >>> >>> On Tue, Nov 13, 2018 at 5:56 PM, Charlie England >>> wrote: >>> Anyone have experience with the recent ebay offerings for cheap lab >>> supplies? Example below. I tried searching my old AEC emails, but the m ost >>> recent reference I found was for a much more expensive model. It'll get >>> minimal use; just final checkout of my project's wiring and then rare u ses >>> after that, so don't want to spend $hundreds. >>> 0-30v/0-10a bench supply >>> >>> >>> Thanks, >>> >>> Charlie >>> >>> -- =9CBlessed are the cracked, for they shall let in the light.=9D Groucho Marx <http://www.goodreads.com/author/show/43244.Groucho_Marx> ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Nov 13, 2018
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com>
Subject: Re: Cheap bench supply?
At 04:54 PM 11/13/2018, you wrote: >Anyone have experience with the recent ebay >offerings for cheap lab supplies? Example below. >I tried searching my old AEC emails, but the >most recent reference I found was for a much >more expensive model. It'll get minimal use; >just final checkout of my project's wiring and >then rare uses after that, so don't want to spend $hundreds.=C2 >0-30v/0-10a >bench supply That one is an excellent value. I paid 3x that for a 0-30, 3A supply 15 years ago. Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Cheap bench supply?
From: Charlie England <ceengland7(at)gmail.com>
Date: Nov 13, 2018
Thanks, to Richard, Earnest and Bob. Looks like I need to go ahead & pull the trigger. I'll report when it comes in. Charlie On 11/13/2018 7:47 PM, Richard Girard wrote: > Charlie, this is the one I bought on Amazon. . > > https://www.amazon.com/Dr-meter-Single-Output-Switchable-Alligator-included/dp/B07D4FQ4CP/ref=sr_1_17?ie=UTF8&qid=1542159852&sr=8-17&keywords=bench+power+supply > > Rick Girard > > On Tue, Nov 13, 2018 at 6:29 PM Brian Lester > wrote: > > A bit more expensive but I got this from amazon. DC Power Supply > Variable,0-30 V / 0-10 A Eventek KPS3010D Adjustable Switching > Regulated Power Supply Digital > https://www.amazon.com/dp/B073TW8H2S/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_api_qY16BbT9P9Y2P > > But honestly the stuff on eBay looks about the same at a better > price. > -Brian > On Tue, Nov 13, 2018 at 6:44 PM Charlie England > > wrote: > > Thanks, Ernest. Anyone else? > > On Tue, Nov 13, 2018 at 5:18 PM Ernest Christley > > wrote: > > Looks very much like the onei bought from mpja.com > <http://mpja.com>. mine works perfectly. > > Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android > > > On Tue, Nov 13, 2018 at 5:56 PM, Charlie England > > > wrote: > Anyone have experience with the recent ebay offerings > for cheap lab supplies? Example below. I tried > searching my old AEC emails, but the most recent > reference I found was for a much more expensive model. > It'll get minimal use; just final checkout of my > project's wiring and then rare uses after that, so > don't want to spend $hundreds. > 0-30v/0-10a bench supply > > > Thanks, > > Charlie > > > -- > > > Blessed are the cracked, for they shall let in the light. Groucho > Marx <http://www.goodreads.com/author/show/43244.Groucho_Marx> > > --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: For Sale [10 Pieces] Apple iPhone XR New 128GB $3,990CAD
From: "eaartphrni" <eaartphrni(at)esellibuy.com>
Date: Nov 14, 2018
Available to buy on our website www . esellibuy.com Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=484999#484999 ________________________________________________________________________________
From: John Tipton <john(at)tiptonuk.eu>
Date: Nov 14, 2018
Subject: Re: Cheap bench supply?
What=99s wrong with a =98cb=99 type radio power supply, 13 .8 volts, 3-5 amps, why do you need something giving variable volts/amps, ar e you really going to test your expensive electronics by playing around with varying these outputs =94- John Sent from my iPad ----x--O--x---- > On 14 Nov 2018, at 3:11 am, Charlie England wrote: > > Thanks, to Richard, Earnest and Bob. Looks like I need to go ahead & pull t he trigger. I'll report when it comes in. > > Charlie > >> On 11/13/2018 7:47 PM, Richard Girard wrote: >> Charlie, this is the one I bought on Amazon. . >> >> https://www.amazon.com/Dr-meter-Single-Output-Switchable-Alligator-includ ed/dp/B07D4FQ4CP/ref=sr_1_17?ie=UTF8&qid=1542159852&sr=8-17&keywords =bench+power+supply >> >> Rick Girard >> >>> On Tue, Nov 13, 2018 at 6:29 PM Brian Lester wr ote: >>> A bit more expensive but I got this from amazon. DC Power Supply Variabl e,0-30 V / 0-10 A Eventek KPS3010D Adjustable Switching Regulated Power Supp ly Digital >>> https://www.amazon.com/dp/B073TW8H2S/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_api_qY16BbT9P9Y2P >>> >>> But honestly the stuff on eBay looks about the same at a better price. >>> -Brian >>>> On Tue, Nov 13, 2018 at 6:44 PM Charlie England w rote: >>>> Thanks, Ernest. Anyone else? >>>> >>>>> On Tue, Nov 13, 2018 at 5:18 PM Ernest Christley w rote: >>>>> Looks very much like the onei bought from mpja.com. mine works perfect ly. >>>>> >>>>> Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android >>>>> >>>>> On Tue, Nov 13, 2018 at 5:56 PM, Charlie England >>>>> wrote: >>>>> Anyone have experience with the recent ebay offerings for cheap lab su pplies? Example below. I tried searching my old AEC emails, but the most rec ent reference I found was for a much more expensive model. It'll get minimal use; just final checkout of my project's wiring and then rare uses after th at, so don't want to spend $hundreds. >>>>> 0-30v/0-10a bench supply >>>>> >>>>> Thanks, >>>>> >>>>> Charlie >> >> >> -- >> =9CBlessed are the cracked, for they shall let in the light.=9D Groucho Marx >> >> > > > Virus-free. www.avast.com ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Nov 14, 2018
From: Ernest Christley <echristley(at)att.net>
Subject: Re: Cheap bench supply?
Several reasons, John. 1) Powering avionics will not be the only reason I ever need a power supply .=C2- I've used the one I bought for several other electronics projects t hat required different voltages. 2) You can ramp down the voltage to see where a particular instrument stops working.=C2- Useful for planning alternator out situations. 3) The ability to limit current allows you to safely test "experimental" el ectronics.=C2- Apply voltage at 1/2 an amp will let you test a circuit th at may have=C2- a short. onuk.eu> wrote: What=99s wrong with a =98cb=99 type radio power supply, 13.8 volts, 3-5 amps, why do you need something giving variable volts/amps, are you really going to test your expensive electronics by playing around with varying these outputs =94- John Sent from my iPad =C2- =C2- =C2-----x--O--x---- On 14 Nov 2018, at 3:11 am, Charlie England wrote: Thanks, to Richard, Earnest and Bob. Looks like I need to go ahead & pull t he trigger. I'll report when it comes in. Charlie On 11/13/2018 7:47 PM, Richard Girard wrote: Charlie, this is the one I bought on Amazon. .=C2- https://www.amazon.com/Dr-meter-Single-Output-Switchable-Alligator-includ ed/dp/B07D4FQ4CP/ref=sr_1_17?ie=UTF8&qid=1542159852&sr=8-17&keyword s=bench+power+supply Rick Girard On Tue, Nov 13, 2018 at 6:29 PM Brian Lester wro te: A bit more expensive but I got this from amazon. DC Power Supply Variable,0 -30 V / 0-10 A Eventek KPS3010D Adjustable Switching Regulated Power Supply Digital https://www.amazon.com/dp/B073TW8H2S/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_api_qY16BbT9P9Y2P But honestly the stuff on eBay looks about the same at a better price. -Brian On Tue, Nov 13, 2018 at 6:44 PM Charlie England wr ote: Thanks, Ernest. Anyone else? On Tue, Nov 13, 2018 at 5:18 PM Ernest Christley wro te: Looks very much like the onei bought from mpja.com. mine works perfectly. Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android On Tue, Nov 13, 2018 at 5:56 PM, Charlie England w rote: Anyone have experience with the recent ebay offerings for cheap l ab supplies? Example below. I tried searching my old AEC emails, but the mo st recent reference I found was for a much more expensive model. It'll get minimal use; just final checkout of my project's wiring and then rare uses after that, so don't want to spend $hundreds.=C2- 0-30v/0-10a bench supp ly Thanks, Charlie -- =9CBlessed are the cracked, for they shall let in the light.=9D =C2-=C2-Groucho Marx | | Virus-free. www.avast.com | ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Cheap bench supply?
From: Charlie England <ceengland7(at)gmail.com>
Date: Nov 14, 2018
Bingo=2E Ability to adjust voltage and limit current can minimize damage if somethings not right=2E Biggest exception is 'switcher' power supplies; th ey are trickier to test that way=2E =81=A3Charlie=8B On Nov 14, 2018, 8:24 AM, at 8:24 AM, Ernest Christley wrote: > Several reasons, John=2E >1) Powering avionics will not be the only reason I ever need a power >supply=2E=C2- I've used the one I bought for severa l other electronics >projects that required different voltages=2E >2) You c an ramp down the voltage to see where a particular instrument >stops workin g=2E=C2- Useful for planning alternator out situations=2E >3) The ability to limit current allows you to safely test >"experimental" electronics=2E =C2- Apply voltage at 1/2 an amp will let you >test a circuit that may ha ve=C2- a short=2E > n Tipton > wrote: > >What=99s wrong with a =98cb=99 type radio power supply, 13=2E8 volts, 3-5 amps, >why do you need something giving variable volts/amps, are you really >going to tes


October 14, 2018 - November 14, 2018

AeroElectric-Archive.digest.vol-oq