AeroElectric-Archive.digest.vol-pl
June 07, 2020 - June 30, 2020
declare an emergency.
This scenario first assumes TWO critical failures
during the consumption of one tank of fuel . . .
about 3-4 hour window. Part 23 certs don't
get concerned with dual failures at all.
Part 25 and heavier will wade into the reliability
quagmire with mountains of computer generated probability
studies that get 'worked' on until somebody
finally sprinkles the holy water and off they
go.
Ask Capt. Sullivan what he thinks about
reliability studies . . .
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HKJ1lIh2Cgk
So we're left to our own devices which in reality
are not so bad.
The short answer is: A diligently maintained
battery is the most reliable source of energy
on the airplane. Replacing it when ability
to store energy drops below some benchmark
(generally 75 to 80% of new) means that it
always cranks the engine and will provide a
quantified option for dealing with alternator
failure. Two batteries just doubles your
preventative maintenance labor. Further,
you need to decide if plan-b can reliably
depend on the sum total of energy in two
batteries . . . or will they be sized to
independently step up to the task? The
second option calls for 2X the battery
weight and volume; the first option complicates
calculations and switching operations for
carrying out a plan-b that shouldn't ever
happen. BOTH options still demand good
preventative maintenance.
Just as you KNOW fuel aboard when you launch,
you also need to know Watt-Hours aboard
no matter how many batteries you're carrying.
If you have TWO properly maintained batteries,
in all likelihood, you'll be carrying around
$twice$ the hardware with virtually no value
added to the ship's overall reliability.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: digest distribution stopped? |
| From: | "BobD" <rjdawson14(at)gmail.com> |
farmrjohn wrote:
> Has the digest distribution stopped? I haven't received one for some time now.
This happened to me a couple if times over the years. It turns out the Servers
that the Matronics list uses are a bit finicky about the other e-mail Servers
they will talk to, and the solution was to change the e-mail address you use.
Since I changed mine to a gmail.com address, I've not had a problem.
Hope it works for you.
--------
Bob Dawson
Europa XS TG || 912 ULS || G-NHRJ || Dynon Skyview || PilotAware || SmartAss3
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=496673#496673
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Rowland Carson <rowlandcarson(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: DIY replacement for Rotax voltage regulator |
On 2020-06-08, at 01:25, GTH wrote:
> Thanks for your offer.
>
> I was able to open the files with a free version of Eagle I downloaded
last week, and converted them to gerber files that can be read by any
CAD program - and any vendor for that matter.
> But I'm not at all familiar with Eagle so I'm not sure I did it right.
> So if you or anyone can provide verified gerber files I'd willingly
publish them so one can directly order from a PCB vendor.
Gilles - I have sent to Bob the (several) files that kind folk converted
for me to be readable by the current version of EAGLE for Mac. I expect
he will announce when they are loaded alongside the other files for the
Miller regulator.
I=99ve had a look at the export possibilities provided by my
version of EAGLE (9.6.1) and the file format possibilities do not
include Gerber - see attached screenshot. Maybe someone can say if one
of the options shown would be more universal than a .BRD file. Or once
the .BRD files are put up by Bob, folk can play with them and try
translating to Gerber.
in friendship
Rowland
| Rowland Carson ... that's Rowland with a 'w' ...
| http://www.rowlandcarson.org.uk
| Skype, Twitter: rowland_carson Facebook: Rowland Carson
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | John M Tipton <john(at)tipton.me.uk> |
| Subject: | Re: digest distribution stopped? |
Most if my AeroElectric emails go to the junk folder, have you checked there
John
Sent from my iPad
----x--O--x----
> On 8 Jun 2020, at 8:06 am, BobD wrote:
>
>
>
> farmrjohn wrote:
>> Has the digest distribution stopped? I haven't received one for some time now.
>
>
> This happened to me a couple if times over the years. It turns out the Servers
that the Matronics list uses are a bit finicky about the other e-mail Servers
they will talk to, and the solution was to change the e-mail address you use.
Since I changed mine to a gmail.com address, I've not had a problem.
>
> Hope it works for you.
>
> --------
> Bob Dawson
> Europa XS TG || 912 ULS || G-NHRJ || Dynon Skyview || PilotAware || SmartAss3
>
>
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=496673#496673
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: DIY replacement for Rotax voltage regulator |
| From: | GTH <gilles.thesee(at)free.fr> |
/Le 08/06/2020 13:04, Rowland Carson a crit:
/
> /
> /
> /
> /
> /Ive had a look at the export possibilities provided by my version of
> EAGLE (9.6.1) and the file format possibilities do not include Gerber
> - see attached screenshot. Maybe someone can say if one of the options
> shown would be more universal than a .BRD file. Or once the .BRD files
> are put up by Bob, folk can play with them and try translating to Gerber./
Hi Rowland,
Thanks for that.
If I recall correctly I tried the CAM option(s) to generate the gerber
and .drl files.
Will post them on the webpage for anyone to download.
--
Best regards,
Gilles
http://contrails.free.fr
http://lapierre.skunkworks.free.fr
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Physical construction of Z101 engine bus & battery |
bus
At 09:20 PM 6/7/2020, you wrote:
>SDSEFI recommends 2 alternators and a battery. If you have a single
>battery and alternator they recommend an additional battery that is
>only connected to the ENG BUS for an emergency. The recommended
>procedure is to charge that battery on the 1st of the month and load
>test yearly.
Not a particularly definitive battery management
philosophy. "Charging once a month" whether needed
or not? "Load test" is not specific . . . what kind
of load and for discovery of what condition? Internal
impedance (cranking) or capacity (endurance)?
How would that knowledge augment the pilot's
prospects for dealing competently with an alternator
failure?
How would these batteries be selected and configured
in the architecture? What would the plan-b checklist
look like? Recall that the ultimate goal for crafting
a failure tolerant architecture is to prevent any
single failure from becoming an emergency.
That goal cannot be realized without first knowing the
ENERGY requirements for the TOTAL constellation
of hardware necessary to conduct a comfortable termination
of flight within some ENDURANCE value determined by
the BUILDER . . . not by some 'authority from afar'
who will never ride in the airplane.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Ken Ryan <keninalaska(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Physical construction of Z101 engine bus & battery |
bus
Bob, you said:
"If you have TWO properly maintained batteries,
in all likelihood, you'll be carrying around
$twice$ the hardware with virtually no value
added to the ship's overall reliability."
Help me understand why the following statement is not correct:
If you have TWO properly maintained alternators,
plus a battery (sized for minimum endurance requirements)
in all likelihood, you'll be carrying around
$twice$ the hardware with virtually no value
added to the ship's overall reliability.
Ken
On Sun, Jun 7, 2020 at 6:56 PM Robert L. Nuckolls, III <
nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> wrote:
> At 05:26 PM 6/7/2020, you wrote:
>
> I am not speaking to any engine manufacturers recommendation (although th
e
> Honda Viking manufacturer does recommend two batteries. I just thought
> I was applying logic -- if dual alternator=C3=82 + battery (triple power
source)
> is desirable for electrically=C3=82 dependent engines, wouldn't that reas
oning
> imply that if the second alternator is not practical, a second battery
> could be used as the third power source? I could ask you a similar
> question:
> Are not two independent power sources (battery and alternator) sufficient
> to meet the needs of the electrically=C3=82 dependent engine. Obviously y
ou
> saw value in adding the second alternator. Why no value in adding the
> second battery?
>
>
> Excellent question.
>
> It's a problem in energy budgets combined with
> efforts to assure continued airworthiness.
>
> The airplane cannot do without a battery if
> you're going to have a starter. Depending on
> your planned mission profiles, you will want
> to size the battery (1) for cranking then
> (2) minimum endurance in alternator-out modes.
>
> This study gave impetus for the creation of
> the endurance bus . . . a fast and predictable
> way to economically tap known quantity of energy
> stored in the battery's chemistry.
>
> Z13/8 was a small but significant amplification
> of that idea . . . the second alternator's endurance
> had no practical limits. Hence, energy on the chemistry
> just might be held completely in reserve for
> descent and approach to landing.
>
> Z13/20 (and the aux alternator option on
> Z101) expanded the Z13/8 endurance opportunity
> by a factor of 2.5 or better.
>
> Okay, suppose the drive pad isn't available.
> We are still charged with identifying and the
> delivering to energy required to comfortably
> terminate a worst-case mission.
>
> This means that as a part of routine maintenance
> the ship's chemistry needs to be monitored for
> capability. We could certainly store that energy
> on TWO devices but to what advantage? If we're laboring
> under the notion that a battery can suddenly become
> unavailable during one tank of gas, then we have
> to assume that EITHER battery can roll over and
> die . . . okay, how would that failure be
> annunciated . . . how would remaining energy be
> managed . . . ?
>
> I think that's the scenario anticipated by the
> folks that crafted that battery manager with a
> full-wave rectifier that -anded- two, completely
> isolated batteries together. Assume the alternator
> has quit and some time later one battery
> craps out. How does the pilot become aware of the
> problem and what kind of energy juggling issues
> are presented when the available energy drops
> to half? This assuming he really knows that the
> two batteries were performing equally and has
> recently quantified their condition, he now
> has to come up with a new "plan C?" and perhaps
> declare an emergency.
>
> This scenario first assumes TWO critical failures
> during the consumption of one tank of fuel . . .
> about 3-4 hour window. Part 23 certs don't
> get concerned with dual failures at all.
> Part 25 and heavier will wade into the reliability
> quagmire with mountains of computer generated probability
> studies that get 'worked' on until somebody
> finally sprinkles the holy water and off they
> go.
>
> Ask Capt. Sullivan what he thinks about
> reliability studies . . .
>
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HKJ1lIh2Cgk
>
> So we're left to our own devices which in reality
> are not so bad.
>
> The short answer is: A diligently maintained
> battery is the most reliable source of energy
> on the airplane. Replacing it when ability
> to store energy drops below some benchmark
> (generally 75 to 80% of new) means that it
> always cranks the engine and will provide a
> quantified option for dealing with alternator
> failure. Two batteries just doubles your
> preventative maintenance labor. Further,
> you need to decide if plan-b can reliably
> depend on the sum total of energy in two
> batteries . . . or will they be sized to
> independently step up to the task? The
> second option calls for 2X the battery
> weight and volume; the first option complicates
> calculations and switching operations for
> carrying out a plan-b that shouldn't ever
> happen. BOTH options still demand good
> preventative maintenance.
>
> Just as you KNOW fuel aboard when you launch,
> you also need to know Watt-Hours aboard
> no matter how many batteries you're carrying.
>
> If you have TWO properly maintained batteries,
> in all likelihood, you'll be carrying around
> $twice$ the hardware with virtually no value
> added to the ship's overall reliability.
>
> Bob . . .
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: digest distribution stopped? |
| From: | "farmrjohn" <faithvineyard(at)yahoo.com> |
I've checked the junk folder, nothing there. I re-subscribed and got a confirmation
email from Matronics, but no digest yet. Will continue watching both inbox
and junk folder.
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=496680#496680
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Foghorn Inc <foghorn757(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Physical construction of Z101 engine bus & |
battery bus
Bob,
Here is what the SDS EFI manual suggest. I didn=99t hit every
point in my email to the group. I personally have the 2 ALT/1 BATT
option.
Backup Electrical Power Considerations
Electrical power is necessary to keep the ECU, fuel pump, coils and
injectors running so it=99s important to think about having a
backup power source available. In the case of Lycoming engines, a small
backup alternator like the B&C SD8, SD20 or BC410-H SD can be fitted to
a vacuum pump pad. On other engines, a small second alternator could be
fitted.
If you don=99t have a second alternator, you should have a small
backup battery. Sizing would depend on your typical/ maximum distance
between airports. Current draw of the pump, ECU, injectors and coils
would be around 12 to 14 amps. A 12 amp/hour battery should give you a
solid 30-40 minutes of flight time, just running the engine electrics.
An 18 amp/hour one, around 1 hour. We want to be able to sustain at
least 10 volts to the electrics.
We=99ve found the most reliable, simple and light way to get
backup battery power to the engine electrics is a single 12 to 14 gauge
wire running from the backup battery, through a 30 amp ATO fuse, to a
heavy duty switch, to an emergency buss where all the engine electrics
can receive power. Simply charge the backup battery every 30 days and
load test annually.
If you have the recommended check engine light fitted, it will warn you
any time the battery voltage falls below 12.5V. You can monitor battery
voltage in Gauge 3 mode.
Jeff Parker
> On 8Jun, 2020, at 11:18, Robert L. Nuckolls, III
wrote:
>
> At 09:20 PM 6/7/2020, you wrote:
>> SDSEFI recommends 2 alternators and a battery. If you have a single
battery and alternator they recommend an additional battery that is only
connected to the ENG BUS for an emergency. The recommended procedure is
to charge that battery on the 1st of the month and load test yearly.
>
> Not a particularly definitive battery management
> philosophy. "Charging once a month" whether needed
> or not? "Load test" is not specific . . . what kind
> of load and for discovery of what condition? Internal
> impedance (cranking) or capacity (endurance)?
> How would that knowledge augment the pilot's
> prospects for dealing competently with an alternator
> failure?
>
> How would these batteries be selected and configured
> in the architecture? What would the plan-b checklist
> look like? Recall that the ultimate goal for crafting
> a failure tolerant architecture is to prevent any
> single failure from becoming an emergency.
>
> That goal cannot be realized without first knowing the
> ENERGY requirements for the TOTAL constellation
> of hardware necessary to conduct a comfortable termination
> of flight within some ENDURANCE value determined by
> the BUILDER . . . not by some 'authority from afar'
> who will never ride in the airplane.
>
> Bob . . .
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Jeff Luckey <jluckey(at)pacbell.net> |
| Subject: | Exploring a Different Way to Wire Avionics |
Background:
Traditionally, all the inter-connections among avionics devices have been m
ade via a carefully made custom-built wiring harness.=C2-=C2-
Most avionics use DB-9/DB-25 connectors and the custom wire harness approac
h comes down to connecting pin #1 on device A to pin #7 on device B and pin
#2 of device A to pin #12 on device B, etc, etc.=C2- All this inter-conn
ection is done in the harness.
I see some downside to this approach:
1. Makes the harness more difficult to fabricate2. Possibly embeds splices
in the harness3. Makes trouble shooting more difficult4. Makes subsequent m
ods, updates, equipment upgrades more difficult
Different Way?
Create essentially a fancy junction box that has a bunch of DB-9 & DB-25 co
nnectors, one for each device and connects directly to each device.=C2- T
hen in this j-box, make all of the device A pin 1 to device B pin 7 inter-c
onnections.=C2- This could all be soldered.=C2- It might make pin-shari
ng/splicing easier.
I'm aware that Advanced Flight Systems has a product that does something li
ke this.=C2- I wonder how their inter-connection scheme works because of
the multitude of interconnection possibilities with different avionics devi
ces.=C2- It seems like all of the combinations/permutations would be diff
icult to manage on a circuit board.
Some advantages to this approach:
1. Harnesses are much simpler2. All of the "intelligence" is in this j-box/
switch-board which might make mods less labor intensive
Some disadvantages:1. Requires more connectors to get the job done2. Adds a
nother component (weight?)
Any thoughts pro or con are greatly appreciated,
-Jeff
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | William Daniell <wdaniell.longport(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | Z16 and three position switch |
Some of you will remember that I had two switches one for bat and one for
ALT on my Z16 because I couldn't obtain a 3 position switch in Colombia
where I built my Europa. I always operated the switches BAT only only and
Bat ON/ALT ON but never BAT off ALT on.
I also reported that every so often the amp reading on my dynon skyview
would rise steadily up and off the chart at which point the red X would
appear. Subsequently the amp reading would reappear and would fall from 72
down to normal (7-10 depending on the load) and remain steady thereafter.
Volts remain stable at 13.8 throughout the rise and fall of the amps.
The Skyview is stock using the Dynon Shunt and the Z16 is stock apart from
the two switches.
I have a Hall Effect sensor with a separate display on the + wire to the
battery and this remains within what one would expect 4-5A after start up
and then falling to low Amp once the battery has recharged.
In the light of this and the absence of exciting sparks and smoke during
the last 200 hours I therefore assumed that this must be some sort of Dynon
glitch.
I had on my list of things to do to check on the Amp reading by an
independent instrument.
So here is the question: I have now installed the 3 position switch
recommended by Bob instead of the two separate switches and the problem has
not recurred. Any thoughts?
William Daniell
LONGPORT
+1 786 878 0246
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Physical construction of Z101 engine bus & battery |
bus
| From: | "user9253" <fransew(at)gmail.com> |
The amount of redundancy desired all depends.
Will the aircraft be flying long distances over hostile terrain or water?
Will the aircraft be flying IFR or at night?
Is the engine dependent on electrical power?
Is the pilot willing to carry extra weight to avoid repairs on long cross countries?
The important thing is to design an electrical system that does not have
unexpected failure modes and that is resistant to pilot error.
--------
Joe Gores
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=496686#496686
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | James Quinn <jquinn3(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Exploring a Different Way to Wire Avionics |
Approach Fast Stack has been doing this for years - buy a "Hub" and then a
purpose build cable for each device.
On Mon, Jun 8, 2020 at 12:48 PM Jeff Luckey wrote:
> *Background:*
>
> Traditionally, all the inter-connections among avionics devices have been
> made via a carefully made custom-built wiring harness.
>
> Most avionics use DB-9/DB-25 connectors and the custom wire harness
> approach comes down to connecting pin #1 on device A to pin #7 on device B
> and pin #2 of device A to pin #12 on device B, etc, etc. All this
> inter-connection is done in the harness.
>
> I see some downside to this approach:
>
> 1. Makes the harness more difficult to fabricate
> 2. Possibly embeds splices in the harness
> 3. Makes trouble shooting more difficult
> 4. Makes subsequent mods, updates, equipment upgrades more difficult
>
>
> *Different Way?*
>
> Create essentially a fancy junction box that has a bunch of DB-9 & DB-25
> connectors, one for each device and connects directly to each device. Then
> in this j-box, make all of the device A pin 1 to device B pin 7
> inter-connections. This could all be soldered. It might make
> pin-sharing/splicing easier.
>
> I'm aware that Advanced Flight Systems has a product that does something
> like this. I wonder how their inter-connection scheme works because of the
> multitude of interconnection possibilities with different avionics
> devices. It seems like all of the combinations/permutations would be
> difficult to manage on a circuit board.
>
> Some advantages to this approach:
>
> 1. Harnesses are much simpler
> 2. All of the "intelligence" is in this j-box/switch-board which might
> make mods less labor intensive
>
> Some disadvantages:
> 1. Requires more connectors to get the job done
> 2. Adds another component (weight?)
>
>
> Any thoughts pro or con are greatly appreciated,
>
> -Jeff
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Sebastien <cluros(at)gmail.com> |
Anyone need a breaker for their aircraft project? I'm taking a load to the
dump.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Kent or Jackie Ashton <kjashton(at)vnet.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Exploring a Different Way to Wire Avionics |
Jim Weir wrote an article about a simpler(?) way to connect avionics. Personally,
I thought it was about as easy to just develop some skill soldering D-subs
and use the standard stuff. There are a few tricks to soldering them but once
you have learned them, it is pretty easy.
http://www.rstengineering.com/rst/articles/karmic3.pdf
One technique is to strip the wire, apply a bit of solder to the wire end, heat
up the side of the cup on the D-sub and simultaneously insert the wire end.
It is pretty quick with the right iron and solder.
-Kent
> On Jun 8, 2020, at 1:34 PM, Jeff Luckey wrote:
>
> Background:
>
> Traditionally, all the inter-connections among avionics devices have been made
via a carefully made custom-built wiring harness.
>
> Most avionics use DB-9/DB-25 connectors and the custom wire harness approach
comes down to connecting pin #1 on device A to pin #7 on device B and pin #2 of
device A to pin #12 on device B, etc, etc. All this inter-connection is done
in the harness.
>
> I see some downside to this approach:
>
> 1. Makes the harness more difficult to fabricate
> 2. Possibly embeds splices in the harness
> 3. Makes trouble shooting more difficult
> 4. Makes subsequent mods, updates, equipment upgrades more difficult
>
>
> Different Way?
>
> Create essentially a fancy junction box that has a bunch of DB-9 & DB-25 connectors,
one for each device and connects directly to each device. Then in this
j-box, make all of the device A pin 1 to device B pin 7 inter-connections.
This could all be soldered. It might make pin-sharing/splicing easier.
>
> I'm aware that Advanced Flight Systems has a product that does something like
this. I wonder how their inter-connection scheme works because of the multitude
of interconnection possibilities with different avionics devices. It seems
like all of the combinations/permutations would be difficult to manage on a
circuit board.
>
> Some advantages to this approach:
>
> 1. Harnesses are much simpler
> 2. All of the "intelligence" is in this j-box/switch-board which might make mods
less labor intensive
>
> Some disadvantages:
> 1. Requires more connectors to get the job done
> 2. Adds another component (weight?)
>
>
> Any thoughts pro or con are greatly appreciated,
>
> -Jeff
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | David Carter <david(at)carter.net> |
| Subject: | Z101 main alt wiring |
Bob,
Tracing the main alt field circuit from the main bus, I see the following
wire sizes:
- 16 AWG fusible link
- 12 AWG wire to 5A breaker & then to power master switch
- 20 AWG wire to regulator
- 20 AWG wire to alternator field
I don't understand the need for the 12 AWG wire feeding the master, which
has only 20 AWG coming out of it to the load.
Thanks,
David
---
David Carter
david(at)carter.net
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Jeff Luckey <jluckey(at)pacbell.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Exploring a Different Way to Wire Avionics |
James,
Thanks for the reference to Approach Fast Stack.=C2- That pretty much val
idates the concept, doesn't it?
on(at)vnet.net> wrote:
net.net>
Jim Weir wrote an article about a simpler(?) way to connect avionics.=C2-
Personally, I thought it was about as easy to just develop some skill sold
ering D-subs and use the standard stuff.=C2- There are a few tricks to so
ldering them but once you have learned them, it is pretty easy.
http://www.rstengineering.com/rst/articles/karmic3.pdf
One technique is to strip the wire, apply a bit of solder to the wire end,
heat up the side of the cup on the D-sub and simultaneously insert the wire
end.=C2- It is pretty quick with the right iron and solder.
-Kent
> On Jun 8, 2020, at 1:34 PM, Jeff Luckey wrote:
>
> Background:
>
> Traditionally, all the inter-connections among avionics devices have been
made via a carefully made custom-built wiring harness.=C2-
>
> Most avionics use DB-9/DB-25 connectors and the custom wire harness appro
ach comes down to connecting pin #1 on device A to pin #7 on device B and p
in #2 of device A to pin #12 on device B, etc, etc.=C2- All this inter-co
nnection is done in the harness.
>
> I see some downside to this approach:
>
> 1. Makes the harness more difficult to fabricate
> 2. Possibly embeds splices in the harness
> 3. Makes trouble shooting more difficult
> 4. Makes subsequent mods, updates, equipment upgrades more difficult
>
>
> Different Way?
>
> Create essentially a fancy junction box that has a bunch of DB-9 & DB-25
connectors, one for each device and connects directly to each device.=C2-
Then in this j-box, make all of the device A pin 1 to device B pin 7 inter
-connections.=C2- This could all be soldered.=C2- It might make pin-sha
ring/splicing easier.
>
> I'm aware that Advanced Flight Systems has a product that does something
like this.=C2- I wonder how their inter-connection scheme works because o
f the multitude of interconnection possibilities with different avionics de
vices.=C2- It seems like all of the combinations/permutations would be di
fficult to manage on a circuit board.
>
> Some advantages to this approach:
>
> 1. Harnesses are much simpler
> 2. All of the "intelligence" is in this j-box/switch-board which might ma
ke mods less labor intensive
>
> Some disadvantages:
> 1. Requires more connectors to get the job done
> 2. Adds another component (weight?)
>
>
> Any thoughts pro or con are greatly appreciated,
>
> -Jeff
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
-
S -
WIKI -
-
=C2- =C2- =C2- =C2- =C2- -Matt Dralle, List Admin.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Alec Myers <alec(at)alecmyers.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Exploring a Different Way to Wire Avionics |
Not just more connectors. Theres a huge bunch of redundancy to most of the pins
on the back of a GPS or VOR receiver or transceiver; of about 300 pins on the
back of my IFD540 maybe 50 are connected; which 50 depends on what else is in
the system (CDI/OBS or HSI? Autopilot? Second GPS slaved to first?) so either
your standard cables to your patch box are immensely thick and bulky and expensive,
or you have to make up custom cables to the patch box. In which case, you
might as well make up a custom harness.
Honestly, its not difficult or complicated to make a harness; the complicated bit
is working out what pin should connect to what pin, and you have to do that
anyway.
On Jun 8, 2020, at 2:10 PM, James Quinn wrote:
Approach Fast Stack has been doing this for years - buy a "Hub" and then a purpose
build cable for each device.
On Mon, Jun 8, 2020 at 12:48 PM Jeff Luckey wrote:
Background:
Traditionally, all the inter-connections among avionics devices have been made
via a carefully made custom-built wiring harness.
Most avionics use DB-9/DB-25 connectors and the custom wire harness approach comes
down to connecting pin #1 on device A to pin #7 on device B and pin #2 of
device A to pin #12 on device B, etc, etc. All this inter-connection is done
in the harness.
I see some downside to this approach:
1. Makes the harness more difficult to fabricate
2. Possibly embeds splices in the harness
3. Makes trouble shooting more difficult
4. Makes subsequent mods, updates, equipment upgrades more difficult
Different Way?
Create essentially a fancy junction box that has a bunch of DB-9 & DB-25 connectors,
one for each device and connects directly to each device. Then in this
j-box, make all of the device A pin 1 to device B pin 7 inter-connections. This
could all be soldered. It might make pin-sharing/splicing easier.
I'm aware that Advanced Flight Systems has a product that does something like this.
I wonder how their inter-connection scheme works because of the multitude
of interconnection possibilities with different avionics devices. It seems
like all of the combinations/permutations would be difficult to manage on a circuit
board.
Some advantages to this approach:
1. Harnesses are much simpler
2. All of the "intelligence" is in this j-box/switch-board which might make mods
less labor intensive
Some disadvantages:
1. Requires more connectors to get the job done
2. Adds another component (weight?)
Any thoughts pro or con are greatly appreciated,
-Jeff
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Jeff Luckey <jluckey(at)pacbell.net> |
LoL!
Can I use that to turn-on my nav lights? ...
Anyone need a breaker for their aircraft project? I'm taking a load to the dump.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Charlie England <ceengland7(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Exploring a Different Way to Wire Avionics |
I, too, have wondered how they accommodate various 'random ' avionics. It
wouldn't be too surprising if they're doing the 'pin relocation' task for
you in the custom interconnect cables for which you're paying big bucks.
Charlie
On Mon, Jun 8, 2020 at 2:07 PM Jeff Luckey wrote:
> James,
>
> Thanks for the reference to Approach Fast Stack. That pretty much
> validates the concept, doesn't it?
>
> kjashton(at)vnet.net> wrote:
>
>
> kjashton(at)vnet.net>
>
> Jim Weir wrote an article about a simpler(?) way to connect avionics.
> Personally, I thought it was about as easy to just develop some skill
> soldering D-subs and use the standard stuff. There are a few tricks to
> soldering them but once you have learned them, it is pretty easy.
> http://www.rstengineering.com/rst/articles/karmic3.pdf
>
> One technique is to strip the wire, apply a bit of solder to the wire end,
> heat up the side of the cup on the D-sub and simultaneously insert the wire
> end. It is pretty quick with the right iron and solder.
> -Kent
>
> > On Jun 8, 2020, at 1:34 PM, Jeff Luckey wrote:
> >
> > Background:
> >
> > Traditionally, all the inter-connections among avionics devices have
> been made via a carefully made custom-built wiring harness.
> >
> > Most avionics use DB-9/DB-25 connectors and the custom wire harness
> approach comes down to connecting pin #1 on device A to pin #7 on device B
> and pin #2 of device A to pin #12 on device B, etc, etc. All this
> inter-connection is done in the harness.
> >
> > I see some downside to this approach:
> >
> > 1. Makes the harness more difficult to fabricate
> > 2. Possibly embeds splices in the harness
> > 3. Makes trouble shooting more difficult
> > 4. Makes subsequent mods, updates, equipment upgrades more difficult
> >
> >
> > Different Way?
> >
> > Create essentially a fancy junction box that has a bunch of DB-9 & DB-25
> connectors, one for each device and connects directly to each device. Then
> in this j-box, make all of the device A pin 1 to device B pin 7
> inter-connections. This could all be soldered. It might make
> pin-sharing/splicing easier.
> >
> > I'm aware that Advanced Flight Systems has a product that does something
> like this. I wonder how their inter-connection scheme works because of the
> multitude of interconnection possibilities with different avionics
> devices. It seems like all of the combinations/permutations would be
> difficult to manage on a circuit board.
> >
> > Some advantages to this approach:
> >
> > 1. Harnesses are much simpler
> > 2. All of the "intelligence" is in this j-box/switch-board which might
> make mods less labor intensive
> >
> > Some disadvantages:
> > 1. Requires more connectors to get the job done
> > 2. Adds another component (weight?)
> >
> >
> > Any thoughts pro or con are greatly appreciated,
> >
> > -Jeff
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
> http://www.m====================
> http://forums.matronics.com
> =====================
> http://wiki.matron=======================
> <http://wiki.matronics.com>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Charlie England <ceengland7(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Z101 main alt wiring |
On Mon, Jun 8, 2020 at 1:47 PM David Carter wrote:
> Bob,
>
> Tracing the main alt field circuit from the main bus, I see the following
> wire sizes:
> - 16 AWG fusible link
> - 12 AWG wire to 5A breaker & then to power master switch
> - 20 AWG wire to regulator
> - 20 AWG wire to alternator field
>
> I don't understand the need for the 12 AWG wire feeding the master, which
> has only 20 AWG coming out of it to the load.
>
> Thanks,
> David
>
>
> ---
> David Carter
> david(at)carter.net
>
Reasonable question; might have been driven by 'off-the-shelf' fusible link
size availability. 22awg (minimum reasonable size to work with) link
(sleeved with silicone tubing) to 18awg would get the job done. 20awg after
the breaker because the breaker protects it.
I've tested the silicone tubing trick on 22awg with a direct short on a 12v
tractor battery. The wire vaporizes, leaving a smoky interior lining on the
clear silicone tubing, but the tubing contained the 'event'.
Charlie
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Sebastien <cluros(at)gmail.com> |
225 Amp so it should be good.
Aeroelectric said my picture was too big so here's a smaller version.
On Mon, Jun 8, 2020 at 12:20 PM Jeff Luckey wrote:
> LoL!
>
> Can I use that to turn-on my nav lights? ...
>
> wrote:
>
>
> Anyone need a breaker for their aircraft project? I'm taking a load to the
> dump.
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Charlie England <ceengland7(at)gmail.com> |
Should be perfect for a *real* all electric airplane on a budget....
Seriously, did you try listing stuff like that on ebay? I've bought some 3
phase stuff there for my house & shop (yes, I've got Delta to the house),
and I know some machine shop guys who watch auction sites for stuff like
that.
Charlie
On Mon, Jun 8, 2020 at 3:19 PM Sebastien wrote:
> 225 Amp so it should be good.
>
> Aeroelectric said my picture was too big so here's a smaller version.
>
> On Mon, Jun 8, 2020 at 12:20 PM Jeff Luckey wrote:
>
>> LoL!
>>
>> Can I use that to turn-on my nav lights? ...
>>
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>> Anyone need a breaker for their aircraft project? I'm taking a load to
>> the dump.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Charlie England <ceengland7(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Physical construction of Z101 engine bus & battery |
bus
Hi Ken,
I'll take a swing at it, but would suggest that it's not quite the right
question.
I get your point, but the answer 'depends'. If using electronic fuel
injection, the current demands mean that a single PC680 style battery (in
'new' condition) will only buy you about 30-40 minutes of flight time
after alternator failure. A 2nd PC680 only adds another 30-40 minutes. On
an engine that allows two alts, either of which can keep the engine running
and the panel lit, a typical alt (ex: 55A Denso) is lighter than a 2nd
battery, not much more expensive (actually much cheaper than an actual
Odyssey branded PC680), will keep the engine running to fuel exhaustion,
and has the additional benefit of allowing a return flight (in some
range-dependent situations) without the need of maintenance while on the
road. Not something I would ever consider after an alt failure with only a
2nd bat for backup. Add to the mix, the fact that while a 2nd alt is pretty
much an install&forget item (just a startup check each flight similar to a
mag check), any battery is a constantly degrading item that requires
regular capacity testing to ensure that it has enough remaining capacity to
give expected duration if called upon.
Now, with carb or mech fuel injection in a VFR environment, current demands
might (likely will) be low enough that a single bat & single alt back up
each other. In *my* opinion, that's where Bob's statement makes sense, and
where your question, as framed, doesn't need asking.
So, I think you really have to define both the mission *and the hardware*
to pick an architecture.
FWIW,
Charlie
On Mon, Jun 8, 2020 at 11:15 AM Ken Ryan wrote:
> Bob, you said:
>
> "If you have TWO properly maintained batteries,
> in all likelihood, you'll be carrying around
> $twice$ the hardware with virtually no value
> added to the ship's overall reliability."
>
> Help me understand why the following statement is not correct:
>
> If you have TWO properly maintained alternators,
> plus a battery (sized for minimum endurance requirements)
> in all likelihood, you'll be carrying around
> $twice$ the hardware with virtually no value
> added to the ship's overall reliability.
>
> Ken
>
> On Sun, Jun 7, 2020 at 6:56 PM Robert L. Nuckolls, III <
> nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> wrote:
>
>> At 05:26 PM 6/7/2020, you wrote:
>>
>> I am not speaking to any engine manufacturers recommendation (although t
he
>> Honda Viking manufacturer does recommend two batteries. I just thought
>> I was applying logic -- if dual alternator=C3=82 + battery (triple power
>> source)
>> is desirable for electrically=C3=82 dependent engines, wouldn't that rea
soning
>> imply that if the second alternator is not practical, a second battery
>> could be used as the third power source? I could ask you a similar
>> question:
>> Are not two independent power sources (battery and alternator) sufficien
t
>> to meet the needs of the electrically=C3=82 dependent engine. Obviously
you
>> saw value in adding the second alternator. Why no value in adding the
>> second battery?
>>
>>
>> Excellent question.
>>
>> It's a problem in energy budgets combined with
>> efforts to assure continued airworthiness.
>>
>> The airplane cannot do without a battery if
>> you're going to have a starter. Depending on
>> your planned mission profiles, you will want
>> to size the battery (1) for cranking then
>> (2) minimum endurance in alternator-out modes.
>>
>> This study gave impetus for the creation of
>> the endurance bus . . . a fast and predictable
>> way to economically tap known quantity of energy
>> stored in the battery's chemistry.
>>
>> Z13/8 was a small but significant amplification
>> of that idea . . . the second alternator's endurance
>> had no practical limits. Hence, energy on the chemistry
>> just might be held completely in reserve for
>> descent and approach to landing.
>>
>> Z13/20 (and the aux alternator option on
>> Z101) expanded the Z13/8 endurance opportunity
>> by a factor of 2.5 or better.
>>
>> Okay, suppose the drive pad isn't available.
>> We are still charged with identifying and the
>> delivering to energy required to comfortably
>> terminate a worst-case mission.
>>
>> This means that as a part of routine maintenance
>> the ship's chemistry needs to be monitored for
>> capability. We could certainly store that energy
>> on TWO devices but to what advantage? If we're laboring
>> under the notion that a battery can suddenly become
>> unavailable during one tank of gas, then we have
>> to assume that EITHER battery can roll over and
>> die . . . okay, how would that failure be
>> annunciated . . . how would remaining energy be
>> managed . . . ?
>>
>> I think that's the scenario anticipated by the
>> folks that crafted that battery manager with a
>> full-wave rectifier that -anded- two, completely
>> isolated batteries together. Assume the alternator
>> has quit and some time later one battery
>> craps out. How does the pilot become aware of the
>> problem and what kind of energy juggling issues
>> are presented when the available energy drops
>> to half? This assuming he really knows that the
>> two batteries were performing equally and has
>> recently quantified their condition, he now
>> has to come up with a new "plan C?" and perhaps
>> declare an emergency.
>>
>> This scenario first assumes TWO critical failures
>> during the consumption of one tank of fuel . . .
>> about 3-4 hour window. Part 23 certs don't
>> get concerned with dual failures at all.
>> Part 25 and heavier will wade into the reliability
>> quagmire with mountains of computer generated probability
>> studies that get 'worked' on until somebody
>> finally sprinkles the holy water and off they
>> go.
>>
>> Ask Capt. Sullivan what he thinks about
>> reliability studies . . .
>>
>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HKJ1lIh2Cgk
>>
>> So we're left to our own devices which in reality
>> are not so bad.
>>
>> The short answer is: A diligently maintained
>> battery is the most reliable source of energy
>> on the airplane. Replacing it when ability
>> to store energy drops below some benchmark
>> (generally 75 to 80% of new) means that it
>> always cranks the engine and will provide a
>> quantified option for dealing with alternator
>> failure. Two batteries just doubles your
>> preventative maintenance labor. Further,
>> you need to decide if plan-b can reliably
>> depend on the sum total of energy in two
>> batteries . . . or will they be sized to
>> independently step up to the task? The
>> second option calls for 2X the battery
>> weight and volume; the first option complicates
>> calculations and switching operations for
>> carrying out a plan-b that shouldn't ever
>> happen. BOTH options still demand good
>> preventative maintenance.
>>
>> Just as you KNOW fuel aboard when you launch,
>> you also need to know Watt-Hours aboard
>> no matter how many batteries you're carrying.
>>
>> If you have TWO properly maintained batteries,
>> in all likelihood, you'll be carrying around
>> $twice$ the hardware with virtually no value
>> added to the ship's overall reliability.
>>
>> Bob . . .
>>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Sebastien <cluros(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Physical construction of Z101 engine bus & battery |
bus
Or I'll tackle it a different way:
What are the sudden failure rates of batteries and alternators. I've lost a
couple alternators in flight, I've never heard of a good battery failing in
flight.
On Mon, Jun 8, 2020, 15:49 Charlie England wrote:
> Hi Ken,
>
> I'll take a swing at it, but would suggest that it's not quite the right
> question.
>
> I get your point, but the answer 'depends'. If using electronic fuel
> injection, the current demands mean that a single PC680 style battery (in
> 'new' condition) will only buy you about 30-40 minutes of flight time
> after alternator failure. A 2nd PC680 only adds another 30-40 minutes. On
> an engine that allows two alts, either of which can keep the engine runni
ng
> and the panel lit, a typical alt (ex: 55A Denso) is lighter than a 2nd
> battery, not much more expensive (actually much cheaper than an actual
> Odyssey branded PC680), will keep the engine running to fuel exhaustion,
> and has the additional benefit of allowing a return flight (in some
> range-dependent situations) without the need of maintenance while on the
> road. Not something I would ever consider after an alt failure with only
a
> 2nd bat for backup. Add to the mix, the fact that while a 2nd alt is pret
ty
> much an install&forget item (just a startup check each flight similar to
a
> mag check), any battery is a constantly degrading item that requires
> regular capacity testing to ensure that it has enough remaining capacity
to
> give expected duration if called upon.
>
> Now, with carb or mech fuel injection in a VFR environment, current
> demands might (likely will) be low enough that a single bat & single alt
> back up each other. In *my* opinion, that's where Bob's statement makes
> sense, and where your question, as framed, doesn't need asking.
>
> So, I think you really have to define both the mission *and the hardware*
> to pick an architecture.
>
> FWIW,
>
> Charlie
>
> On Mon, Jun 8, 2020 at 11:15 AM Ken Ryan wrote:
>
>> Bob, you said:
>>
>> "If you have TWO properly maintained batteries,
>> in all likelihood, you'll be carrying around
>> $twice$ the hardware with virtually no value
>> added to the ship's overall reliability."
>>
>> Help me understand why the following statement is not correct:
>>
>> If you have TWO properly maintained alternators,
>> plus a battery (sized for minimum endurance requirements)
>> in all likelihood, you'll be carrying around
>> $twice$ the hardware with virtually no value
>> added to the ship's overall reliability.
>>
>> Ken
>>
>> On Sun, Jun 7, 2020 at 6:56 PM Robert L. Nuckolls, III <
>> nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> wrote:
>>
>>> At 05:26 PM 6/7/2020, you wrote:
>>>
>>> I am not speaking to any engine manufacturers recommendation (although
>>> the
>>> Honda Viking manufacturer does recommend two batteries. I just thought
>>> I was applying logic -- if dual alternator=C3=82 + battery (triple powe
r
>>> source)
>>> is desirable for electrically=C3=82 dependent engines, wouldn't that re
asoning
>>> imply that if the second alternator is not practical, a second battery
>>> could be used as the third power source? I could ask you a similar
>>> question:
>>> Are not two independent power sources (battery and alternator) sufficie
nt
>>> to meet the needs of the electrically=C3=82 dependent engine. Obviously
you
>>> saw value in adding the second alternator. Why no value in adding the
>>> second battery?
>>>
>>>
>>> Excellent question.
>>>
>>> It's a problem in energy budgets combined with
>>> efforts to assure continued airworthiness.
>>>
>>> The airplane cannot do without a battery if
>>> you're going to have a starter. Depending on
>>> your planned mission profiles, you will want
>>> to size the battery (1) for cranking then
>>> (2) minimum endurance in alternator-out modes.
>>>
>>> This study gave impetus for the creation of
>>> the endurance bus . . . a fast and predictable
>>> way to economically tap known quantity of energy
>>> stored in the battery's chemistry.
>>>
>>> Z13/8 was a small but significant amplification
>>> of that idea . . . the second alternator's endurance
>>> had no practical limits. Hence, energy on the chemistry
>>> just might be held completely in reserve for
>>> descent and approach to landing.
>>>
>>> Z13/20 (and the aux alternator option on
>>> Z101) expanded the Z13/8 endurance opportunity
>>> by a factor of 2.5 or better.
>>>
>>> Okay, suppose the drive pad isn't available.
>>> We are still charged with identifying and the
>>> delivering to energy required to comfortably
>>> terminate a worst-case mission.
>>>
>>> This means that as a part of routine maintenance
>>> the ship's chemistry needs to be monitored for
>>> capability. We could certainly store that energy
>>> on TWO devices but to what advantage? If we're laboring
>>> under the notion that a battery can suddenly become
>>> unavailable during one tank of gas, then we have
>>> to assume that EITHER battery can roll over and
>>> die . . . okay, how would that failure be
>>> annunciated . . . how would remaining energy be
>>> managed . . . ?
>>>
>>> I think that's the scenario anticipated by the
>>> folks that crafted that battery manager with a
>>> full-wave rectifier that -anded- two, completely
>>> isolated batteries together. Assume the alternator
>>> has quit and some time later one battery
>>> craps out. How does the pilot become aware of the
>>> problem and what kind of energy juggling issues
>>> are presented when the available energy drops
>>> to half? This assuming he really knows that the
>>> two batteries were performing equally and has
>>> recently quantified their condition, he now
>>> has to come up with a new "plan C?" and perhaps
>>> declare an emergency.
>>>
>>> This scenario first assumes TWO critical failures
>>> during the consumption of one tank of fuel . . .
>>> about 3-4 hour window. Part 23 certs don't
>>> get concerned with dual failures at all.
>>> Part 25 and heavier will wade into the reliability
>>> quagmire with mountains of computer generated probability
>>> studies that get 'worked' on until somebody
>>> finally sprinkles the holy water and off they
>>> go.
>>>
>>> Ask Capt. Sullivan what he thinks about
>>> reliability studies . . .
>>>
>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HKJ1lIh2Cgk
>>>
>>> So we're left to our own devices which in reality
>>> are not so bad.
>>>
>>> The short answer is: A diligently maintained
>>> battery is the most reliable source of energy
>>> on the airplane. Replacing it when ability
>>> to store energy drops below some benchmark
>>> (generally 75 to 80% of new) means that it
>>> always cranks the engine and will provide a
>>> quantified option for dealing with alternator
>>> failure. Two batteries just doubles your
>>> preventative maintenance labor. Further,
>>> you need to decide if plan-b can reliably
>>> depend on the sum total of energy in two
>>> batteries . . . or will they be sized to
>>> independently step up to the task? The
>>> second option calls for 2X the battery
>>> weight and volume; the first option complicates
>>> calculations and switching operations for
>>> carrying out a plan-b that shouldn't ever
>>> happen. BOTH options still demand good
>>> preventative maintenance.
>>>
>>> Just as you KNOW fuel aboard when you launch,
>>> you also need to know Watt-Hours aboard
>>> no matter how many batteries you're carrying.
>>>
>>> If you have TWO properly maintained batteries,
>>> in all likelihood, you'll be carrying around
>>> $twice$ the hardware with virtually no value
>>> added to the ship's overall reliability.
>>>
>>> Bob . . .
>>>
>>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Sebastien <cluros(at)gmail.com> |
Dad says he's been listing it on Craigslist for years and never got a bite.
We got $73 at the recyclers for scrap aluminium and a couple motors and the
dump run cost $17 so not a complete loss.
On Mon, Jun 8, 2020, 15:28 Charlie England wrote:
> Should be perfect for a *real* all electric airplane on a budget....
>
> Seriously, did you try listing stuff like that on ebay? I've bought some 3
> phase stuff there for my house & shop (yes, I've got Delta to the house),
> and I know some machine shop guys who watch auction sites for stuff like
> that.
>
> Charlie
>
> On Mon, Jun 8, 2020 at 3:19 PM Sebastien wrote:
>
>> 225 Amp so it should be good.
>>
>> Aeroelectric said my picture was too big so here's a smaller version.
>>
>> On Mon, Jun 8, 2020 at 12:20 PM Jeff Luckey wrote:
>>
>>> LoL!
>>>
>>> Can I use that to turn-on my nav lights? ...
>>>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> Anyone need a breaker for their aircraft project? I'm taking a load to
>>> the dump.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Ken Ryan <keninalaska(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Physical construction of Z101 engine bus & battery |
bus
Thanks Charlie,
I am convinced that 2 alternators + 1 battery is superior to 1 alternator +
2 batteries. I am less convinced that if two alternators are not possible,
a second battery adds virtually no value to the ship's overall reliability.
Bob did make a pretty good argument, but it is founded on the assumption
that the battery, when properly maintained, is utterly reliable. I have two
problems with that assumption: 1) we know from Joe's experience that
batteries can fail and 2) even with the best of intentions, maintenance
(including battery maintenance) is not always perfect. To contend that
having a fresh battery available at the flip of a switch adds
no reliability to an electrically dependent aircraft still seems like a bit
of a stretch to me.
Ken
On Mon, Jun 8, 2020 at 2:49 PM Charlie England wrote
:
> Hi Ken,
>
> I'll take a swing at it, but would suggest that it's not quite the right
> question.
>
> I get your point, but the answer 'depends'. If using electronic fuel
> injection, the current demands mean that a single PC680 style battery (in
> 'new' condition) will only buy you about 30-40 minutes of flight time
> after alternator failure. A 2nd PC680 only adds another 30-40 minutes. On
> an engine that allows two alts, either of which can keep the engine runni
ng
> and the panel lit, a typical alt (ex: 55A Denso) is lighter than a 2nd
> battery, not much more expensive (actually much cheaper than an actual
> Odyssey branded PC680), will keep the engine running to fuel exhaustion,
> and has the additional benefit of allowing a return flight (in some
> range-dependent situations) without the need of maintenance while on the
> road. Not something I would ever consider after an alt failure with only
a
> 2nd bat for backup. Add to the mix, the fact that while a 2nd alt is pret
ty
> much an install&forget item (just a startup check each flight similar to
a
> mag check), any battery is a constantly degrading item that requires
> regular capacity testing to ensure that it has enough remaining capacity
to
> give expected duration if called upon.
>
> Now, with carb or mech fuel injection in a VFR environment, current
> demands might (likely will) be low enough that a single bat & single alt
> back up each other. In *my* opinion, that's where Bob's statement makes
> sense, and where your question, as framed, doesn't need asking.
>
> So, I think you really have to define both the mission *and the hardware*
> to pick an architecture.
>
> FWIW,
>
> Charlie
>
> On Mon, Jun 8, 2020 at 11:15 AM Ken Ryan wrote:
>
>> Bob, you said:
>>
>> "If you have TWO properly maintained batteries,
>> in all likelihood, you'll be carrying around
>> $twice$ the hardware with virtually no value
>> added to the ship's overall reliability."
>>
>> Help me understand why the following statement is not correct:
>>
>> If you have TWO properly maintained alternators,
>> plus a battery (sized for minimum endurance requirements)
>> in all likelihood, you'll be carrying around
>> $twice$ the hardware with virtually no value
>> added to the ship's overall reliability.
>>
>> Ken
>>
>> On Sun, Jun 7, 2020 at 6:56 PM Robert L. Nuckolls, III <
>> nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> wrote:
>>
>>> At 05:26 PM 6/7/2020, you wrote:
>>>
>>> I am not speaking to any engine manufacturers recommendation (although
>>> the
>>> Honda Viking manufacturer does recommend two batteries. I just thought
>>> I was applying logic -- if dual alternator=C3=82 + battery (triple powe
r
>>> source)
>>> is desirable for electrically=C3=82 dependent engines, wouldn't that re
asoning
>>> imply that if the second alternator is not practical, a second battery
>>> could be used as the third power source? I could ask you a similar
>>> question:
>>> Are not two independent power sources (battery and alternator) sufficie
nt
>>> to meet the needs of the electrically=C3=82 dependent engine. Obviously
you
>>> saw value in adding the second alternator. Why no value in adding the
>>> second battery?
>>>
>>>
>>> Excellent question.
>>>
>>> It's a problem in energy budgets combined with
>>> efforts to assure continued airworthiness.
>>>
>>> The airplane cannot do without a battery if
>>> you're going to have a starter. Depending on
>>> your planned mission profiles, you will want
>>> to size the battery (1) for cranking then
>>> (2) minimum endurance in alternator-out modes.
>>>
>>> This study gave impetus for the creation of
>>> the endurance bus . . . a fast and predictable
>>> way to economically tap known quantity of energy
>>> stored in the battery's chemistry.
>>>
>>> Z13/8 was a small but significant amplification
>>> of that idea . . . the second alternator's endurance
>>> had no practical limits. Hence, energy on the chemistry
>>> just might be held completely in reserve for
>>> descent and approach to landing.
>>>
>>> Z13/20 (and the aux alternator option on
>>> Z101) expanded the Z13/8 endurance opportunity
>>> by a factor of 2.5 or better.
>>>
>>> Okay, suppose the drive pad isn't available.
>>> We are still charged with identifying and the
>>> delivering to energy required to comfortably
>>> terminate a worst-case mission.
>>>
>>> This means that as a part of routine maintenance
>>> the ship's chemistry needs to be monitored for
>>> capability. We could certainly store that energy
>>> on TWO devices but to what advantage? If we're laboring
>>> under the notion that a battery can suddenly become
>>> unavailable during one tank of gas, then we have
>>> to assume that EITHER battery can roll over and
>>> die . . . okay, how would that failure be
>>> annunciated . . . how would remaining energy be
>>> managed . . . ?
>>>
>>> I think that's the scenario anticipated by the
>>> folks that crafted that battery manager with a
>>> full-wave rectifier that -anded- two, completely
>>> isolated batteries together. Assume the alternator
>>> has quit and some time later one battery
>>> craps out. How does the pilot become aware of the
>>> problem and what kind of energy juggling issues
>>> are presented when the available energy drops
>>> to half? This assuming he really knows that the
>>> two batteries were performing equally and has
>>> recently quantified their condition, he now
>>> has to come up with a new "plan C?" and perhaps
>>> declare an emergency.
>>>
>>> This scenario first assumes TWO critical failures
>>> during the consumption of one tank of fuel . . .
>>> about 3-4 hour window. Part 23 certs don't
>>> get concerned with dual failures at all.
>>> Part 25 and heavier will wade into the reliability
>>> quagmire with mountains of computer generated probability
>>> studies that get 'worked' on until somebody
>>> finally sprinkles the holy water and off they
>>> go.
>>>
>>> Ask Capt. Sullivan what he thinks about
>>> reliability studies . . .
>>>
>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HKJ1lIh2Cgk
>>>
>>> So we're left to our own devices which in reality
>>> are not so bad.
>>>
>>> The short answer is: A diligently maintained
>>> battery is the most reliable source of energy
>>> on the airplane. Replacing it when ability
>>> to store energy drops below some benchmark
>>> (generally 75 to 80% of new) means that it
>>> always cranks the engine and will provide a
>>> quantified option for dealing with alternator
>>> failure. Two batteries just doubles your
>>> preventative maintenance labor. Further,
>>> you need to decide if plan-b can reliably
>>> depend on the sum total of energy in two
>>> batteries . . . or will they be sized to
>>> independently step up to the task? The
>>> second option calls for 2X the battery
>>> weight and volume; the first option complicates
>>> calculations and switching operations for
>>> carrying out a plan-b that shouldn't ever
>>> happen. BOTH options still demand good
>>> preventative maintenance.
>>>
>>> Just as you KNOW fuel aboard when you launch,
>>> you also need to know Watt-Hours aboard
>>> no matter how many batteries you're carrying.
>>>
>>> If you have TWO properly maintained batteries,
>>> in all likelihood, you'll be carrying around
>>> $twice$ the hardware with virtually no value
>>> added to the ship's overall reliability.
>>>
>>> Bob . . .
>>>
>>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Physical construction of Z101 engine bus & |
battery bus
>If you don=99t have a second alternator, you
>should have a small backup battery. Sizing would
>depend on your typical/ maximum distance between
>airports. Current draw of the pump, ECU,
>injectors and coils would be around 12 to 14
>amps. A 12 amp/hour battery should give you a
>solid 30-40 minutes of flight time, just running
>the engine electrics. An 18 amp/hour one, around
>1 hour. We want to be able to sustain at least 10 volts to the electrics.
>
>We=99ve found the most reliable, simple and
>light way to get backup battery power to the
>engine electrics is a single 12 to 14 gauge wire
>running from the backup battery, through a 30
>amp ATO fuse, to a heavy duty switch, to an
>emergency buss where all the engine electrics
>can receive power. Simply charge the backup
>battery every 30 days and load test annually.
>If you have the recommended check engine light
>fitted, it will warn you any time the battery
>voltage falls below 12.5V. You can monitor battery voltage in Gauge 3 mode.
A statement that is understandable and predictable.
EVERY supplier of electrically dependent aircraft
accessories has a vested interest in NOT having
their product figure into the script for your
bad day in the cockpit.
Their "most reliable finding" focuses on
their product . . . and while certainly
critical for continued flight, it's not
the only critical electro-whizzie on the
airplane.
All creative assemblages stand on the 3-legged
stool of energy-management, properties-of-
materials and refinement-of-process. It doesn't
matter if you're cooking breakfast or building a
space shuttle.
I think I've suggested before that installation
manuals for such products should call for, "Energy
supplied by a robust, failure tolerant and competently
maintained electrical system."
To be sure . . . many of our brothers don't
have strong interests or appreciation for
elegant solutions and prefer the cookie-cutter
approach. Nothing overtly wrong with that
but it can generate systems with high
costs of ownership, unnecessary weight
and complexity. Complexity adds risk for lack of
understanding and mis-application of features
originally intended to keep a tense day
in the cockpit from getting worst.
We don't do gps receivers here . . . or engines,
or auto-pilots. We do system integration with
a goal of achieving the simplest, failure tolerant
supply and distribution systems. A natural fallout
of those endeavors is lower cost of ownership
and weight.
Getting back to the subject engine, what's
the 'advantage' of carrying a second battery
that may never be used as opposed to carrying
one battery sized and maintained to meet
what ever endurance goals are sought for
the whole airplane?
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Physical construction of Z101 engine bus & battery |
bus
| From: | Charlie England <ceengland7(at)gmail.com> |
For me, it's not so much that a 'good battery will *fail* in flight',
but that the battery's capacity is continuously degrading, whether it's
used or not, and that introduces a 2nd variable in the backup plan. It's
not obvious, but a tired battery may well start an engine with gusto,
but if called on to supply a continuous 14A (just to the engine), it
might go dead in 10-15 minutes. My personal comfort zone bends toward an
alternator, if I'm going to install a backup. Again, this is driven by
the relatively high current demand of the electronic injection system in
my project a/c.
If I only had to support an electronic ignition (1-2 amps) and a radio,
I'd be a lot more comfortable depending on the battery as backup. In
fact, my current RV6 with mechanical injection and one Lightspeed has
one alternator & one battery. I'm a VFR pilot and not dependent on
electron delivery to keep the engine running or keep the dirty side down.
Charlie
On 6/8/2020 6:05 PM, Sebastien wrote:
> Or I'll tackle it a different way:
>
> What are the sudden failure rates of batteries and alternators. I've
> lost a couple alternators in flight, I've never heard of a good
> battery failing in flight.
>
> On Mon, Jun 8, 2020, 15:49 Charlie England > wrote:
>
> Hi Ken,
>
> I'll take a swing at it, but would suggest that it's not quite the
> right question.
>
> I get your point, but the answer 'depends'. If using electronic
> fuel injection, the current demands mean that a single PC680 style
> battery (in 'new' condition) will only buy you about 30-40
> minutes of flight time after alternator failure. A 2nd PC680 only
> adds another 30-40 minutes. On an engine that allows two alts,
> either of which can keep the engine running and the panel lit, a
> typical alt (ex: 55A Denso) is lighter than a 2nd battery, not
> much more expensive (actually much cheaper than an actual Odyssey
> branded PC680), will keep the engine running to fuel exhaustion,
> and has the additionalbenefit of allowing a return flight (in
> some range-dependent situations) without the need of maintenance
> while on the road. Not something I would ever consider after an
> alt failure with only a 2nd bat for backup. Add to the mix, the
> fact that while a 2nd alt is pretty much an install&forget item
> (just a startup check each flight similar to a mag check), any
> battery is a constantly degrading item that requires regular
> capacity testing to ensure that it has enough remaining capacity
> to give expected duration if called upon.
>
> Now, with carb or mech fuel injection in a VFR environment,
> current demands might (likely will) be low enough that a single
> bat & single alt back up each other. In *my* opinion, that's where
> Bob's statement makes sense, and where your question, as framed,
> doesn't need asking.
>
> So, I think you really have to define both the mission *and the
> hardware* to pick an architecture.
>
> FWIW,
>
> Charlie
>
> On Mon, Jun 8, 2020 at 11:15 AM Ken Ryan > wrote:
>
> Bob, you said:
>
> "If you have TWO properly maintained batteries,
> in all likelihood, you'll be carrying around
> $twice$ the hardware with virtually no value
> added to the ship's overall reliability."
>
> Help me understand why the following statement is not correct:
>
> If you have TWO properly maintained alternators,
> plus a battery (sized for minimum endurance requirements)
> in all likelihood, you'll be carrying around
> $twice$ the hardware with virtually no value
> added to the ship's overall reliability.
>
> Ken
>
> On Sun, Jun 7, 2020 at 6:56 PM Robert L. Nuckolls, III
> > wrote:
>
> At 05:26 PM 6/7/2020, you wrote:
>> I am not speaking to any engine manufacturers
>> recommendation (although the
>> Honda Viking manufacturer does recommend two batteries. I
>> just thought
>> I was applying logic -- if dual alternator + battery
>> (triple power source)
>> is desirable for electrically dependent engines,
>> wouldn't that reasoning
>> imply that if the second alternator is not practical, a
>> second battery
>> could be used as the third power source? I could ask you
>> a similar question:
>> Are not two independent power sources (battery and
>> alternator) sufficient
>> to meet the needs of the electrically dependent engine.
>> Obviously you
>> saw value in adding the second alternator. Why no value
>> in adding the second battery?
>
> Excellent question.
>
> It's a problem in energy budgets combined with
> efforts to assure continued airworthiness.
>
> The airplane cannot do without a battery if
> you're going to have a starter. Depending on
> your planned mission profiles, you will want
> to size the battery (1) for cranking then
> (2) minimum endurance in alternator-out modes.
>
> This study gave impetus for the creation of
> the endurance bus . . . a fast and predictable
> way to economically tap known quantity of energy
> stored in the battery's chemistry.
>
> Z13/8 was a small but significant amplification
> of that idea . . . the second alternator's endurance
> had no practical limits. Hence, energy on the chemistry
> just might be held completely in reserve for
> descent and approach to landing.
>
> Z13/20 (and the aux alternator option on
> Z101) expanded the Z13/8 endurance opportunity
> by a factor of 2.5 or better.
>
> Okay, suppose the drive pad isn't available.
> We are still charged with identifying and the
> delivering to energy required to comfortably
> terminate a worst-case mission.
>
> This means that as a part of routine maintenance
> the ship's chemistry needs to be monitored for
> capability. We could certainly store that energy
> on TWO devices but to what advantage? If we're laboring
> under the notion that a battery can suddenly become
> unavailable during one tank of gas, then we have
> to assume that EITHER battery can roll over and
> die . . . okay, how would that failure be
> annunciated . . . how would remaining energy be
> managed . . . ?
>
> I think that's the scenario anticipated by the
> folks that crafted that battery manager with a
> full-wave rectifier that -anded- two, completely
> isolated batteries together. Assume the alternator
> has quit and some time later one battery
> craps out. How does the pilot become aware of the
> problem and what kind of energy juggling issues
> are presented when the available energy drops
> to half? This assuming he really knows that the
> two batteries were performing equally and has
> recently quantified their condition, he now
> has to come up with a new "plan C?" and perhaps
> declare an emergency.
>
> This scenario first assumes TWO critical failures
> during the consumption of one tank of fuel . . .
> about 3-4 hour window. Part 23 certs don't
> get concerned with dual failures at all.
> Part 25 and heavier will wade into the reliability
> quagmire with mountains of computer generated probability
> studies that get 'worked' on until somebody
> finally sprinkles the holy water and off they
> go.
>
> Ask Capt. Sullivan what he thinks about
> reliability studies . . .
>
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HKJ1lIh2Cgk
>
>
> So we're left to our own devices which in reality
> are not so bad.
>
> The short answer is: A diligently maintained
> battery is the most reliable source of energy
> on the airplane. Replacing it when ability
> to store energy drops below some benchmark
> (generally 75 to 80% of new) means that it
> always cranks the engine and will provide a
> quantified option for dealing with alternator
> failure. Two batteries just doubles your
> preventative maintenance labor. Further,
> you need to decide if plan-b can reliably
> depend on the sum total of energy in two
> batteries . . . or will they be sized to
> independently step up to the task? The
> second option calls for 2X the battery
> weight and volume; the first option complicates
> calculations and switching operations for
> carrying out a plan-b that shouldn't ever
> happen. BOTH options still demand good
> preventative maintenance.
>
> Just as you KNOW fuel aboard when you launch,
> you also need to know Watt-Hours aboard
> no matter how many batteries you're carrying.
>
> If you have TWO properly maintained batteries,
> in all likelihood, you'll be carrying around
> $twice$ the hardware with virtually no value
> added to the ship's overall reliability.
>
> Bob . . .
>
--
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Alec Myers <alec(at)alecmyers.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Physical construction of Z101 engine bus & battery |
bus
If the maintenance of the primary battery is not always perfect then isnt it very
likely that the maintenance of the backup battery is also not perfect?
If human factors are at play, then is it not likely that two batteries will get
even more imperfect maintenance than one? After all, who needs to maintain their
battery when theres a backup battery installed?
On Jun 8, 2020, at 7:17 PM, Ken Ryan wrote:
Thanks Charlie,
I am convinced that 2 alternators + 1 battery is superior to 1 alternator + 2 batteries.
I am less convinced that if two alternators are not possible, a second
battery adds virtually no value to the ship's overall reliability. Bob did
make a pretty good argument, but it is founded on the assumption that the battery,
when properly maintained, is utterly reliable. I have two problems with that
assumption: 1) we know from Joe's experience that batteries can fail and 2)
even with the best of intentions, maintenance (including battery maintenance)
is not always perfect. To contend that having a fresh battery available at the
flip of a switch adds no reliability to an electrically dependent aircraft
still seems like a bit of a stretch to me.
Ken
On Mon, Jun 8, 2020 at 2:49 PM Charlie England wrote:
Hi Ken,
I'll take a swing at it, but would suggest that it's not quite the right question.
I get your point, but the answer 'depends'. If using electronic fuel injection,
the current demands mean that a single PC680 style battery (in 'new' condition)
will only buy you about 30-40 minutes of flight time after alternator failure.
A 2nd PC680 only adds another 30-40 minutes. On an engine that allows two
alts, either of which can keep the engine running and the panel lit, a typical
alt (ex: 55A Denso) is lighter than a 2nd battery, not much more expensive
(actually much cheaper than an actual Odyssey branded PC680), will keep the engine
running to fuel exhaustion, and has the additional benefit of allowing a
return flight (in some range-dependent situations) without the need of maintenance
while on the road. Not something I would ever consider after an alt failure
with only a 2nd bat for backup. Add to the mix, the fact that while a 2nd alt
is pretty much an install&forget item (just a startup check each flight similar
to a mag check), any battery is a constantly degrading item that requires
regular capacity testing to ensure that it has enough remaining capacity to give
expected duration if called upon.
Now, with carb or mech fuel injection in a VFR environment, current demands might
(likely will) be low enough that a single bat & single alt back up each other.
In *my* opinion, that's where Bob's statement makes sense, and where your
question, as framed, doesn't need asking.
So, I think you really have to define both the mission *and the hardware* to pick
an architecture.
FWIW,
Charlie
On Mon, Jun 8, 2020 at 11:15 AM Ken Ryan wrote:
Bob, you said:
"If you have TWO properly maintained batteries,
in all likelihood, you'll be carrying around
$twice$ the hardware with virtually no value
added to the ship's overall reliability."
Help me understand why the following statement is not correct:
If you have TWO properly maintained alternators,
plus a battery (sized for minimum endurance requirements)
in all likelihood, you'll be carrying around
$twice$ the hardware with virtually no value
added to the ship's overall reliability.
Ken
On Sun, Jun 7, 2020 at 6:56 PM Robert L. Nuckolls, III
wrote:
At 05:26 PM 6/7/2020, you wrote:
> I am not speaking to any engine manufacturers recommendation (although the
> Honda Viking manufacturer does recommend two batteries. I just thought
> I was applying logic -- if dual alternator + battery (triple power source)
> is desirable for electrically dependent engines, wouldn't that reasoning
> imply that if the second alternator is not practical, a second battery
> could be used as the third power source? I could ask you a similar question:
> Are not two independent power sources (battery and alternator) sufficient
> to meet the needs of the electrically dependent engine. Obviously you
> saw value in adding the second alternator. Why no value in adding the second
battery?
Excellent question.
It's a problem in energy budgets combined with
efforts to assure continued airworthiness.
The airplane cannot do without a battery if
you're going to have a starter. Depending on
your planned mission profiles, you will want
to size the battery (1) for cranking then
(2) minimum endurance in alternator-out modes.
This study gave impetus for the creation of
the endurance bus . . . a fast and predictable
way to economically tap known quantity of energy
stored in the battery's chemistry.
Z13/8 was a small but significant amplification
of that idea . . . the second alternator's endurance
had no practical limits. Hence, energy on the chemistry
just might be held completely in reserve for
descent and approach to landing.
Z13/20 (and the aux alternator option on
Z101) expanded the Z13/8 endurance opportunity
by a factor of 2.5 or better.
Okay, suppose the drive pad isn't available.
We are still charged with identifying and the
delivering to energy required to comfortably
terminate a worst-case mission.
This means that as a part of routine maintenance
the ship's chemistry needs to be monitored for
capability. We could certainly store that energy
on TWO devices but to what advantage? If we're laboring
under the notion that a battery can suddenly become
unavailable during one tank of gas, then we have
to assume that EITHER battery can roll over and
die . . . okay, how would that failure be
annunciated . . . how would remaining energy be
managed . . . ?
I think that's the scenario anticipated by the
folks that crafted that battery manager with a
full-wave rectifier that -anded- two, completely
isolated batteries together. Assume the alternator
has quit and some time later one battery
craps out. How does the pilot become aware of the
problem and what kind of energy juggling issues
are presented when the available energy drops
to half? This assuming he really knows that the
two batteries were performing equally and has
recently quantified their condition, he now
has to come up with a new "plan C?" and perhaps
declare an emergency.
This scenario first assumes TWO critical failures
during the consumption of one tank of fuel . . .
about 3-4 hour window. Part 23 certs don't
get concerned with dual failures at all.
Part 25 and heavier will wade into the reliability
quagmire with mountains of computer generated probability
studies that get 'worked' on until somebody
finally sprinkles the holy water and off they
go.
Ask Capt. Sullivan what he thinks about
reliability studies . . .
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HKJ1lIh2Cgk
So we're left to our own devices which in reality
are not so bad.
The short answer is: A diligently maintained
battery is the most reliable source of energy
on the airplane. Replacing it when ability
to store energy drops below some benchmark
(generally 75 to 80% of new) means that it
always cranks the engine and will provide a
quantified option for dealing with alternator
failure. Two batteries just doubles your
preventative maintenance labor. Further,
you need to decide if plan-b can reliably
depend on the sum total of energy in two
batteries . . . or will they be sized to
independently step up to the task? The
second option calls for 2X the battery
weight and volume; the first option complicates
calculations and switching operations for
carrying out a plan-b that shouldn't ever
happen. BOTH options still demand good
preventative maintenance.
Just as you KNOW fuel aboard when you launch,
you also need to know Watt-Hours aboard
no matter how many batteries you're carrying.
If you have TWO properly maintained batteries,
in all likelihood, you'll be carrying around
$twice$ the hardware with virtually no value
added to the ship's overall reliability.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Ken Ryan <keninalaska(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Physical construction of Z101 engine bus & battery |
bus
I see definite advantage in a second battery, IN ADDITION to a battery
sized and maintained to meet endurance goals. The advantage is obvious,
added protection. Joe had a sudden and complete battery failure, so we know
that batteries can and do fail. But more importantly, although Bob has
stressed the need to know how many electrons are in the battery is as
important as knowing how much fuel is in the tank, unfortunately one cannot
put a dipstick in a battery and read with certainty what is in there. And
as I said, even with the best of intentions, maintenance does not always
get done correctly or on schedule. Add to that the fact that the battery
can easily suffer abuse, simply by experiencing problems starting the
engine, or leaving the master switch on; both are events that can seriously
degrade a battery's capacity. To me, it is not a stretch at all to believe
that even a conscientious owner might take off unknowingly with a battery
whose capacity is far less than what he believes it to be. Again, it seems
the hesitance to endorse two batteries is primarily based on the assumption
that batteries are very reliable and completely knowable. Do we want to bet
our lives on that assumption?
On Mon, Jun 8, 2020 at 3:39 PM Robert L. Nuckolls, III <
nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> wrote:
> If you don=C3=A2=82=AC=84=A2t have a second alternator, you should
have a small backup
> battery. Sizing would depend on your typical/ maximum distance between
> airports. Current draw of the pump, ECU, injectors and coils would be
> around 12 to 14 amps. A 12 amp/hour battery should give you a solid 30-40
> minutes of flight time, just running the engine electrics. An 18 amp/hour
> one, around 1 hour. We want to be able to sustain at least 10 volts to th
e
> electrics.
>
>
> *We=C3=A2=82=AC=84=A2ve found the most reliable, simple and light w
ay to get backup
> battery power to the engine electrics is a single 12 to 14 gauge wire
> running from the backup battery, through a 30 amp ATO fuse, to a heavy du
ty
> switch, to an emergency buss where all the engine electrics can receive
> power. Simply charge the backup battery every 30 days and load test
> annually. *If you have the recommended check engine light fitted, it will
> warn you any time the battery voltage falls below 12.5V. You can monitor
> battery voltage in Gauge 3 mode.
>
>
> A statement that is understandable and predictable.
> EVERY supplier of electrically dependent aircraft
> accessories has a vested interest in NOT having
> their product figure into the script for your
> bad day in the cockpit.
>
> Their "most reliable finding" focuses on
> their product . . . and while certainly
> critical for continued flight, it's not
> the only critical electro-whizzie on the
> airplane.
>
> All creative assemblages stand on the 3-legged
> stool of energy-management, properties-of-
> materials and refinement-of-process. It doesn't
> matter if you're cooking breakfast or building a
> space shuttle.
>
> I think I've suggested before that installation
> manuals for such products should call for, "Energy
> supplied by a robust, failure tolerant and competently
> maintained electrical system."
>
> To be sure . . . many of our brothers don't
> have strong interests or appreciation for
> elegant solutions and prefer the cookie-cutter
> approach. Nothing overtly wrong with that
> but it can generate systems with high
> costs of ownership, unnecessary weight
> and complexity. Complexity adds risk for lack of
> understanding and mis-application of features
> originally intended to keep a tense day
> in the cockpit from getting worst.
>
> We don't do gps receivers here . . . or engines,
> or auto-pilots. We do system integration with
> a goal of achieving the simplest, failure tolerant
> supply and distribution systems. A natural fallout
> of those endeavors is lower cost of ownership
> and weight.
>
> Getting back to the subject engine, what's
> the 'advantage' of carrying a second battery
> that may never be used as opposed to carrying
> one battery sized and maintained to meet
> what ever endurance goals are sought for
> the whole airplane?
>
> Bob . . .
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Physical construction of Z101 engine bus & battery |
bus
| From: | "user9253" <fransew(at)gmail.com> |
I confirm that my PC680 failed while in flight. I sent it to Bob. He opened it
up and found a broken weld. I can not remember how old the battery was,
probably 5 years or more. That battery cranked the engine just fine on that
last flight. I did not realize the battery had failed until I reduced engine RPM
prior to landing. The alternator had been supplying power up to that point.
While battery failure is extremely rare, it can happen. If an aircraft has two
batteries, a new one can be installed every other year. Worst case is that one
battery will be 4 years old and the other one 2 years old. I am not
necessarily recommending two batteries. Having two batteries will give some
pilots peace of mind, even though heavier and more expensive.
--------
Joe Gores
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=496709#496709
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Exploring a Different Way to Wire Avionics |
When I bought my Approach FastStack, I had them make the cables I needed at the
time because it wasn't that much money. As things changed, I made my own cables.
The nice part is when you swap out a device, you just make a new cable for the
connection between the device and the hub. Most interconnects between devices
are done in the hub.
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=496712#496712
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Exploring a Different Way to Wire Avionics |
| From: | Charlie England <ceengland7(at)gmail.com> |
On 6/8/2020 8:04 PM, donjohnston wrote:
>
> When I bought my Approach FastStack, I had them make the cables I needed at the
time because it wasn't that much money. As things changed, I made my own cables.
>
> The nice part is when you swap out a device, you just make a new cable for the
connection between the device and the hub. Most interconnects between devices
are done in the hub.
>
Were all the connections 1-1, 2-2, etc, or did you have to rearrange pin
order?
--
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Bob Verwey <bob.verwey(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Exploring a Different Way to Wire Avionics |
I wonder if interference could be a problem, and the subsequent
troubleshooting thereof?
Best Regards,
Bob Verwey
082 331 2727
On Tue, 9 Jun 2020 at 03:13, donjohnston <don@velocity-xl.com> wrote:
> don@velocity-xl.com>
>
> When I bought my Approach FastStack, I had them make the cables I needed
> at the time because it wasn't that much money. As things changed, I made
> my own cables.
>
> The nice part is when you swap out a device, you just make a new cable for
> the connection between the device and the hub. Most interconnects between
> devices are done in the hub.
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=496712#496712
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Exploring a Different Way to Wire Avionics |
bob.verwey(at)gmail.com wrote:
> I wonder if interference could be a problem, and the subsequent troubleshooting
thereof?
> Best Regards,Bob Verwey
None that I tell after 5 years.
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=496720#496720
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Ken Ryan <keninalaska(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Physical construction of Z101 engine bus & |
battery bus
I agree that sudden complete battery failure is extremely rare. But that is
not the failure mode that is of most concern. Of most concern is that
between our yearly capacity test, something happens that reduces the
battery's capacity, and we don't realize it. That sort of a failure would
be much more common. Two things that I can think of that might cause a
reduction in capacity are a hard starting engine and inadvertently leaving
the master switch on. Given that we cannot put a stick into the battery to
read its actual capacity before each flight, it seems prudent to have two
batteries (if battery power is the backup for an electrically dependent
engine).
On Mon, Jun 8, 2020 at 4:21 PM user9253 wrote:
>
> I confirm that my PC680 failed while in flight. I sent it to Bob. He
> opened it
> up and found a broken weld. I can not remember how old the battery was,
> probably 5 years or more. That battery cranked the engine just fine on
> that
> last flight. I did not realize the battery had failed until I reduced
> engine RPM
> prior to landing. The alternator had been supplying power up to that
> point.
> While battery failure is extremely rare, it can happen. If an aircraft
> has two
> batteries, a new one can be installed every other year. Worst case is
> that one
> battery will be 4 years old and the other one 2 years old. I am not
> necessarily recommending two batteries. Having two batteries will give
> some
> pilots peace of mind, even though heavier and more expensive.
>
> --------
> Joe Gores
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=496709#496709
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Essential Bus Diode Voltage D-25 voltage drop of |
2.3V?
| From: | "plevyakh" <hplevyak(at)mac.com> |
Folks,
Thanks for the quick inputs. I will do some investigating on my Grand Rapids
Technology EIS 4000 power and ground connections.
The EIS 4000 voltage is sensed by the power input and doesn't require a separate
connection...but good power and ground wired connections to the instrument are
a must.
Howard
--------
Howard Plevyak
GlaStar / Cincinnati, Ohio
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=496728#496728
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Alec Myers <alec(at)alecmyers.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Physical construction of Z101 engine bus & |
battery bus
Joe,
Just to play devils advocate, if youre prepared to replace a new battery every
other year, then if you only have one battery, the worst case is that its 2 years
old. And youre not schlepping a 4 year old battery around with you.
Your mean battery age with two batteries would be three years; with a single battery
the mean age is only one year, an improvement by a factor of 3.
\. If an aircraft has two
batteries, a new one can be installed every other year. Worst case is that one
battery will be 4 years old and the other one 2 years old. I am not
necessarily recommending two batteries. Having two batteries will give some
pilots peace of mind, even though heavier and more expensive.
--------
Joe Gores
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=496709#496709
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Exploring a Different Way to Wire Avionics |
| From: | Bill Watson <Mauledriver(at)nc.rr.com> |
I used Approach FastStack to do my panel back around 2009, first flew in
2011 and 1200 hours now.
My initial panel consisted of (3) GRT HX units, G430, G327, SL30,
TruTrak AP, CO2 detector, a PS audio panel with (4) place jacks and (2)
place powered for the Bose.
Using the FastStack service and hub not only made the panel easy to
wire, but their detailed knowledge of exactly what needed to be hooked
up to what to get the fullest possible function from this combination of
components far exceeded my skill level. There were many connection
options between the various piece parts from different certified and
experimental avionic manufacturers. Put simply, they knew what I was
going to want before I knew it.
The FastStack hub is unpowered, dumb, and for the most part a
standardized device. The few internal modifications required were made
and documented before the original shipment and it's never required any
further update. The custom wiring harnesses were of the highest quality
according to my inexperienced eyes. Each cable is fully documented per
avionics device. There is a one page avionics connection summary that
is perhaps the most valuable bit of documentation for the entire aircraft.
When I added the NavWorx ADS600b, they supplied custom cables and
updated documentation at a reasonable price.
Recently I changed out the G327 and Navworx for a Trig TT22 Transponder
and uAvioni echoUAT. The lead time on new cables was too long so I
modified some and added my own. The detailed documentation made this easy.
If one is going to do a DIY panel, I can't recommend this 'approach'
highly enough.
I guess that does further validate the OPs thinking.
Bill "flying the rust off and getting ready to go somewhere again" Watson
On 6/8/2020 9:04 PM, donjohnston wrote:
>
> When I bought my Approach FastStack, I had them make the cables I needed at the
time because it wasn't that much money. As things changed, I made my own cables.
>
> The nice part is when you swap out a device, you just make a new cable for the
connection between the device and the hub. Most interconnects between devices
are done in the hub.
>
>
--
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Physical construction of Z101 engine bus & battery |
bus
| From: | "user9253" <fransew(at)gmail.com> |
Alec, everything you wrote is true. Keep in mind that I was not necessarily
recommending two batteries. Someone who has an electrically dependent
engine with only one alternator might want to have two batteries. If the
alternator failed a long way from an airport, would that person prefer to have
one 2-year-old battery, or . . one 2-year-old battery plus one 4-year-old
battery? Some pilots do not replace their battery until it will not crank the
engine any more. Many batteries last 5 or more years. The nice thing about
experimental aircraft is that the builder designs the electrical system the way
that they want to.
--------
Joe Gores
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=496732#496732
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | David Carter <david(at)carter.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Z101 main alt wiring |
Charlie,
Thanks for the response. What type of silicone tubing do you use for this?
Regards,
David
---
David Carter
david(at)carter.net
On Mon, Jun 8, 2020 at 3:30 PM Charlie England wrote:
>
>
> On Mon, Jun 8, 2020 at 1:47 PM David Carter wrote:
>
>> Bob,
>>
>> Tracing the main alt field circuit from the main bus, I see the following
>> wire sizes:
>> - 16 AWG fusible link
>> - 12 AWG wire to 5A breaker & then to power master switch
>> - 20 AWG wire to regulator
>> - 20 AWG wire to alternator field
>>
>> I don't understand the need for the 12 AWG wire feeding the master, which
>> has only 20 AWG coming out of it to the load.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> David
>>
>>
>> ---
>> David Carter
>> david(at)carter.net
>>
>
> Reasonable question; might have been driven by 'off-the-shelf' fusible
> link size availability. 22awg (minimum reasonable size to work with) link
> (sleeved with silicone tubing) to 18awg would get the job done. 20awg after
> the breaker because the breaker protects it.
>
> I've tested the silicone tubing trick on 22awg with a direct short on a
> 12v tractor battery. The wire vaporizes, leaving a smoky interior lining on
> the clear silicone tubing, but the tubing contained the 'event'.
> Charlie
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Z101 main alt wiring |
| From: | Charlie England <ceengland7(at)gmail.com> |
On 6/10/2020 9:26 AM, David Carter wrote:
> Charlie,
>
> Thanks for the response. What type of silicone tubing do you use for
> this?
>
> Regards,
> David
>
> ---
> David Carter
> david(at)carter.net
>
>
> On Mon, Jun 8, 2020 at 3:30 PM Charlie England > wrote:
>
>
> On Mon, Jun 8, 2020 at 1:47 PM David Carter > wrote:
>
> Bob,
>
> Tracing the main alt field circuit from the main bus, I see
> the following wire sizes:
> - 16 AWG fusiblelink
> - 12 AWG wire to 5A breaker & then to power master switch
> - 20 AWG wire to regulator
> - 20 AWG wire to alternator field
>
> I don't understandthe need for the 12 AWG wire feeding the
> master, which has only 20 AWG coming out of it to the load.
>
> Thanks,
> David
>
>
> ---
> David Carter
> david(at)carter.net
>
>
> Reasonable question; might have been driven by 'off-the-shelf'
> fusible link size availability. 22awg (minimum reasonable size to
> work with) link (sleeved with silicone tubing) to 18awg would get
> the job done. 20awg after the breaker because the breaker protects it.
>
> I've tested the silicone tubing trick on 22awg with a direct short
> on a 12v tractor battery. The wire vaporizes, leaving a smoky
> interior lining on the clear silicone tubing, but the tubing
> contained the 'event'.
> Charlie
>
Hi David,
I don't even remember the source; probably ebay or Amazon. I just bought
clear 'food grade' silicone tubing in an assortment of diameters.
https://www.ebay.com/sch/i.html?_from=R40&_trksid=p2334524.m570.l1313.TR9.TRC1.A0.H0.Xsilicone+tubing+.TRS2&_nkw=silicone+tubing+&_sacat=0&LH_TitleDesc=0&_osacat=0&_odkw=silicone+tubing+assortment
Charlie
--
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Gerry van Dyk" <gerry.vandyk(at)eastlink.ca> |
| Subject: | Z101 main alt wiring |
I would think model airplane glow engine fuel tubing would work well
too.
Gerry
------ Original Message ------
From: "Charlie England" <ceengland7(at)gmail.com>
Sent: 2020-06-10 9:14:00 AM
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Z101 main alt wiring
>On 6/10/2020 9:26 AM, David Carter wrote:
>>Charlie,
>>
>>Thanks for the response. What type of silicone tubing do you use for
>>this?
>>
>>Regards,
>>David
>>
>>---
>>David Carter
>>david(at)carter.net
>>
>>
>>On Mon, Jun 8, 2020 at 3:30 PM Charlie England
>>wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>On Mon, Jun 8, 2020 at 1:47 PM David Carter wrote:
>>>>Bob,
>>>>
>>>>Tracing the main alt field circuit from the main bus, I see the
>>>>following wire sizes:
>>>>- 16 AWG fusible link
>>>>- 12 AWG wire to 5A breaker & then to power master switch
>>>>- 20 AWG wire to regulator
>>>>- 20 AWG wire to alternator field
>>>>
>>>>I don't understand the need for the 12 AWG wire feeding the master,
>>>>which has only 20 AWG coming out of it to the load.
>>>>
>>>>Thanks,
>>>>David
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>---
>>>>David Carter
>>>>david(at)carter.net
>>>
>>>Reasonable question; might have been driven by 'off-the-shelf'
>>>fusible link size availability. 22awg (minimum reasonable size to
>>>work with) link (sleeved with silicone tubing) to 18awg would get the
>>>job done. 20awg after the breaker because the breaker protects it.
>>>
>>>I've tested the silicone tubing trick on 22awg with a direct short on
>>>a 12v tractor battery. The wire vaporizes, leaving a smoky interior
>>>lining on the clear silicone tubing, but the tubing contained the
>>>'event'.
>>>Charlie
>Hi David,
>
>I don't even remember the source; probably ebay or Amazon. I just
>bought clear 'food grade' silicone tubing in an assortment of
>diameters.
>https://www.ebay.com/sch/i.html?_from=R40&_trksid=p2334524.m570.l1313.
TR9.TRC1.A0.H0.Xsilicone+tubing+.TRS2&_nkw=silicone+tubing+&_sacat=0&LH
_TitleDesc=0&_osacat=0&_odkw=silicone+tubing+assortment
>
>Charlie
>
>
>Virus-free. www.avast.com
>
><#DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
At 04:58 PM 6/9/2020, you wrote:
>
>Alec, everything you wrote is true. Keep in mind that I was not necessarily
>recommending two batteries. Someone who has an electrically dependent
>engine with only one alternator might want to have two batteries. If the
>alternator failed a long way from an airport, would that person
>prefer to have
>one 2-year-old battery, or . . one 2-year-old battery plus one 4-year-old
>battery? Some pilots do not replace their battery until it will not
>crank the
>engine any more. Many batteries last 5 or more years. The nice thing about
>experimental aircraft is that the builder designs the electrical
>system the way
>that they want to.
Let's harken back a few years . . . about
26 to be more exact when the OBAM aviation
community was in similar discussions
about second batteries. Then the triggering
technology was a constellation of electronic ignition
systems being offered to home built aviation.
I wrote an article for SA that massaged some
ideas for managing a second battery in a ship
fitted with dual electronic ignition systems.
https://tinyurl.com/y8cpo3wo
About 10 years later, this product came into being
offering a means for crew selected, manual or
automatic management of a second battery installed
to support flight critical systems in single
alternator aircraft.
https://tinyurl.com/nxmo3us
The adaptation of an automotive engine to
aircraft is unique and not well supported by
the Z101 Tinker-Toy approach to system architecture.
It would seem that neither the endurance bus
nor engine bus are optional. Further, given
the relatively high energy demands of some
engines (10+ Amps), the term 'endurance' is
no longer applicable. The idea of consuming
all fuel aboard during battery-only ops is
simply unrealistic.
Sadly, it seems necessary to apply the term
'emergency' to an alternator-out situation;
reversion to battery-only ops fosters a sense of
urgency to get the wheels on the ground ASAP!
I've massaged Z101 into a proposed Z102
architecture that offers a means for incorporation
of a second battery with a minimum of $time$
expended on monitoring for continued airworthiness.
I've posted the first iteration for the List
to sift . . .
https://tinyurl.com/ybgta8bb
In this proposal, the aux battery is the same
part number as the main battery. It is fitted
with a robust contactor that permits large
current flows to and from the aux battery for
(1) discharge during cranking assist and (2)
un-restricted charging from the ship's
alternator.
Again, all the buses are multiple feed path;
all buses are hot any time the main bus is hot.
This lends itself to single switch activation
of the DC power system.
Depending on flight conditions the aux bus
may be re-configured for main battery only
ops; the engine bus may be re-configured for
aux battery only ops.
As with Z101, no mis-position (aside from
OFF) puts the airframe at risk.
The aux battery is automatically connected to
the main bus any time the bus voltage exceeds
13.5 volts . . . i.e. the alternator is
running. As the most capable battery on
the airplane, the aux battery is dedicated
to engine operations.
Preflight checks are simple: Select aux bus
alt feed before engine start . . . observe
items on that bus are energized . . . all else
is dark. During engine run-up, select ENGINE
BUS AUX feed . . . note that voltage on the
bus rises by approx 0.7 volts while the aux
feed is selected.
With two identical batteries, the preventative
maintenance protocol reduces to periodic
replacement of aux battery with a new one while
moving the seldom taxed device into the main
battery position.
A more modern incarnation of the battery
management module is in the design phase.
It easily fits inside the backshell of a
15-pin d-sub.
https://tinyurl.com/ycr43882
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Z101 main alt wiring |
>
>Reasonable question; might have been driven by 'off-the-shelf'
>fusible link size availability. 22awg (minimum reasonable size to
>work with) link (sleeved with silicone tubing) to 18awg would get
>the job done. 20awg after the breaker because the breaker protects it.
>
>I've tested the silicone tubing trick on 22awg with a direct short
>on a 12v tractor battery. The wire vaporizes, leaving a smoky
>interior lining on the clear silicone tubing, but the tubing
>contained the 'event'.
>Charlie
Those sizes are still 'in work' . . . 20AWG is the smallest
commericial-off-the-shelf (COTS) fusible link wire I've found . . .
and is just fine when extended with 16AWG wire.
There is no benefit in 'fine tuning' fusible link
sizes. I'm thinking we're going to find that the range
of COTS wires will cover all our needs. I'd guess that
99.9% of all breakers and fuses installed in vehicles go
to the scrap yard never having been called upon to do
their job.
Fusible links are probably an order of magnitude
LESS likely to be 'faulted' into service.
Z101 and 102 suggest some FLW as jumpers between
contactors/relays . . . I've been pondering these
choices and have just about concluded that making
those jumpers short, robust and mechanically
protected is all that's practical and useful.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Z101 main alt wiring |
>Hi David,
>
>I don't even remember the source; probably ebay or Amazon. I just
>bought clear 'food grade' silicone tubing in an assortment of diameters.
>https://www.ebay.com/sch/i.html?_from=R40&_trksid=p2334524.m570.l1313.TR9.TRC1.A0.H0.Xsilicone+tubing+.TRS2&_nkw=silicone+tubing+&_sacat=0&LH_TitleDesc=0&_osacat=0&_odkw=silicone+tubing+assortment
>
>Charlie
B&C sells fusible link kits that include
a silicone over fiberglas sleeving to
coral the destruction products of what
ever wire you want to run inside.
https://tinyurl.com/ya2nzddh
You can acquire silicon/fiberglas sleeving
in various sizes/lengths here
https://tinyurl.com/ybwnk7md
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Charlie England <ceengland7(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: How about Z102? |
On Wed, Jun 10, 2020 at 1:06 PM Robert L. Nuckolls, III <
nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> wrote:
> At 04:58 PM 6/9/2020, you wrote:
>
>
> Alec, everything you wrote is true. Keep in mind that I was not
> necessarily
> recommending two batteries. Someone who has an electrically dependent
> engine with only one alternator might want to have two batteries. If the
> alternator failed a long way from an airport, would that person prefer to
> have
> one 2-year-old battery, or . . one 2-year-old battery plus one 4-year-old
> battery? Some pilots do not replace their battery until it will not crank
> the
> engine any more. Many batteries last 5 or more years. The nice thing
> about
> experimental aircraft is that the builder designs the electrical system
> the way
> that they want to.
>
>
> Let's harken back a few years . . . about
> 26 to be more exact when the OBAM aviation
> community was in similar discussions
> about second batteries. Then the triggering
> technology was a constellation of electronic ignition
> systems being offered to home built aviation.
>
> I wrote an article for SA that massaged some
> ideas for managing a second battery in a ship
> fitted with dual electronic ignition systems.
>
>
> * https://tinyurl.com/y8cpo3wo * About
> 10 years later, this product came into being
> offering a means for crew selected, manual or
> automatic management of a second battery installed
> to support flight critical systems in single
> alternator aircraft.
>
> https://tinyurl.com/nxmo3us
>
> The adaptation of an automotive engine to
> aircraft is unique and not well supported by
> the Z101 Tinker-Toy approach to system architecture.
>
> It would seem that neither the endurance bus
> nor engine bus are optional. Further, given
> the relatively high energy demands of some
> engines (10+ Amps), the term 'endurance' is
> no longer applicable. The idea of consuming
> all fuel aboard during battery-only ops is
> simply unrealistic.
>
> Sadly, it seems necessary to apply the term
> 'emergency' to an alternator-out situation;
> reversion to battery-only ops fosters a sense of
> urgency to get the wheels on the ground ASAP!
>
> I've massaged Z101 into a proposed Z102
> architecture that offers a means for incorporation
> of a second battery with a minimum of $time$
> expended on monitoring for continued airworthiness.
> I've posted the first iteration for the List
> to sift . . .
>
> https://tinyurl.com/ybgta8bb
>
> In this proposal, the aux battery is the same
> part number as the main battery. It is fitted
> with a robust contactor that permits large
> current flows to and from the aux battery for
> (1) discharge during cranking assist and (2)
> un-restricted charging from the ship's
> alternator.
>
> Again, all the buses are multiple feed path;
> all buses are hot any time the main bus is hot.
> This lends itself to single switch activation
> of the DC power system.
>
> Depending on flight conditions the aux bus
> may be re-configured for main battery only
> ops; the engine bus may be re-configured for
> aux battery only ops.
>
> As with Z101, no mis-position (aside from
> OFF) puts the airframe at risk.
>
> The aux battery is automatically connected to
> the main bus any time the bus voltage exceeds
> 13.5 volts . . . i.e. the alternator is
> running. As the most capable battery on
> the airplane, the aux battery is dedicated
> to engine operations.
>
> Preflight checks are simple: Select aux bus
> alt feed before engine start . . . observe
> items on that bus are energized . . . all else
> is dark. During engine run-up, select ENGINE
> BUS AUX feed . . . note that voltage on the
> bus rises by approx 0.7 volts while the aux
> feed is selected.
>
> With two identical batteries, the preventative
> maintenance protocol reduces to periodic
> replacement of aux battery with a new one while
> moving the seldom taxed device into the main
> battery position.
>
> A more modern incarnation of the battery
> management module is in the design phase.
> It easily fits inside the backshell of a
> 15-pin d-sub.
>
> https://tinyurl.com/ycr43882
>
>
> Bob . . .
>
The irony here is that with automotive conversions it's typically much
easier to add a 2nd full size alternator (at less weight penalty than a
2nd equal sized SLA battery), and less money, if you're planning on buying
Odyssey branded bats. Very few of us are willing to add air conditioners in
light a/c, so there's the hole (and pulley) for a 2nd alt.
Charlie
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Charlie England <ceengland7(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Z101 main alt wiring |
On Wed, Jun 10, 2020 at 1:12 PM Robert L. Nuckolls, III <
nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> wrote:
>
> Reasonable question; might have been driven by 'off-the-shelf' fusible
> link size availability. 22awg (minimum reasonable size to work with) link
> (sleeved with silicone tubing) to 18awg would get the job done. 20awg after
> the breaker because the breaker protects it.
>
> I've tested the silicone tubing trick on 22awg with a direct short on a
> 12v tractor battery. The wire vaporizes, leaving a smoky interior lining on
> the clear silicone tubing, but the tubing contained the 'event'.
> Charlie
>
>
> Those sizes are still 'in work' . . . 20AWG is the smallest
> commericial-off-the-shelf (COTS) fusible link wire I've found . . .
> and is just fine when extended with 16AWG wire.
>
> There is no benefit in 'fine tuning' fusible link
> sizes. I'm thinking we're going to find that the range
> of COTS wires will cover all our needs. I'd guess that
> 99.9% of all breakers and fuses installed in vehicles go
> to the scrap yard never having been called upon to do
> their job.
>
> Fusible links are probably an order of magnitude
> LESS likely to be 'faulted' into service.
>
> Z101 and 102 suggest some FLW as jumpers between
> contactors/relays . . . I've been pondering these
> choices and have just about concluded that making
> those jumpers short, robust and mechanically
> protected is all that's practical and useful.
>
>
> Bob . . .
>
That was my conclusion, as well. I rolled my own for alternator 'field'
feeders because it was easier to use on-hand wire & tubing than search for
small fuselink wire.
I currently have each injector and each ignition coil on a separate fuse;
I'm contemplating replacing that arrangement with fusible links from the
bus feeder. The only thing that gives me pause there is that if a device
shorts and current is low enough that the link *doesn't* open, I'm stuck
with the current drain until I'm back on the ground.
I used #12 fuselink wire as interconnects for my 55A IR alternator relay
feeders (posted a pic a few weeks ago).
Charlie
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Charlie England <ceengland7(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Z101 main alt wiring |
On Wed, Jun 10, 2020 at 2:10 PM Robert L. Nuckolls, III <
nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> wrote:
> Hi David,
>
> I don't even remember the source; probably ebay or Amazon. I just bought
> clear 'food grade' silicone tubing in an assortment of diameters.
>
> https://www.ebay.com/sch/i.html?_from=R40&_trksid=p2334524.m570.l1313.TR9.TRC1.A0.H0.Xsilicone+tubing+.TRS2&_nkw=silicone+tubing+&_sacat=0&LH_TitleDesc=0&_osacat=0&_odkw=silicone+tubing+assortment
>
> Charlie
>
>
> B&C sells fusible link kits that include
> a silicone over fiberglas sleeving to
> coral the destruction products of what
> ever wire you want to run inside.
>
> https://tinyurl.com/ya2nzddh
>
> You can acquire silicon/fiberglas sleeving
> in various sizes/lengths here
>
> https://tinyurl.com/ybwnk7md
>
>
> Bob . . .
>
I wish I'd been able to find that when I fab'd mine, but it's been a while.
Pretty sure it wasn't available back then. Pure silicone is 'good enough',
but the Fglas stuff there is no more expensive, so I'll go there for future
work. Thanks for the link!
Charlie
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | David Carter <david(at)carter.net> |
| Subject: | Brownout Booster? |
Found this device on eBay, and wondering if it is suitable for use on the
brownout bus on Z101?
https://www.ebay.com/itm/WaterProof-DC-DC-12V-to-14V-10A-140W-STEP-UP-Power-Converter-Regulator-DC/391330544024?hash=item5b1d1e3998:g:0ssAAOSw7FRWVx3p
There are very similar looking 12v-to-12v versions, but they are twice the
price. Not sure why.
---
David Carter
david(at)carter.net
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Ken Ryan <keninalaska(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: How about Z102? |
Regarding proposed Z102 thanks for taking time to developing an
architecture specific to auto conversion engines. One comment I have after
reviewing is that from what I have seen, many (probably most?) auto
conversions seem to use denso alternators with internal regulators. I think
it may be relatively uncommon that these alternators are modified so that
their regulators are moved to the external, or replaced with more
conventional aircraft alternators. I therefore wonder if the architecture
might be more useful if it also accounted for this idiosyncrasy of using a
single internally regulated alternator?
Ken
On Wed, Jun 10, 2020 at 10:06 AM Robert L. Nuckolls, III <
nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> wrote:
> At 04:58 PM 6/9/2020, you wrote:
>
>
> Alec, everything you wrote is true. Keep in mind that I was not
> necessarily
> recommending two batteries. Someone who has an electrically dependent
> engine with only one alternator might want to have two batteries. If the
> alternator failed a long way from an airport, would that person prefer to
> have
> one 2-year-old battery, or . . one 2-year-old battery plus one 4-year-old
> battery? Some pilots do not replace their battery until it will not crank
> the
> engine any more. Many batteries last 5 or more years. The nice thing
> about
> experimental aircraft is that the builder designs the electrical system
> the way
> that they want to.
>
>
> Let's harken back a few years . . . about
> 26 to be more exact when the OBAM aviation
> community was in similar discussions
> about second batteries. Then the triggering
> technology was a constellation of electronic ignition
> systems being offered to home built aviation.
>
> I wrote an article for SA that massaged some
> ideas for managing a second battery in a ship
> fitted with dual electronic ignition systems.
>
>
> * https://tinyurl.com/y8cpo3wo * About
> 10 years later, this product came into being
> offering a means for crew selected, manual or
> automatic management of a second battery installed
> to support flight critical systems in single
> alternator aircraft.
>
> https://tinyurl.com/nxmo3us
>
> The adaptation of an automotive engine to
> aircraft is unique and not well supported by
> the Z101 Tinker-Toy approach to system architecture.
>
> It would seem that neither the endurance bus
> nor engine bus are optional. Further, given
> the relatively high energy demands of some
> engines (10+ Amps), the term 'endurance' is
> no longer applicable. The idea of consuming
> all fuel aboard during battery-only ops is
> simply unrealistic.
>
> Sadly, it seems necessary to apply the term
> 'emergency' to an alternator-out situation;
> reversion to battery-only ops fosters a sense of
> urgency to get the wheels on the ground ASAP!
>
> I've massaged Z101 into a proposed Z102
> architecture that offers a means for incorporation
> of a second battery with a minimum of $time$
> expended on monitoring for continued airworthiness.
> I've posted the first iteration for the List
> to sift . . .
>
> https://tinyurl.com/ybgta8bb
>
> In this proposal, the aux battery is the same
> part number as the main battery. It is fitted
> with a robust contactor that permits large
> current flows to and from the aux battery for
> (1) discharge during cranking assist and (2)
> un-restricted charging from the ship's
> alternator.
>
> Again, all the buses are multiple feed path;
> all buses are hot any time the main bus is hot.
> This lends itself to single switch activation
> of the DC power system.
>
> Depending on flight conditions the aux bus
> may be re-configured for main battery only
> ops; the engine bus may be re-configured for
> aux battery only ops.
>
> As with Z101, no mis-position (aside from
> OFF) puts the airframe at risk.
>
> The aux battery is automatically connected to
> the main bus any time the bus voltage exceeds
> 13.5 volts . . . i.e. the alternator is
> running. As the most capable battery on
> the airplane, the aux battery is dedicated
> to engine operations.
>
> Preflight checks are simple: Select aux bus
> alt feed before engine start . . . observe
> items on that bus are energized . . . all else
> is dark. During engine run-up, select ENGINE
> BUS AUX feed . . . note that voltage on the
> bus rises by approx 0.7 volts while the aux
> feed is selected.
>
> With two identical batteries, the preventative
> maintenance protocol reduces to periodic
> replacement of aux battery with a new one while
> moving the seldom taxed device into the main
> battery position.
>
> A more modern incarnation of the battery
> management module is in the design phase.
> It easily fits inside the backshell of a
> 15-pin d-sub.
>
> https://tinyurl.com/ycr43882
>
>
> Bob . . .
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Brownout Booster? |
| From: | Charlie England <ceengland7(at)gmail.com> |
On 6/10/2020 2:56 PM, David Carter wrote:
> Found this device on eBay, and wondering if it is suitablefor use on
> the brownout bus on Z101?
>
> https://www.ebay.com/itm/WaterProof-DC-DC-12V-to-14V-10A-140W-STEP-UP-Power-Converter-Regulator-DC/391330544024?hash=item5b1d1e3998:g:0ssAAOSw7FRWVx3p
>
>
> There are very similar looking 12v-to-12v versions, but they are twice
> the price. Not sure why.
>
>
> ---
> David Carter
> david(at)carter.net
Might work, but note that minimum input voltage is 10V (not uncommon for
starting voltage to sag lower than that), and 'soft start' is a half
second; might be too slow to prevent the brownout issue.
Charlie
--
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: How about Z102? |
| From: | "user9253" <fransew(at)gmail.com> |
Bob, if two batteries are connected in parallel and one of the batteries
develops a shorted cell, will the good battery discharge into the bad battery?
If yes, would the rate of discharge be significant enough to quickly reduce
the good battery voltage to that of the bad battery?
Thanks
--------
Joe Gores
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=496759#496759
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Shorted cell risk? |
At 06:05 PM 6/10/2020, you wrote:
>
>Bob, if two batteries are connected in parallel and one of the batteries
>develops a shorted cell, will the good battery discharge into the bad battery?
>If yes, would the rate of discharge be significant enough to quickly reduce
>the good battery voltage to that of the bad battery?
>Thanks
>
>--------
>Joe Gores
A maintained battery doesn't get shorted cells.
This was true back in the days of flooded
batteries and especially true of RG devices
today.
'Shorting' requires motion . . . in the heyday
of flooded batteries, active material 'pasted'
into the cell grids was subject to degradation
with age/abuse. Chunks would fall out of the
plate and migrate into the wet space between
plates. Most of the stuff would fall to a
'sediment space' under the array of plates.
Plates were EXPECTED to shed chunks of expended
material so there was a 'basement' for storing
the dead stuff.
But a battery left in service past its prime
was subject to so much flaking of active
material that adjacent plates could become
electrically connected . . . i.e. 'shorted
cell'
An RG battery is a different breed of cat
all together. Separators between cells
is a pretty tough but thin, porous
plastic or fiber. The plates are compacted
with significant force before being
inserted into the battery case.
For 'motion' to occur in these devices,
requires severe degradation of the
cell's active materials. This happens
when the battery has been allowed to
self-destruct with age or when subjected
to sustained over charging. Then you
get swelling of the active material
and risk of separator compromise.
But even in extreme cases of AGM
battery abuse, shorted cells are not
a given. I've seen some pretty badly
'puffed up' AGM batteries that were essentially
destroyed but had presented no shorted
cells.
A battery removed from service in an aircraft
at the appointed time in its life cycle is not
going to exhibit effects of severe ageing or
abuse.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Ken Ryan <keninalaska(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Shorted cell risk? |
What is an RG battery? Without trying to continue mudding the waters, I
would venture to say that most builders these days who are using an auto
conversion engine not only have a single, internally regulated alternator,
they are also probably running LiPo batteries. Does this apply to LiPo
batteries as well? All of the experimentals that I am personally familiar
(eight or ten) are now using LiPo batteries.
On Thu, Jun 11, 2020 at 5:20 AM Robert L. Nuckolls, III <
nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> wrote:
> At 06:05 PM 6/10/2020, you wrote:
>
>
> Bob, if two batteries are connected in parallel and one of the batteries
> develops a shorted cell, will the good battery discharge into the bad
> battery?
> If yes, would the rate of discharge be significant enough to quickly reduce
> the good battery voltage to that of the bad battery?
> Thanks
>
> --------
> Joe Gores
>
>
> A maintained battery doesn't get shorted cells.
> This was true back in the days of flooded
> batteries and especially true of RG devices
> today.
>
> 'Shorting' requires motion . . . in the heyday
> of flooded batteries, active material 'pasted'
> into the cell grids was subject to degradation
> with age/abuse. Chunks would fall out of the
> plate and migrate into the wet space between
> plates. Most of the stuff would fall to a
> 'sediment space' under the array of plates.
> Plates were EXPECTED to shed chunks of expended
> material so there was a 'basement' for storing
> the dead stuff.
>
> But a battery left in service past its prime
> was subject to so much flaking of active
> material that adjacent plates could become
> electrically connected . . . i.e. 'shorted
> cell'
>
> An RG battery is a different breed of cat
> all together. Separators between cells
> is a pretty tough but thin, porous
> plastic or fiber. The plates are compacted
> with significant force before being
> inserted into the battery case.
>
> For 'motion' to occur in these devices,
> requires severe degradation of the
> cell's active materials. This happens
> when the battery has been allowed to
> self-destruct with age or when subjected
> to sustained over charging. Then you
> get swelling of the active material
> and risk of separator compromise.
>
> But even in extreme cases of AGM
> battery abuse, shorted cells are not
> a given. I've seen some pretty badly
> 'puffed up' AGM batteries that were essentially
> destroyed but had presented no shorted
> cells.
>
> A battery removed from service in an aircraft
> at the appointed time in its life cycle is not
> going to exhibit effects of severe ageing or
> abuse.
>
> Bob . . .
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Shorted cell risk? |
| From: | Tim Olson <Tim(at)MyRV10.com> |
I wouldn't make that assumption to "most". There are plenty of people using
both AGM and LiPo batteries. I know many of both, and many of both types
of alternators as well. So blanket statements don't really apply, but I do
agree that it would be nice to see architecture that covers both types of
alternators.
Tim
On 6/11/2020 8:27 AM, Ken Ryan wrote:
> What is an RG battery? Without trying to continue mudding the waters,
> I would venture to say that most builders these days who are using an
> auto conversion engine not only have a single, internally regulated
> alternator, they are also probably running LiPo batteries. Does this
> apply to LiPo batteries as well? All of theexperimentals that I am
> personally familiar (eight or ten) are now using LiPo batteries.
>
> On Thu, Jun 11, 2020 at 5:20 AM Robert L. Nuckolls, III
> >
> wrote:
>
> At 06:05 PM 6/10/2020, you wrote:
>> >
>>
>> Bob, if two batteries are connected in parallel and one of the
>> batteries
>> develops a shorted cell, will the good battery discharge into the
>> bad battery?
>> If yes, would the rate of discharge be significant enough to
>> quickly reduce
>> the good battery voltage to that of the bad battery?
>> Thanks
>>
>> --------
>> Joe Gores
>
> A maintained battery doesn't get shorted cells.
> This was true back in the days of flooded
> batteries and especially true of RG devices
> today.
>
> 'Shorting' requires motion . . . in the heyday
> of flooded batteries, active material 'pasted'
> into the cell grids was subject to degradation
> with age/abuse. Chunks would fall out of the
> plate and migrate into the wet space between
> plates. Most of the stuff would fall to a
> 'sediment space' under the array of plates.
> Plates were EXPECTED to shed chunks of expended
> material so there was a 'basement' for storing
> the dead stuff.
>
> But a battery left in service past its prime
> was subject to so much flaking of active
> material that adjacent plates could become
> electrically connected . . . i.e. 'shorted
> cell'
>
> An RG battery is a different breed of cat
> all together. Separators between cells
> is a pretty tough but thin, porous
> plastic or fiber. The plates are compacted
> with significant force before being
> inserted into the battery case.
>
> For 'motion' to occur in these devices,
> requires severe degradation of the
> cell's active materials. This happens
> when the battery has been allowed to
> self-destruct with age or when subjected
> to sustained over charging. Then you
> get swelling of the active material
> and risk of separator compromise.
>
> But even in extreme cases of AGM
> battery abuse, shorted cells are not
> a given. I've seen some pretty badly
> 'puffed up' AGM batteries that were essentially
> destroyed but had presented no shorted
> cells.
>
> A battery removed from service in an aircraft
> at the appointed time in its life cycle is not
> going to exhibit effects of severe ageing or
> abuse.
>
> Bob . . .
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: How about Z102? |
At 03:12 PM 6/10/2020, you wrote:
>Regarding proposed Z102 thanks for taking time
>to developing an architecture specific to auto
>conversion engines. One comment I have after
>reviewing is that from what I have seen, many
>(probably most?) auto conversions seem to use
>denso alternators with internal regulators. I
>think it may be relatively uncommon that these
>alternators are modified so that their
>regulators are moved to the external, or
>replaced with more conventional aircraft
>alternators. I therefore wonder if the
>architecture might be more useful if it also
>accounted for this idiosyncrasy=C2 of using a
>single internally regulated alternator?
>
>Ken
This has been an ongoing debate on these pages
decades. I've sorta taken the tack that we should
strive to publish and recommend the best we know
how to do as opposed to becoming an echo chamber
for concepts from other venues.
To be sure, reliability of COTS alternators
is very high . . . in fact, I've been told there
are STCs now for adapting COTS alternators
to TC aircraft sans ov protection. I've not
seen any such documents but it wouldn't surprise
me.
We'll have to leave adoption of such variants
up to the individual builder. For the foreseeable
future, I'll continue to strive for as much
failure tolerance as the technology and tools
at hand will offer.
Speaking of COTS alternators . . . Lister
Graeme Coates did an excellent piece on ND alternator
modifications published in Kitplanes last year.
You can see a copy of that article here:
https://tinyurl.com/yxmpw3on
. . . along with other writings on the same
subject.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | David Carter <david(at)carter.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Brownout Booster? |
Can someone please provide a link to a brownout booster that would be
suitable for the Z101 brownout bus? I'm having trouble finding one that
appears suitable, possibly because I don't really know what I should be
looking for.
Thanks,
David
--
David Carter
david(at)carter.net
On Wed, Jun 10, 2020 at 4:54 PM Charlie England
wrote:
> On 6/10/2020 2:56 PM, David Carter wrote:
>
> Found this device on eBay, and wondering if it is suitable for use on the
> brownout bus on Z101?
>
>
> https://www.ebay.com/itm/WaterProof-DC-DC-12V-to-14V-10A-140W-STEP-UP-Power-Converter-Regulator-DC/391330544024?hash=item5b1d1e3998:g:0ssAAOSw7FRWVx3p
>
>
> There are very similar looking 12v-to-12v versions, but they are twice the
> price. Not sure why.
>
>
> ---
> David Carter
> david(at)carter.net
>
> Might work, but note that minimum input voltage is 10V (not uncommon for
> starting voltage to sag lower than that), and 'soft start' is a half
> second; might be too slow to prevent the brownout issue.
>
> Charlie
>
>
> Virus-free.
> www.avast.com
>
> <#m_-803626533076655720_DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Paul Millner <millner(at)me.com> |
| Subject: | What is an RG battery? |
Recombinant Gas... designed to turn any liberated hydrogen/oxygen back into water,
to avoid electrolyte depletion.
Paul
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Brownout Booster? |
At 09:32 AM 6/11/2020, you wrote:
>Can someone please provide a link to a brownout
>booster that would be suitable for the Z101
>brownout bus? I'm having trouble finding one
>that appears suitable, possibly because I don't
>really know what I should=C2 be looking for.=C2
What are your brownout bus loads?
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Brownout Booster? |
| From: | "user9253" <fransew(at)gmail.com> |
eBay item 222626498012 claims to work with as little as 3 volts input.
eBay item 224017421193 claims to work with as little as 8.5 volts input.
The descriptions are written in broken English. Example:
(please to ensure that output voltage above on input voltage)
You could experiment with more than one type until you find one that works.
A separate DC-DC booster could even be installed for each protected load.
--------
Joe Gores
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=496777#496777
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Shorted cell risk? |
At 08:27 AM 6/11/2020, you wrote:
>What is an RG battery?
Sorry . . . recombinant gas (RG) also known as absorbed glass mat (AGM)
and valve regulated sealed lead acid (VRLA) and starved electrolyte
cells. Lots of ways to describe the same technology.
>Without trying to continue mudding the waters, I
>would venture to say that most
>builders these days who are using an auto conversion engine not only have a
>single, internally regulated alternator, they are also probably running
LiPo
>batteries.
Hmmm . . . 'most'?
> Does this apply to LiPo batteries as well? All of the=C2 experimentals
>that I am personally familiar (eight or ten) are now using LiPo batteries.
As to cell shorting . . . we're told that
lithium related fires are initiated by short
circuiting the cell. In the 787 batteries,
the shorts were internal. Given their energy
density, the aftermath of a cell-short is
almost guaranteed to be spectacular.
The LiPoFe technology seems most sensitive
to electrical abuse . . . a condition that
gave impetus to rather elaborate battery
management systems being folded into
'holy watered' products.
I've been playing with my new West Mountain Radio
battery analyzer. Did a constellation of deep
discharge tests on some 18650 cells. I'll take
a few of them down to zero . . . let them set
for a day or so and then see what happens to
their demonstrated capacity.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Ken Ryan <keninalaska(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Shorted cell risk? |
>
>
> Hmmm . . . 'most'?
>
I can only speak to my experience. I am personally familiar with 5
SuperSTOLs, 1 Highlander, 2 Zeniths and 1 Rans. Every one has ditched lead
acid for LiPo. Of course these are all Light Sport Aircraft and weight is a
big concern when max gross is 1320. I would guess LiPo has not been as
widely adopted in larger aircraft with more weight to play with.
Ken
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Shorted cell risk? |
| From: | Jan de Jong <jan_de_jong(at)casema.nl> |
Dear all,
Better not confuse LiPo with LiFePO4 (also called LFP). Important
differences.
A search with both terms will lead to some clarity I expect.
Cheers,
Jan de Jong
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Shorted cell risk? |
| From: | C&K <yellowduckduo(at)gmail.com> |
Opposite experience for me with only one out of six familiar local
aircraft using Lithium. With the relatively economical older aircraft
in my neighborhood that I'm not familiar with I'd be very surprised if
even one out of 10 has converted.
Ken L
On 11/06/2020 4:43 PM, Ken Ryan wrote:
>
>
> Hmmm . . . 'most'?
>
>
> I can only speak to my experience. I am personally familiar with 5
> SuperSTOLs, 1 Highlander, 2 Zeniths and 1 Rans. Every one has ditched
> lead acid for LiPo. Of course these are all Light Sport Aircraft and
> weight is a big concern when max gross is 1320. I would guess LiPo has
> not been as widely adopted in larger aircraft with more weight to play
> with.
>
> Ken
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Steve Stearns <steve(at)tomasara.com> |
| Subject: | EarthX ETX680C support |
Cross-post (with permission) from the Canard Aviators List:
3a.
*EarthX ETX680C support*
From: Tristan Vincent-Philpot
Date: Wed, 10 Jun 2020 23:16:17 UTC
I flew the family from KVGT to KSNA yesterday, an uneventful trip except
that on 10nm approach into John Wayne, the battery fault indicator lit on
my instrument panel. The light was solid, not blinking, meaning that a
hardware problem had occurred and could not be reset. I prioritized flying
the airplane to a safe landing while I switched the Alternator off to avoid
trying to push more charge into the battery with an unknown fault.
Once the dust settled and I had parked and unloaded the family into the
air-conditioned comfort of the ACI Jet terminal, I set about
troubleshooting. I took the rear cabin panel off and checked the condition
of the battery itself. It was not hot, or smoking and there was no
indication of any damage of any kind. With the Master switch on I checked
the volts and amps and as expected the battery voltage had depleted
slightly but otherwise everything was normal except with the fault warning
light on.
I re-read the operator's manual for the EarthX and it was clear that there
was a hardware fault detected and the battery would need to be replaced.
I then called EarthX and was put through to technical support (=98Reg
=99) who
was very knowledgeable and said that the most likely cause they have seen
with this issue is that one of the dual redundant internal disconnectors
had thrown a fault and latched the warning. He said I should try and charge
it, and if as he suspected it accepted a charge normally, I should not
worry about flying it home as the cells have been operating perfectly
normally and take months to deviate from this practice. By lucky
coincidence I had purchased an Optimate TM-291 charger as recommended by
EarthX a couple of days ago and had it with me so borrowed a generator from
the FBO and plugged it in. The battery charged completely normally in about
20 mins to full charge, then held the charge, didn=99t get warm or an
ything
unusual. Throughout this process Reg was engaged, looking for possible
replacements in stock nearby, looking at my photos of the charger and other
indications. Once charged, we left the airplane while we went to explore
Laguna Beach (the reason for the flight) then returned in the late
afternoon. Sure enough the battery had held its charge as usual and the
engine started first time. I flew the 1.5 hours home to Las Vegas with
appropriate monitoring of the electrical system behavior with nothing amiss
except the warning light on. When I shut down at home base, the battery
volts indicated full ~13.4V as expected, and again the battery was cool
with no smoke or any other problems.
Today, I went online to EarthX website as directed by Reg and filled out
the online warranty form. He helped me find a couple of the parameters and
pre-warned the warranty department to expect my submission. Within minutes
I had an accepted warranty exchange and the replacement battery is shipping
to me now. When it arrives I can then remove the old one and return it.
Overall this has INCREASED my confidence in the Lithium battery system from
EarthX and I was very impressed with the attitude and knowledge of the
technical support on hand when I called. It could have been much worse.
As an aside, I asked if there was any chance they were working on a venting
system for the ETX680C model to provide added safety for cabin
installations. He said no, there=99s no room in that form factor, but
that it
would be possible for the regular size ETX680 (non-compact model). I told
him I thought it would encourage more in the experimental community to make
the leap to their batteries as the TSO=99d ETX900-TSO is eye-watering
ly more
expensive but is the only option with a vent kit. He agreed - I guess we
=99ll
have to wait and see what transpires
Also a shout out to ACI-Jet at KSNA, they were awesome all day, supplying a
comfortable lounge for the family with drinks and snacks, a generator and
cables, waiving the usual fees ($60) for a 10gal fuel purchase. I
thoroughly recommend them if you find yourself heading to Orange County.
Also the Optimate chargers are very nicely made and work well.
A long yearned for family day at the beach was not really impacted and we
all arrived safely home for dinner. And I learned stuff :-)
Tristan
N142LE
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Speaking of LiFePo4 |
At 04:33 PM 6/11/2020, you wrote:
>
>Dear all,
>
>Better not confuse LiPo with LiFePO4 (also called LFP). Important differences.
>A search with both terms will lead to some clarity I expect.
An very important point. Not all 'lithium' cells
are the same. While the energy density is
higher for chemistries other than lithium
iron phosphate (LiFePo4), the relative
robustness and safety of the LiFePo4
devices has prompted a chemistry of choice
decision for most suppliers to our craft . . .
indeed most consumer motive power applications.
For our purposes, when ever I refer to
a lithium product, know that I'm referring
to the LiFePo4 technology.
Speaking of LiFePo4:
I observe that virtually all the COTS lithium
chargers in my stable, every one 'tops off'
at 4.2 volts. These chargers were used to
explore qualities of a bevy of 18650
cells laying around the shop. I've
attached a plot for a constellation
of cells. A plot of the as-found condition
of a cell was followed by a plot of a
recharged condition.
Most of the 'weak' cells showed marked
recovery . . . others did not. One interesting
feature of this exercise is to note the
starting voltage for the discharge plot
of each recharged cell.
Virtually all produced first delivery of
energy at 4.0 volts or more. Hmmm . . .
It seems this was related to charging
top-off voltage. Okay, if one wishes
to maximize exploitation of your ship'
lithium battery, do you want to raise
your alternator voltage to 4 x 4.2
16.8 volts?
Hmmm . . . most of our electro whizzies
probably wouldn't mind . . . but if you're
carrying incandescent lights of any size,
service life would be reduced by 50% or more . . .
but they would certainly be bright!
I've posted an article found on powerstream.com
See: https://tinyurl.com/yazw9jnh
By the way, check out the rest of this website.
It's a treasure trove of data on DC power
systems. I had the name of the author at
one time but let it get lost. If anyone
perusing this resource runs across the author's
name, I'd appreciate a heads-up.
The article illustrates some interesting numbers
on LiFePo4 performance. First, there is
little value in charging the LiFePo4 cell
at it rated maximum. The writer demonstrates
that charging at considerably lower levels
does not significantly affect stored energy
until charge-per-cell voltage drops below
3.40. Okay, 3.40 x 4 is 13.6 volts. I
think we can live with that!
In fact, we're told that the charge-discharge
service life of lithium cells is improved
by operating the cells between 30 and 90%
of the chemical capacity of the cell. Okay
operating the contemporary 4-cell array
products at the legacy 14.2 to 14.4 volts
(3.6 volts per cell) wont give up significant
performance while extending service life.
I'm going to repeat the experiment in the
article cited. I will add features
that explore system integration questions
going to what may prove to be the 'next
generation' of OBAM aviation electrical system
architectures.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Ken Ryan <keninalaska(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Speaking of LiFePo4 |
Okay, 20 minutes with google reveals plenty of examples of COTS chargers,
but no definition of COTS. Could someone please educate me on this
terminology? Thanks.
On Fri, Jun 12, 2020 at 9:27 AM Robert L. Nuckolls, III <
nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> wrote:
> At 04:33 PM 6/11/2020, you wrote:
>
> jan_de_jong(at)casema.nl>
>
> Dear all,
>
> Better not confuse LiPo with LiFePO4 (also called LFP). Important
> differences.
> A search with both terms will lead to some clarity I expect.
>
>
> An very important point. Not all 'lithium' cells
> are the same. While the energy density is
> higher for chemistries other than lithium
> iron phosphate (LiFePo4), the relative
> robustness and safety of the LiFePo4
> devices has prompted a chemistry of choice
> decision for most suppliers to our craft . . .
> indeed most consumer motive power applications.
>
> For our purposes, when ever I refer to
> a lithium product, know that I'm referring
> to the LiFePo4 technology.
>
> Speaking of LiFePo4:
>
> I observe that virtually all the COTS lithium
> chargers in my stable, every one 'tops off'
> at 4.2 volts. These chargers were used to
> explore qualities of a bevy of 18650
> cells laying around the shop. I've
> attached a plot for a constellation
> of cells. A plot of the as-found condition
> of a cell was followed by a plot of a
> recharged condition.
>
> Most of the 'weak' cells showed marked
> recovery . . . others did not. One interesting
> feature of this exercise is to note the
> starting voltage for the discharge plot
> of each recharged cell.
>
> Virtually all produced first delivery of
> energy at 4.0 volts or more. Hmmm . . .
> It seems this was related to charging
> top-off voltage. Okay, if one wishes
> to maximize exploitation of your ship'
> lithium battery, do you want to raise
> your alternator voltage to 4 x 4.2
> 16.8 volts?
>
> Hmmm . . . most of our electro whizzies
> probably wouldn't mind . . . but if you're
> carrying incandescent lights of any size,
> service life would be reduced by 50% or more . . .
> but they would certainly be bright!
>
> I've posted an article found on powerstream.com
>
> See: https://tinyurl.com/yazw9jnh
>
> By the way, check out the rest of this website.
> It's a treasure trove of data on DC power
> systems. I had the name of the author at
> one time but let it get lost. If anyone
> perusing this resource runs across the author's
> name, I'd appreciate a heads-up.
>
> The article illustrates some interesting numbers
> on LiFePo4 performance. First, there is
> little value in charging the LiFePo4 cell
> at it rated maximum. The writer demonstrates
> that charging at considerably lower levels
> does not significantly affect stored energy
> until charge-per-cell voltage drops below
> 3.40. Okay, 3.40 x 4 is 13.6 volts. I
> think we can live with that!
>
> In fact, we're told that the charge-discharge
> service life of lithium cells is improved
> by operating the cells between 30 and 90%
> of the chemical capacity of the cell. Okay
> operating the contemporary 4-cell array
> products at the legacy 14.2 to 14.4 volts
> (3.6 volts per cell) wont give up significant
> performance while extending service life.
>
> I'm going to repeat the experiment in the
> article cited. I will add features
> that explore system integration questions
> going to what may prove to be the 'next
> generation' of OBAM aviation electrical system
> architectures.
>
> Bob . . .
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Matthew S. Whiting" <m.whiting(at)frontier.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Physical construction of Z101 engine bus & |
battery bus
It seems to me the real question is which is more likely to fail:
1. A single battery with an age of 0 - 2 years or
2. Both batteries simultaneously where one is 0 - 2 years old and the other is
2 - 4 years old?
I am not aware of a good source of battery failure rates, but my auto experience
over the course of 45 years suggests that alternative 1 has a much higher probability
than alternative 2. I have almost always had at least four cars, trucks
and motorcycles at any given time with battery ages between new and 8 years
old. Even if I discount failures of batteries more than 4 years old (I tend
to run my car batteries to failure), I have had at least two failures I can
remember of with batteries less than two years old. My Current Chevy Equinox
OEM battery failed 5 months after I bought the vehicle new in 2012. No charging
system issues were found and the warranty replacement battery lasted 6 years.
I have NEVER had two of my vehicles have battery failures at the same time
or even closely spaced in time. That suggests to me that the probability of a
single new battery failing is higher than the probability of simultaneous failure
of two batteries: one new and one older.
I realize this isnt exactly the same scenario since two batteries in the same vehicle
could have a common failure mode such as a runaway alternator that fries
them both, but it is the best I can do.
Matt
> On Jun 12, 2020, at 4:50 PM, Alec Myers wrote:
>
>
> Joe,
>
> Just to play devils advocate, if youre prepared to replace a new battery every
other year, then if you only have one battery, the worst case is that its 2
years old. And youre not schlepping a 4 year old battery around with you.
> Your mean battery age with two batteries would be three years; with a single
battery the mean age is only one year, an improvement by a factor of 3.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | David Carter <david(at)carter.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Speaking of LiFePo4 |
Commercial-of-the-shelf. Often used in the government contracting world &
the opposite of bespoke.
On Fri, Jun 12, 2020 at 4:12 PM Ken Ryan wrote:
> Okay, 20 minutes with google reveals plenty of examples of COTS chargers,
> but no definition of COTS. Could someone please educate me on this
> terminology? Thanks.
>
>
> On Fri, Jun 12, 2020 at 9:27 AM Robert L. Nuckolls, III <
> nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> wrote:
>
>> At 04:33 PM 6/11/2020, you wrote:
>>
>> jan_de_jong(at)casema.nl>
>>
>> Dear all,
>>
>> Better not confuse LiPo with LiFePO4 (also called LFP). Important
>> differences.
>> A search with both terms will lead to some clarity I expect.
>>
>>
>> An very important point. Not all 'lithium' cells
>> are the same. While the energy density is
>> higher for chemistries other than lithium
>> iron phosphate (LiFePo4), the relative
>> robustness and safety of the LiFePo4
>> devices has prompted a chemistry of choice
>> decision for most suppliers to our craft . . .
>> indeed most consumer motive power applications.
>>
>> For our purposes, when ever I refer to
>> a lithium product, know that I'm referring
>> to the LiFePo4 technology.
>>
>> Speaking of LiFePo4:
>>
>> I observe that virtually all the COTS lithium
>> chargers in my stable, every one 'tops off'
>> at 4.2 volts. These chargers were used to
>> explore qualities of a bevy of 18650
>> cells laying around the shop. I've
>> attached a plot for a constellation
>> of cells. A plot of the as-found condition
>> of a cell was followed by a plot of a
>> recharged condition.
>>
>> Most of the 'weak' cells showed marked
>> recovery . . . others did not. One interesting
>> feature of this exercise is to note the
>> starting voltage for the discharge plot
>> of each recharged cell.
>>
>> Virtually all produced first delivery of
>> energy at 4.0 volts or more. Hmmm . . .
>> It seems this was related to charging
>> top-off voltage. Okay, if one wishes
>> to maximize exploitation of your ship'
>> lithium battery, do you want to raise
>> your alternator voltage to 4 x 4.2
>> 16.8 volts?
>>
>> Hmmm . . . most of our electro whizzies
>> probably wouldn't mind . . . but if you're
>> carrying incandescent lights of any size,
>> service life would be reduced by 50% or more . . .
>> but they would certainly be bright!
>>
>> I've posted an article found on powerstream.com
>>
>> See: https://tinyurl.com/yazw9jnh
>>
>> By the way, check out the rest of this website.
>> It's a treasure trove of data on DC power
>> systems. I had the name of the author at
>> one time but let it get lost. If anyone
>> perusing this resource runs across the author's
>> name, I'd appreciate a heads-up.
>>
>> The article illustrates some interesting numbers
>> on LiFePo4 performance. First, there is
>> little value in charging the LiFePo4 cell
>> at it rated maximum. The writer demonstrates
>> that charging at considerably lower levels
>> does not significantly affect stored energy
>> until charge-per-cell voltage drops below
>> 3.40. Okay, 3.40 x 4 is 13.6 volts. I
>> think we can live with that!
>>
>> In fact, we're told that the charge-discharge
>> service life of lithium cells is improved
>> by operating the cells between 30 and 90%
>> of the chemical capacity of the cell. Okay
>> operating the contemporary 4-cell array
>> products at the legacy 14.2 to 14.4 volts
>> (3.6 volts per cell) wont give up significant
>> performance while extending service life.
>>
>> I'm going to repeat the experiment in the
>> article cited. I will add features
>> that explore system integration questions
>> going to what may prove to be the 'next
>> generation' of OBAM aviation electrical system
>> architectures.
>>
>> Bob . . .
>>
> --
---
David Carter
david(at)carter.net
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Speaking of LiFePo4 |
| From: | C&K <yellowduckduo(at)gmail.com> |
Commercial Off The Shelf rather than custom made
On 12/06/2020 3:45 PM, Ken Ryan wrote:
> Okay, 20 minutes with google reveals plenty of examples of COTS
> chargers, but no definition of COTS. Could someone please educate me
> on this terminology? Thanks.
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Sebastien <cluros(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Speaking of LiFePo4 |
Commercial Of The Shelf.
In other words purchaseable.
On Fri, Jun 12, 2020, 13:14 Ken Ryan wrote:
> Okay, 20 minutes with google reveals plenty of examples of COTS chargers,
> but no definition of COTS. Could someone please educate me on this
> terminology? Thanks.
>
>
> On Fri, Jun 12, 2020 at 9:27 AM Robert L. Nuckolls, III <
> nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> wrote:
>
>> At 04:33 PM 6/11/2020, you wrote:
>>
>> jan_de_jong(at)casema.nl>
>>
>> Dear all,
>>
>> Better not confuse LiPo with LiFePO4 (also called LFP). Important
>> differences.
>> A search with both terms will lead to some clarity I expect.
>>
>>
>> An very important point. Not all 'lithium' cells
>> are the same. While the energy density is
>> higher for chemistries other than lithium
>> iron phosphate (LiFePo4), the relative
>> robustness and safety of the LiFePo4
>> devices has prompted a chemistry of choice
>> decision for most suppliers to our craft . . .
>> indeed most consumer motive power applications.
>>
>> For our purposes, when ever I refer to
>> a lithium product, know that I'm referring
>> to the LiFePo4 technology.
>>
>> Speaking of LiFePo4:
>>
>> I observe that virtually all the COTS lithium
>> chargers in my stable, every one 'tops off'
>> at 4.2 volts. These chargers were used to
>> explore qualities of a bevy of 18650
>> cells laying around the shop. I've
>> attached a plot for a constellation
>> of cells. A plot of the as-found condition
>> of a cell was followed by a plot of a
>> recharged condition.
>>
>> Most of the 'weak' cells showed marked
>> recovery . . . others did not. One interesting
>> feature of this exercise is to note the
>> starting voltage for the discharge plot
>> of each recharged cell.
>>
>> Virtually all produced first delivery of
>> energy at 4.0 volts or more. Hmmm . . .
>> It seems this was related to charging
>> top-off voltage. Okay, if one wishes
>> to maximize exploitation of your ship'
>> lithium battery, do you want to raise
>> your alternator voltage to 4 x 4.2
>> 16.8 volts?
>>
>> Hmmm . . . most of our electro whizzies
>> probably wouldn't mind . . . but if you're
>> carrying incandescent lights of any size,
>> service life would be reduced by 50% or more . . .
>> but they would certainly be bright!
>>
>> I've posted an article found on powerstream.com
>>
>> See: https://tinyurl.com/yazw9jnh
>>
>> By the way, check out the rest of this website.
>> It's a treasure trove of data on DC power
>> systems. I had the name of the author at
>> one time but let it get lost. If anyone
>> perusing this resource runs across the author's
>> name, I'd appreciate a heads-up.
>>
>> The article illustrates some interesting numbers
>> on LiFePo4 performance. First, there is
>> little value in charging the LiFePo4 cell
>> at it rated maximum. The writer demonstrates
>> that charging at considerably lower levels
>> does not significantly affect stored energy
>> until charge-per-cell voltage drops below
>> 3.40. Okay, 3.40 x 4 is 13.6 volts. I
>> think we can live with that!
>>
>> In fact, we're told that the charge-discharge
>> service life of lithium cells is improved
>> by operating the cells between 30 and 90%
>> of the chemical capacity of the cell. Okay
>> operating the contemporary 4-cell array
>> products at the legacy 14.2 to 14.4 volts
>> (3.6 volts per cell) wont give up significant
>> performance while extending service life.
>>
>> I'm going to repeat the experiment in the
>> article cited. I will add features
>> that explore system integration questions
>> going to what may prove to be the 'next
>> generation' of OBAM aviation electrical system
>> architectures.
>>
>> Bob . . .
>>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Matthew S. Whiting" <m.whiting(at)frontier.com> |
| Subject: | Z101 with Rotax 915iS |
This is my first post to the mailing list so hopefully I get it reasonably right.
I am not sure if this best fits this list or the Rotax engine list, but will
start here.
For context, I am a retired CS/EE and about to start my first home built project.
My RANS S-21 is scheduled to ship in July. I plan to use a Rotax 915iS engine
and am looking now at electrical system and avionics.
I have read the Connection book and perused some of the newer Z architectures at
the web site. I am leaning towards a Z101 configuration as the baseline, but
the problem is that the Rotax comes with only one generator (I know it has two,
but I believe the small one is only available to run the engine and not available
for ships power). Rotax sells an external alternator kit, but a quick
tally of the parts shows the cost to be north of $2,000 and I see nothing yet
in the aftermarket.
So, I am curious as to whether anyone here has installed a 915iS and, if so, what
electrical system architecture did you choose. And, is anyone aware of alternative
way to add a second alternator/generator to a 915iS or is the Rotax option
the only game in town?
My second choice is a second battery to back up the avionics and engine should
the unthinkable happen and both alternators fail and the primary battery not have
enough reserve to get to a safe landing site. Id much rather have a second
alternator than a second battery, but $2,000 seems a little steep for an alternator
that likely will never get used and a second battery at least has the
advantage of extra starting reserve on our cold winter days in northern PA.
Regards,
Matt Whiting
Sent from my iPad
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Charlie England <ceengland7(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Physical construction of Z101 engine bus & |
battery bus
I think that when doing failure analysis, you don't really pay that much
attention to odds; you play 'what if'. (Actually, 'when it fails'; the
assumption when doing failure analysis is that anything we can back up
*will* fail). You do have to take uncontrollable stuff out of the equation;
we can't carry an extra set of wings, for instance, and most of us accept
the risk of a single engine, in order to be able to fly at all.
Once that's out of the way, then 'what if' starts. What if the alternator
fails? It's taken off line and battery backs it up. What if the battery
fails? It's taken off line and the alternator backs it up (contrary to
popular internet lore). If the engine isn't electrically dependent and
we're VFR with nav on our phone, we don't even care about backup at all.
The what if of both failing in a single flight is considered to be so
unlikely that most are willing to treat a double failure like a wing or
other structural failure; we're just not going to go there.
My personal choice with a high-amps-need engine control system is to not
accept the limited and continuously decreasing duration (capacity) of a
standard battery, nor to accept the weight penalty of a much bigger battery
or multiple batteries, in order to keep the engine running to the end of
the flight. For me, that only leaves the choice of dual alternators.
FWIW,
Charlie
On Fri, Jun 12, 2020 at 5:09 PM Matthew S. Whiting
wrote:
> m.whiting(at)frontier.com>
>
>
> It seems to me the real question is which is more likely to fail:
>
> 1. A single battery with an age of 0 - 2 years or
> 2. Both batteries simultaneously where one is 0 - 2 years old and the
> other is 2 - 4 years old?
>
> I am not aware of a good source of battery failure rates, but my auto
> experience over the course of 45 years suggests that alternative 1 has a
> much higher probability than alternative 2. I have almost always had at
> least four cars, trucks and motorcycles at any given time with battery ag
es
> between new and 8 years old. Even if I discount failures of batteries mo
re
> than 4 years old (I tend to run my car batteries to failure), I have had
at
> least two failures I can remember of with batteries less than two years
> old. My Current Chevy Equinox OEM battery failed 5 months after I bought
> the vehicle new in 2012. No charging system issues were found and the
> warranty replacement battery lasted 6 years. I have NEVER had two of my
> vehicles have battery failures at the same time or even closely spaced in
> time. That suggests to me that the probability of a single new battery
> failing is higher than the probability of simultaneous failure of two
> batteries: one new and one older.
>
> I realize this isn=99t exactly the same scenario since two batterie
s in the
> same vehicle could have a common failure mode such as a runaway alternato
r
> that fries them both, but it is the best I can do.
>
> Matt
>
>
> > On Jun 12, 2020, at 4:50 PM, Alec Myers wrote:
> >
myers.com
> >
> >
> > Joe,
> >
> > Just to play devil=99s advocate, if you=99re prepared to re
place a new
> battery every other year, then if you only have one battery, the worst ca
se
> is that it=99s 2 years old. And you=99re not schlepping a 4 y
ear old battery
> around with you.
> > Your mean battery age with two batteries would be three years; with a
> single battery the mean age is only one year, an improvement by a factor
of
> 3.
>
>
===========
===========
===========
===========
===========
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Speaking of LiFePo4 |
| From: | Lyle Peterson <lyleap(at)centurylink.net> |
COTS is what you slept on in the military.
On 6/12/2020 2:45 PM, Ken Ryan wrote:
> Okay, 20 minutes with google reveals plenty of examples of COTS
> chargers, but no definition of COTS. Could someone please educate me
> on this terminology? Thanks.
>
>
> On Fri, Jun 12, 2020 at 9:27 AM Robert L. Nuckolls, III
> >
> wrote:
>
> At 04:33 PM 6/11/2020, you wrote:
>> >
>>
>> Dear all,
>>
>> Better not confuse LiPo with LiFePO4 (also called LFP). Important
>> differences.
>> A search with both terms will lead to some clarity I expect.
>
> An very important point. Not all 'lithium' cells
> are the same. While the energy density is
> higher for chemistries other than lithium
> iron phosphate (LiFePo4), the relative
> robustness and safety of the LiFePo4
> devices has prompted a chemistry of choice
> decision for most suppliers to our craft . . .
> indeed most consumer motive power applications.
>
> For our purposes, when ever I refer to
> a lithium product, know that I'm referring
> to the LiFePo4 technology.
>
> Speaking of LiFePo4:
>
> I observe that virtually all the COTS lithium
> chargers in my stable, every one 'tops off'
> at 4.2 volts. These chargers were used to
> explore qualities of a bevy of 18650
> cells laying around the shop. I've
> attached a plot for a constellation
> of cells. A plot of the as-found condition
> of a cell was followed by a plot of a
> recharged condition.
>
> Most of the 'weak' cells showed marked
> recovery . . . others did not. One interesting
> feature of this exercise is to note the
> starting voltage for the discharge plot
> of each recharged cell.
>
> Virtually all produced first delivery of
> energy at 4.0 volts or more. Hmmm . . .
> It seems this was related to charging
> top-off voltage. Okay, if one wishes
> to maximize exploitation of your ship'
> lithium battery, do you want to raise
> your alternator voltage to 4 x 4.2
> 16.8 volts?
>
> Hmmm . . . most of our electro whizzies
> probably wouldn't mind . . . but if you're
> carrying incandescent lights of any size,
> service life would be reduced by 50% or more . . .
> but they would certainly be bright!
>
> I've posted an article found on powerstream.com
> <http://powerstream.com>
>
> See: https://tinyurl.com/yazw9jnh
>
> By the way, check out the rest of
> this website.
> It's a treasure trove of data on DC power
> systems. I had the name of the author at
> one time but let it get lost. If anyone
> perusing this resource runs across the author's
> name, I'd appreciate a heads-up.
>
> The article illustrates some interesting numbers
> on LiFePo4 performance. First, there is
> little value in charging the LiFePo4 cell
> at it rated maximum. The writer demonstrates
> that charging at considerably lower levels
> does not significantly affect stored energy
> until charge-per-cell voltage drops below
> 3.40. Okay, 3.40 x 4 is 13.6 volts. I
> think we can live with that!
>
> In fact, we're told that the charge-discharge
> service life of lithium cells is improved
> by operating the cells between 30 and 90%
> of the chemical capacity of the cell. Okay
> operating the contemporary 4-cell array
> products at the legacy 14.2 to 14.4 volts
> (3.6 volts per cell) wont give up significant
> performance while extending service life.
>
> I'm going to repeat the experiment in the
> article cited. I will add features
> that explore system integration questions
> going to what may prove to be the 'next
> generation' of OBAM aviation electrical system
> architectures.
>
> Bob . . .
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Matthew S. Whiting" <m.whiting(at)frontier.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Speaking of LiFePo4 |
Commercial Off The Shelf
Sent from my iPad
> On Jun 12, 2020, at 6:25 PM, Ken Ryan wrote:
>
> =EF=BB
> Okay, 20 minutes with google reveals plenty of examples of COTS chargers, b
ut no definition of COTS. Could someone please educate me on this terminolog
y? Thanks.
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Z101 with Rotax 915iS |
| From: | "user9253" <fransew(at)gmail.com> |
The Rotax 912iS engine has two generators.
Generator A 16 Amp is for engine only.
Generator B 30 Amp is for aircraft electrical system.
If generator A fails, generator B automatically takes over engine duties,
but no longer supplies the aircraft electrical system.
If generator B also fails, the pilot may operate a switch to
operate the engine using aircraft battery power.
--------
Joe Gores
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=496806#496806
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Ken Ryan <keninalaska(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Z101 with Rotax 915iS |
It seems to me that, even though it does not allow you to strictly follow
the new and improved Z101, the standard Rotax 915iS (two alternators +
battery) offers good redundancy. What is it about that set up that you find
lacking?
Ken
On Fri, Jun 12, 2020 at 2:54 PM Matthew S. Whiting
wrote:
> m.whiting(at)frontier.com>
>
> This is my first post to the mailing list so hopefully I get it reasonabl
y
> right. I am not sure if this best fits this list or the Rotax engine lis
t,
> but will start here.
>
> For context, I am a retired CS/EE and about to start my first home built
> project. My RANS S-21 is scheduled to ship in July. I plan to use a Rot
ax
> 915iS engine and am looking now at electrical system and avionics.
>
> I have read the Connection book and perused some of the newer Z
> architectures at the web site. I am leaning towards a Z101 configuration
> as the baseline, but the problem is that the Rotax comes with only one
> generator (I know it has two, but I believe the small one is only availab
le
> to run the engine and not available for ship=99s power). Rotax sel
ls an
> external alternator kit, but a quick tally of the parts shows the cost to
> be north of $2,000 and I see nothing yet in the aftermarket.
>
> So, I am curious as to whether anyone here has installed a 915iS and, if
> so, what electrical system architecture did you choose. And, is anyone
> aware of alternative way to add a second alternator/generator to a 915iS
or
> is the Rotax option the only game in town?
>
> My second choice is a second battery to back up the avionics and engine
> should the unthinkable happen and both alternators fail and the primary
> battery not have enough reserve to get to a safe landing site. I
=99d much
> rather have a second alternator than a second battery, but $2,000 seems a
> little steep for an alternator that likely will never get used and a seco
nd
> battery at least has the advantage of extra starting reserve on our cold
> winter days in northern PA.
>
> Regards,
> Matt Whiting
>
> Sent from my iPad
>
===========
===========
===========
===========
===========
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Matthew S. Whiting" <m.whiting(at)frontier.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Physical construction of Z101 engine bus & |
battery bus
I was simply addressing the question as posed, at least my understanding of t
he question. It seemed to be suggesting that one battery replaced every 2 y
ears was more reliable than two batteries each replaced every 4 years since o
n average the one battery was newer than the combination of the two. I don
=99t think that is a correct assumption.
I certainly would take two alternators and one battery over one alternator a
nd two batteries as well, and that is a scenario I posted earlier today in r
egards to my soon to arrive S-21 kit and 915iS engine. Unfortunately, of th
e two generators in the 915iS, it appears that only one is actually accessib
le for non-engine power supply. So, that configuration actually needs 3 in o
rder to have two available for pitot heat, lights, avionics, etc.
However, I would take two batteries (alternated every other year) and one al
ternator over one battery (new every 2 years) and one alternator.
Matt
> On Jun 12, 2020, at 6:55 PM, Charlie England wrote:
>
> =EF=BB
> I think that when doing failure analysis, you don't really pay that much a
ttention to odds; you play 'what if'. (Actually, 'when it fails'; the assump
tion when doing failure analysis is that anything we can back up *will* fail
). You do have to take uncontrollable stuff out of the equation; we can't ca
rry an extra set of wings, for instance, and most of us accept the risk of a
single engine, in order to be able to fly at all.
>
> Once that's out of the way, then 'what if' starts. What if the alternator f
ails? It's taken off line and battery backs it up. What if the battery fails
? It's taken off line and the alternator backs it up (contrary to popular in
ternet lore). If the engine isn't electrically dependent and we're VFR with n
av on our phone, we don't even care about backup at all. The what if of both
failing in a single flight is considered to be so unlikely that most are wi
lling to treat a double failure like a wing or other structural failure; we
're just not going to go there.
>
> My personal choice with a high-amps-need engine control system is to not a
ccept the limited and continuously decreasing duration (capacity) of a stand
ard battery, nor to accept the weight penalty of a much bigger battery or mu
ltiple batteries, in order to keep the engine running to the end of the flig
ht. For me, that only leaves the choice of dual alternators.
>
> FWIW,
>
> Charlie
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Ken Ryan <keninalaska(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Speaking of LiFePo4 |
Thanks!
On Fri, Jun 12, 2020 at 2:21 PM C&K wrote:
>
> Commercial Off The Shelf rather than custom made
>
> On 12/06/2020 3:45 PM, Ken Ryan wrote:
> > Okay, 20 minutes with google reveals plenty of examples of COTS
> > chargers, but no definition of COTS. Could someone please educate me
> > on this terminology? Thanks.
> >
> >
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Ken Ryan <keninalaska(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Z101 with Rotax 915iS |
All accurate Joe. But I think there is a wrinkle. It is my understanding
that if Gen A fails, AND the Emergency Power Switch is closed, THEN Gen B
will operate both Engine and power the Bus. At least that's my
understanding.
On Fri, Jun 12, 2020 at 4:31 PM user9253 wrote:
>
> The Rotax 912iS engine has two generators.
> Generator A 16 Amp is for engine only.
> Generator B 30 Amp is for aircraft electrical system.
> If generator A fails, generator B automatically takes over engine duties,
> but no longer supplies the aircraft electrical system.
> If generator B also fails, the pilot may operate a switch to
> operate the engine using aircraft battery power.
>
> --------
> Joe Gores
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=496806#496806
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Matthew S. Whiting" <m.whiting(at)frontier.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Z101 with Rotax 915iS |
Yes, that is my understanding. My desire though is to have two alternators available
for the aircraft electrical system. The question is: is there an economical
way to do that? The Rotax way appears to cost at least $2,000. Which I
probably will suck it up and do if there is no other way as I plan to fly IFR
and I like to have good backup not just for a comm radio and transponder, but
also pitot heat at least and that generally takes some juice. Although, I think
the Garmin regulated pitot should be a fair bit more efficient unless it is
really cold out.
Sent from my iPad
> On Jun 12, 2020, at 8:31 PM, user9253 wrote:
>
>
> The Rotax 912iS engine has two generators.
> Generator A 16 Amp is for engine only.
> Generator B 30 Amp is for aircraft electrical system.
> If generator A fails, generator B automatically takes over engine duties,
> but no longer supplies the aircraft electrical system.
> If generator B also fails, the pilot may operate a switch to
> operate the engine using aircraft battery power.
>
> --------
> Joe Gores
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Z101 with Rotax 915iS |
At 07:38 PM 6/12/2020, you wrote:
>All accurate Joe. But I think there is a wrinkle. It is my
>understanding that if Gen A fails, AND the Emergency Power Switch is
>closed, THEN Gen B will operate both Engine and power the Bus. At
>least that's my understanding.
You need to start your project planning with
a load analysis: A comparison of system energy
demands with energy supplies (gen a, gen b, bat a,
etc) under the various phases of flight (taxi/t-o,
day vfr cruise, night cruise, ifr cruise, and
then decide what items will be shut off under
which failure condition).
Z101 is NOT applicable to the Rotax. That
engine's design and energy supplies are pretty
much cut in stone by the engine manufacturer.
But your need to quantify and then organize
your energy requirements is still the same.
There are examples of load analysis in
both Excel and paper forms at:
https://tinyurl.com/9rt6ymn
You first need to KNOW that there's energy
available to power up your planned suite
of electro-whizzies . . . you mentioned
pitot heat . . . do you plan to poke holes
in clouds? Each phase of flight has its
own energy budget.
The electrical section (24) of the Rotax
manual is not very clear as to what the engine's
energy needs are. I didn't find any mention
of what power (if any) is available from
the PM alternator-A under alternator-B
failure conditions. Without that kind of
information, you're not going to be able
to define the 'dual alternator' opportunities
of this engine.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Z101 with Rotax 915iS |
At 07:19 PM 6/12/2020, you wrote:
>
>The Rotax 912iS engine has two generators.
>Generator A 16 Amp is for engine only.
>Generator B 30 Amp is for aircraft electrical system.
>If generator A fails, generator B automatically takes over engine duties,
> but no longer supplies the aircraft electrical system.
>If generator B also fails, the pilot may operate a switch to
>operate the engine using aircraft battery power.
. . . if the PM alternator fails, engine
ops revert to the pad mounted alternator
leaving NO power for other needs?
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Steve Stearns <steve(at)tomasara.com> |
| Subject: | With Flooded cells, at what discharge does damage start? |
Greetings,
This isn't a relevant question for modern aircraft but I think the
membership of this list will likely know so I hope I don't bother anyone by
posting here.
If you have a rarely used car with a traditional flooded cell lead-acid
battery and keep an eye on the battery voltage, at what voltage should it
be recharged to maintain a normal life? My old jeep has a small load while
parked so the battery slowly drains and it is neither convenient for me to
disconnect the battery nor keep a maintainer connected. If I charge it
back up with my smart charger before the (nominally 70deg f) battery
voltage drops to say, 12V will I still get full life out of the battery?
Thanks in advance,
Steve Stearns
O235 Longeze
Boulder/Longmont CO
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Gerdes vs ACS key switch wiring |
| From: | "supik" <bionicad(at)hotmail.com> |
I have the ACS 502 key switch and was wondering how to wire the center ground.
B&C instructions for the GERDES key switch say DO NOT connect the center GND to
any structural member in the cabin wheres the ACS instructions tell the opposite.
ACS Note C:
http://acsproducts.co/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/Wiring-Diagram.jpg
GERDES:
https://bandc.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/03/s811-1_contactor_501-3_fig4.pdf
--------
Igor
RV10 in progress
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=496815#496815
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Gerdes vs ACS key switch wiring |
At 10:00 AM 6/13/2020, you wrote:
>
>I have the ACS 502 key switch and was wondering how to wire the center ground.
>
>B&C instructions for the GERDES key switch say DO NOT connect the
>center GND to any structural member in the cabin wheres the ACS
>instructions tell the opposite.
>
>ACS Note C:
>http://acsproducts.co/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/Wiring-Diagram.jpg
>
>GERDES:
>https://bandc.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/03/s811-1_contactor_501-3_fig4.pdf
There is no BENEFIT for connecting to ground locally . . .
but there is RISK for damaging p-lead shields due to
starter currents flowing in a ground-loop situation.
Wire per examples in the z-figures where shields are
terminated at the mags and NO grounds are added at
the switch(es) whether a o-l-r-b-s keyswitch or
toggles.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: With Flooded cells, at what discharge does damage |
start?
At 09:09 AM 6/13/2020, you wrote:
>Greetings,
>
>This isn't a relevant question for modern
>aircraft but I think the membership of this list
>will likely know so I hope I don't bother anyone by posting here.
>
>If you have a rarely used car with a traditional
>flooded cell lead-acid battery and keep an eye
>on the battery voltage, at what voltage should
>it be recharged to maintain a normal life?=C2 My
>old jeep has a small load while parked so the
>battery slowly drains and it is neither
>convenient for me to disconnect the battery nor
>keep a maintainer connected.=C2 If I charge it
>back up with my smart charger=C2 before the
>(nominally 70deg f) battery voltage drops to
>say, 12V will I still get full life out of the battery?
that would be a good milestone for initiating
a top-off charge. You could probably let it
go lower but keeping it above 12v will improve
longevity.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Z101 with Rotax 915iS |
| From: | "user9253" <fransew(at)gmail.com> |
Both Generator A and generator B are permanent magnet type integrated with the
engine. The magnets are embedded in the flywheel. Other than the magnets, there
are no moving parts. The two generators are just two stationary sets of coils.
Generator A is for engine only. If "A" fails, Generator B will automatically
take over engine duties and automatically disconnect from the aircraft
electrical system. However as pointed out in previous posts, the pilot can cheat
and flip the backup switch which will reconnect generator B to the aircraft
electrical system. Doing that could jeopardize electrical power that is available
to the engine.
According to above posts, an optional external alternator is available for $2000.
--------
Joe Gores
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=496818#496818
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Ken Ryan <keninalaska(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Z101 with Rotax 915iS |
Thanks for confirming Joe, and clarifying that "cheating" opens up the risk
of starving the engine of necessary electrical power. While $2k for the
THIRD approved (but not certified) alternator is tough to swallow, it's
peanuts compared to the $37k price of the engine itself.
I just couldn't believe it when Bob said he couldn't find any info on what
the electrical current requirements are for running the engine, so I
scoured the Installation, Line Maintenance and Heavy Maintenance manuals
and I too couldn't find any information at all in that regard. Pretty hard
to make intelligent decisions about important things like best battery size
without that essential information. Also, if one is unlucky enough to
suffer dual alternator failure, wouldn't it be good to know how long before
the engine quits? What is Rotax thinking?
Ken
On Sat, Jun 13, 2020 at 8:27 AM user9253 wrote:
>
> Both Generator A and generator B are permanent magnet type integrated with
> the engine. The magnets are embedded in the flywheel. Other than the
> magnets, there are no moving parts. The two generators are just two
> stationary sets of coils. Generator A is for engine only. If "A" fails,
> Generator B will automatically take over engine duties and automatically
> disconnect from the aircraft electrical system. However as pointed out in
> previous posts, the pilot can cheat and flip the backup switch which will
> reconnect generator B to the aircraft electrical system. Doing that could
> jeopardize electrical power that is available to the engine.
> According to above posts, an optional external alternator is available
> for $2000.
>
> --------
> Joe Gores
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=496818#496818
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Charlie England <ceengland7(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Z101 with Rotax 915iS |
On Sat, Jun 13, 2020 at 11:48 AM Charlie England
wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 12, 2020 at 5:54 PM Matthew S. Whiting
> wrote:
>
>> m.whiting(at)frontier.com>
>>
>> This is my first post to the mailing list so hopefully I get it
>> reasonably right. I am not sure if this best fits this list or the Rota
x
>> engine list, but will start here.
>>
>> For context, I am a retired CS/EE and about to start my first home built
>> project. My RANS S-21 is scheduled to ship in July. I plan to use a Ro
tax
>> 915iS engine and am looking now at electrical system and avionics.
>>
>> I have read the Connection book and perused some of the newer Z
>> architectures at the web site. I am leaning towards a Z101 configuratio
n
>> as the baseline, but the problem is that the Rotax comes with only one
>> generator (I know it has two, but I believe the small one is only availa
ble
>> to run the engine and not available for ship=99s power). Rotax se
lls an
>> external alternator kit, but a quick tally of the parts shows the cost t
o
>> be north of $2,000 and I see nothing yet in the aftermarket.
>>
>> So, I am curious as to whether anyone here has installed a 915iS and, if
>> so, what electrical system architecture did you choose. And, is anyone
>> aware of alternative way to add a second alternator/generator to a 915iS
or
>> is the Rotax option the only game in town?
>>
>> My second choice is a second battery to back up the avionics and engine
>> should the unthinkable happen and both alternators fail and the primary
>> battery not have enough reserve to get to a safe landing site. I
=99d much
>> rather have a second alternator than a second battery, but $2,000 seems
a
>> little steep for an alternator that likely will never get used and a sec
ond
>> battery at least has the advantage of extra starting reserve on our cold
>> winter days in northern PA.
>>
>> Regards,
>> Matt Whiting
>
> Have you been able to take a close look at the hi-$ Rotax option? If it's
> a belt driven alternator, then the only high barrier to rolling your own
> might be the flywheel pulley. Brackets aren't that difficult to fabricate
,
> and an alternator is an alternator. Integrating it into the a/c systems
> should be a simple matter of consulting an appropriate Z diagram here.
>
> Charlie
>
> Followup; if this is the right option, looks like you could buy all the
Rotax drive & mounting bits, and still save about $1000 on the alternator
itself, by using an off the shelf automotive model. The image in that parts
breakout looks like a very common Nippon Denso internally regulated
alternator that's available in output levels from around 35A to over 55A.
They're all basically the same external dimensions.
Charlie
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Charlie England <ceengland7(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Z101 with Rotax 915iS |
On Fri, Jun 12, 2020 at 5:54 PM Matthew S. Whiting
wrote:
> m.whiting(at)frontier.com>
>
> This is my first post to the mailing list so hopefully I get it reasonabl
y
> right. I am not sure if this best fits this list or the Rotax engine lis
t,
> but will start here.
>
> For context, I am a retired CS/EE and about to start my first home built
> project. My RANS S-21 is scheduled to ship in July. I plan to use a Rot
ax
> 915iS engine and am looking now at electrical system and avionics.
>
> I have read the Connection book and perused some of the newer Z
> architectures at the web site. I am leaning towards a Z101 configuration
> as the baseline, but the problem is that the Rotax comes with only one
> generator (I know it has two, but I believe the small one is only availab
le
> to run the engine and not available for ship=99s power). Rotax sel
ls an
> external alternator kit, but a quick tally of the parts shows the cost to
> be north of $2,000 and I see nothing yet in the aftermarket.
>
> So, I am curious as to whether anyone here has installed a 915iS and, if
> so, what electrical system architecture did you choose. And, is anyone
> aware of alternative way to add a second alternator/generator to a 915iS
or
> is the Rotax option the only game in town?
>
> My second choice is a second battery to back up the avionics and engine
> should the unthinkable happen and both alternators fail and the primary
> battery not have enough reserve to get to a safe landing site. I
=99d much
> rather have a second alternator than a second battery, but $2,000 seems a
> little steep for an alternator that likely will never get used and a seco
nd
> battery at least has the advantage of extra starting reserve on our cold
> winter days in northern PA.
>
> Regards,
> Matt Whiting
Have you been able to take a close look at the hi-$ Rotax option? If it's a
belt driven alternator, then the only high barrier to rolling your own
might be the flywheel pulley. Brackets aren't that difficult to fabricate,
and an alternator is an alternator. Integrating it into the a/c systems
should be a simple matter of consulting an appropriate Z diagram here.
Charlie
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Ernest Christley <echristley(at)att.net> |
| Subject: | Re: With Flooded cells, at what discharge does damage |
start?
Would a solar trickle charger help?=C2- I got one off Amazon for less th
an $15 that is flexible and tops out at 14.4V.
ara.com> wrote:
Greetings,
This isn't a relevant question for modern aircraft but I think the membersh
ip of this list will likely know so I hope I don't bother anyone by posting
here.
If you have a rarely used car with a traditional flooded cell lead-acid bat
tery and keep an eye on the battery voltage, at what voltage should it be r
echarged to maintain a normal life?=C2- My old jeep has a small load whil
e parked so the battery slowly drains and it is neither convenient for me t
o disconnect the battery nor keep a maintainer connected.=C2- If I charge
it back up with my smart charger=C2-before the (nominally 70deg f) batte
ry voltage drops to say, 12V will I still get full life out of the battery?
Thanks in advance,Steve StearnsO235=C2-LongezeBoulder/Longmont CO
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "BMC_Dave" <bmcdave85(at)gmail.com> |
I have a bunch of surplus BMS13-48 ETFE wire, 5 nickle-plated 24ga conductors,
shielded.
Reading the AEC it seems an ok practice to bundle these conductors for larger currents,
so I could use them together as a 18ga substitute from the table in Figure
8-3.
I'm wondering what I should do with the shield though? Is it useful to connect
it to anything?
Any other advice/cautions about using nickle-plated BMS? My work let me dig through
the scrap bin and I have hundreds of feet of this stuff. Thanks.
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=496824#496824
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "skywagon185guy ." <skywagon185(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: With Flooded cells, at what discharge does damage |
start?
Steve,
I am a strong advocate of clipping on a "Maintainer" type small charger to
our lead acid batteries. They don't have to be expensive types. One brand
Schumacher is low cost, good quality, and easily available. Connect it and
leave it on.
To answer your question, here is my personal opinion. After the maintainer
charges the battery and gets to the point where it senses full charge, it
switches back to the "maintenance" or float state. I believe the voltage
range should be stabilized at: 13.2 to 13.4 volts.
If the battery is aged, I like 13.2 best. If the battery is young, 13.4 is
good. This is based mainly on cell water loss. Just a tad too high, e.g.
13.4 instead of 13.2, might make the battery gas a bit.
So, the only way to check what the maintainer's float voltage is set to, is
to accurately measure the final resting voltage. The 1st generations of
these clever little units where adjustable for final voltage, but, alas, I
believe the later generations are sealed. If your unit is 13.4v, use it
with the knowledge that you might have to add a tad of distilled water
every now and again. The newer sealed type batteries, probably never.
On Sat, Jun 13, 2020 at 7:30 AM Steve Stearns wrote:
> Greetings,
>
> This isn't a relevant question for modern aircraft but I think the
> membership of this list will likely know so I hope I don't bother anyone by
> posting here.
>
> If you have a rarely used car with a traditional flooded cell lead-acid
> battery and keep an eye on the battery voltage, at what voltage should it
> be recharged to maintain a normal life? My old jeep has a small load while
> parked so the battery slowly drains and it is neither convenient for me to
> disconnect the battery nor keep a maintainer connected. If I charge it
> back up with my smart charger before the (nominally 70deg f) battery
> voltage drops to say, 12V will I still get full life out of the battery?
>
> Thanks in advance,
> Steve Stearns
> O235 Longeze
> Boulder/Longmont CO
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Surplus Wire |
| From: | Charlie England <ceengland7(at)gmail.com> |
On 6/13/2020 8:22 PM, BMC_Dave wrote:
>
> I have a bunch of surplus BMS13-48 ETFE wire, 5 nickle-plated 24ga conductors,
shielded.
>
> Reading the AEC it seems an ok practice to bundle these conductors for larger
currents, so I could use them together as a 18ga substitute from the table in
Figure 8-3.
>
> I'm wondering what I should do with the shield though? Is it useful to connect
it to anything?
>
> Any other advice/cautions about using nickle-plated BMS? My work let me dig through
the scrap bin and I have hundreds of feet of this stuff. Thanks.
I might be speaking out of the wrong orifice, but IIRC, nickel plated is
intended only for crimping, and is not solder friendly. If you're only
crimping, should be good to go. Just quite a bit of extra weight for the
equivalent wire gauge.
Have you thought about selling it off to other builders, to use for
intercom wiring, trim servos, etc, and using the money to purchase
appropriate gauges for various devices?
Charlie
--
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Z101 with Rotax 915iS |
>On Sat, Jun 13, 2020 at 8:27 AM user9253
><fransew(at)gmail.com> wrote:
>"user9253" <fransew(at)gmail.com>
>Both Generator A and generator B are permanent
>magnet type integrated with the engine.=C2 The
>magnets are embedded in the flywheel.=C2 Other
>than the magnets, there are no moving
>parts.=C2 The two generators are just two
>stationary sets of coils.=C2 Generator A is for engine only.
They managed to squeeze a pretty healthy set of
stators in there! Would be interesting to see the
maintenance/overhaul data on those parts . . . but
unable to locate same in documents downloaded so
far.
If generator-B is un-dedicated except in case of
emergency, then it just MIGHT fold into a variant
of Z101/8 sans engine bus . . .
>=C2 According to above posts, an optional
>external alternator is available for $2000.
Hmmm . . . wonder if its the same AND20000 drive pad common
to vacuum pumps like the on the 912/914 engines. If so,
the B&C pad-mounted alternators may well perform well
there for perhaps less money. You guys need to talk
to B&C @ 316-283-8000 for confirmation/denial of
compatibility.
The Rotax documents are organized in ATA100 (Air
Transport Association Spec 100) which speaks to
subjects, formatting, language (many readers will
not have English as their first language) and
clarity of explanations.
I've written numerous pages and sometimes whole
sections destined to publish in a ATA100 documents
intended for world wide consumption in the aviation
disciplines. If I had submitted a work along the
lines of section 24 of the Rotax installation
manual, I think I would have reason to fear
for my ongoing employment.
After having read the thing a couple of times,
I don't think I've got any more information about
this engine's operations than I would get
from their 4-color, marketing brochure.
The wiring diagram is . . . well . . . I
spent the day on the road and I need to UNwind . . .
If these guys are aviation systems integrators,
you sure couldn't tell it by their documentation.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Surplus Wire |
| From: | "BMC_Dave" <bmcdave85(at)gmail.com> |
Unfortunately I won't be selling it.
I have harnesses for several things, so this will be at most two dozen circuits.
Of which I can carry power and ground through one cable. So hey each one gets
a wire for future use and a shield...
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=496828#496828
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Gerdes vs ACS key switch wiring |
| From: | "supik" <bionicad(at)hotmail.com> |
nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelect wrote:
> At 10:00 AM 6/13/2020, you wrote:
>
> >
> > I have the ACS 502 key switch and was wondering how to wire the center ground.
> >
> > B&C instructions for the GERDES key switch say DO NOT connect the center GND
to any structural member in the cabin wheres the ACS instructions tell the
opposite.
> >
> > ACS Note C:
> > http://acsproducts.co/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/Wiring-Diagram.jpg (http://acsproducts.co/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/Wiring-Diagram.jpg)
> >
> > GERDES:
> > https://bandc.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/03/s811-1_contactor_501-3_fig4.pdf
(https://bandc.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/03/s811-1_contactor_501-3_fig4.pdf)
>
> There is no BENEFIT for connecting to ground locally . . .
> but there is RISK for damaging p-lead shields due to
> starter currents flowing in a ground-loop situation.
> Wire per examples in the z-figures where shields are
> terminated at the mags and NO grounds are added at
> the switch(es) whether a o-l-r-b-s keyswitch or
> toggles.
>
>
>
> Bob . . .
Thank you!
--------
Igor
RV10 in progress
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=496830#496830
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Z101 with Rotax 915iS |
| From: | "user9253" <fransew(at)gmail.com> |
Bob,
I agree that the Rotax documentation needs improving.
Something is lost in translation.
Here is a link to the Rotax iS engine heavy maintenance manual.
https://www.rotax-owner.com/pdf/MMH_915iASeries_ED0_R1.pdf
Section 24-20-00 page 6 says,
"The two 3-phase AC generators are physically separate power supplies which are
integrated in the engine."
But then in section 71-00-00 page 11 is says,
"Integrated generator Permanent Magnet single-phase generator".
So which is it, 3 phase or single phase. Looking at the picture of cable plugs,
there are 3 wires, so it could be 3 phase. It looks like there are approximately
25 coils.
--------
Joe Gores
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=496832#496832
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Z101 with Rotax 915iS |
| From: | "user9253" <fransew(at)gmail.com> |
Oops, my mistake. The link I posted above is for the 915 engine, not the 912.
--------
Joe Gores
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=496833#496833
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Z101 with Rotax 915iS |
| From: | "user9253" <fransew(at)gmail.com> |
Here is the correct link to the 912iS heavy maintenance manual:
https://www.cps-parts.com/cps/pdf/d05973.pdf
It also has conflicting descriptions of the integrated alternator.
Section 24-20-00 Page 5 says three phase.
Section 71-00-00 Page 11 says single phase.
--------
Joe Gores
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=496834#496834
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: With Flooded cells, at what discharge does damage |
start?
| From: | "bcone1381" <bcone1964(at)gmail.com> |
Vic Syracuse has an article in this months Sport Aviation (June 2020) that deals
with Batteries and Alternators.
he says not to mistreat a battery by constantly leaving it on a non approved battery
tender/charger between flight.
Help me understand what an "approved charger" or what to avoid. Specific products
will be good. May I assume maybe there are different chargers for different
battery types?
--------
Brooks Cone
Bearhawk Patrol Kit Build
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=496836#496836
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: With Flooded cells, at what discharge does |
damage start?
At 10:57 AM 6/15/2020, you wrote:
>
>Vic Syracuse has an article in this months Sport Aviation (June
>2020) that deals with Batteries and Alternators.
>
>he says not to mistreat a battery by constantly leaving it on a non
>approved battery tender/charger between flight.
>
>Help me understand what an "approved charger" or what to
>avoid. Specific products will be good. May I assume maybe there
>are different chargers for different battery types?
What Vic is referring to are 'battery maintainers' . . . which may
also be a charger but with automatic step-down to a maintenace mode
when the battery is topped off.
If the advertising literature for the charger includes the
word 'maintainer' then it's good to go. Brands like Battery
Minder, Battery Tender and Schumacher are several choices
to consider.
A battery maintainer holds the voltage on a stored battery
at JUST ABOVE it's normal resting point. This means that
very small, self discharge currents flowing INSIDE the
battery will be supported from OUTSIDE instead of from
the battery's own resources. It cannot even charge, much
less overcharge a battery.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: With Flooded cells, at what discharge does |
damage start?
>May I assume maybe there are different chargers for different battery types?
Not really . . . there are some so-called, 'smart
chargers' with front panel controls suggesting
different charging modes for AGM, flooded and GEL
batteries . . . but I've never been able to detect
any useful differences in their charging protocols.
If the battery is suited to run in a vehicle, then
any charger suited to charge vehicle batteries
is okay. CHARGING is not the critical feature . . .
its what the charge does AFTER charging is complete
so that overcharging damage does not occur and
self-discharge currents are mitigated.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Charlie England <ceengland7(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: With Flooded cells, at what discharge does |
damage start?
On Mon, Jun 15, 2020 at 11:08 AM bcone1381 wrote:
>
> Vic Syracuse has an article in this months Sport Aviation (June 2020) that
> deals with Batteries and Alternators.
>
> he says not to mistreat a battery by constantly leaving it on a non
> approved battery tender/charger between flight.
>
> Help me understand what an "approved charger" or what to avoid. Specific
> products will be good. May I assume maybe there are different chargers for
> different battery types?
>
> --------
> Brooks Cone
> Bearhawk Patrol Kit Build
I haven't read the article yet, but suspect he's talking about 'trickle
chargers' that can output significantly higher than desirable voltage when
the battery is fully charged and no longer loads the charger's output. This
results in overcharging and shortening of the battery's life. Even with
'smart' chargers, if you don't monitor what they're doing, they could
develop faults that would overcharge the battery.
Here's the thing. With any current-tech sealed lead acid battery, or any
lithium tech battery, their self discharge rates are so low that they will
go for months, or even years, without being connected to a charger. Unless
you only fly once a year, you're unlikely to ever need an external charge
as long as the battery is healthy enough to be safe to fly with. I've had
years in the past decade when family responsibilities kept my flying down
to about 5-10 hrs a year, and I still rarely needed to charge the battery
in my plane. My choice is to 'just (don't) do it', unless I've done
something stupid like leave a load on the battery while I'm not flying. If
it's not there, it can't hurt the battery. I'm uncomfortable with even
leaving a smart charger connected to a battery when I'm not around to check
on it occasionally, because a catastrophic fault could damage a lot more
than the charger/battery combo.
FWIW,
Charlie
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Ken Ryan <keninalaska(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: With Flooded cells, at what discharge does |
damage start?
I let my fully charged EarthX sit for 12 months thinking it would be fine.
It was not. It was completely discharged and would not take a re-charge.
On Tue, Jun 16, 2020 at 8:49 AM Charlie England
wrote:
>
>
> On Mon, Jun 15, 2020 at 11:08 AM bcone1381 wrote:
>
>> >
>>
>> Vic Syracuse has an article in this months Sport Aviation (June 2020)
>> that deals with Batteries and Alternators.
>>
>> he says not to mistreat a battery by constantly leaving it on a non
>> approved battery tender/charger between flight.
>>
>> Help me understand what an "approved charger" or what to avoid. Specific
>> products will be good. May I assume maybe there are different chargers for
>> different battery types?
>>
>> --------
>> Brooks Cone
>> Bearhawk Patrol Kit Build
>
> I haven't read the article yet, but suspect he's talking about 'trickle
> chargers' that can output significantly higher than desirable voltage when
> the battery is fully charged and no longer loads the charger's output. This
> results in overcharging and shortening of the battery's life. Even with
> 'smart' chargers, if you don't monitor what they're doing, they could
> develop faults that would overcharge the battery.
>
> Here's the thing. With any current-tech sealed lead acid battery, or any
> lithium tech battery, their self discharge rates are so low that they will
> go for months, or even years, without being connected to a charger. Unless
> you only fly once a year, you're unlikely to ever need an external charge
> as long as the battery is healthy enough to be safe to fly with. I've had
> years in the past decade when family responsibilities kept my flying down
> to about 5-10 hrs a year, and I still rarely needed to charge the battery
> in my plane. My choice is to 'just (don't) do it', unless I've done
> something stupid like leave a load on the battery while I'm not flying. If
> it's not there, it can't hurt the battery. I'm uncomfortable with even
> leaving a smart charger connected to a battery when I'm not around to check
> on it occasionally, because a catastrophic fault could damage a lot more
> than the charger/battery combo.
>
> FWIW,
>
> Charlie
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Ronald Cox <flyboyron(at)gmail.com> |
Strangely enough, this site, which caters to old arcade game restorers, has
a compatible connector for most of the old card-edge units.
https://mikesarcade.com/cgi-bin/store.pl?sku=CECM30
I bought one, in case I screwed up my own for a KT-76A, but noted that it
will indeed fit with a slight modification of the width to fit the opening
in the tray.
Might be worth checking out.
He also sells the pins a lot cheaper than most places, and yes, they are
gold plated.
https://mikesarcade.com/cgi-bin/store.pl?sku=CECPIN100
Best of luck
"Let us disappoint the Men who are raising themselves on the ruin of this
Country." - Sam Adams
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: With Flooded cells, at what discharge does |
damage start?
| From: | Charlie England <ceengland7(at)gmail.com> |
On 6/16/2020 2:07 PM, Ken Ryan wrote:
> I let my fully charged EarthX sit for 12 months thinking it would be
> fine. It was not. It was completely discharged and would not take a
> re-charge.
>
>
> On Tue, Jun 16, 2020 at 8:49 AM Charlie England > wrote:
>
>
> On Mon, Jun 15, 2020 at 11:08 AM bcone1381 > wrote:
>
> >
>
> Vic Syracuse has an article in this months Sport Aviation
> (June 2020) that deals with Batteries and Alternators.
>
> he says not to mistreat a battery by constantly leaving it on
> a non approved battery tender/charger between flight.
>
> Help me understand what an "approved charger" or what to
> avoid. Specific products will be good. May I assume maybe
> there are different chargers for different battery types?
>
> --------
> Brooks Cone
> Bearhawk Patrol Kit Build
>
> I haven't read the article yet, but suspect he's talking about
> 'trickle chargers' that can output significantly higher than
> desirable voltage when the battery is fully charged and no longer
> loads the charger's output. This results in overcharging and
> shortening of the battery's life. Even with 'smart' chargers, if
> you don't monitor what they're doing, they could develop faults
> that would overcharge the battery.
>
> Here's the thing. With any current-tech sealed lead acid battery,
> or any lithium tech battery, their self discharge rates are so low
> that they will go for months, or even years, without being
> connected to a charger. Unless you only fly once a year, you're
> unlikely to ever need an external charge as long as the battery is
> healthy enough to be safe to fly with. I've had years in the past
> decade when family responsibilities kept my flying down to about
> 5-10 hrs a year, and I still rarely needed to charge the battery
> in my plane. My choice is to 'just (don't) do it', unless I've
> done something stupid like leave a load on the battery while I'm
> not flying. If it's not there, it can't hurt the battery. I'm
> uncomfortable with even leaving a smart charger connected to a
> battery when I'm not around to check on it occasionally, because a
> catastrophic fault could damage a lot more than the
> charger/battery combo.
>
> FWIW,
>
> Charlie
>
Hmmm...
From the EarthX website on the page dealing with charging.
https://earthxbatteries.com/our-batteries/battery-charging
Very first sentence:
EarthX lithium batteries can sit on the shelf for up to a year without
the need to charge it due to the low self discharge rate which is about
2% a month, compared to a lead acid battery which is approximately 30%
per month.
Obviously, you could have gotten a defective battery. Or, was it stored
in freezing temps, or with a parasitic load, etc?
I'm playing Luddite on the lithium in a/c issue for now, because I'm not
convinced that enough has been *proven* about failure modes. Especially
with stuff like EX's built-in 'black box' BMS. (No, I don't accept the
FAA's word for it; they approved a bad crankshaft design from Lyc and
*multiple* bad crankshaft designs from Continental.) The company is very
active on the VAF forum, and their answers to some technical questions
made it obvious that their public-facing rep is very short on
engineering chops. One area that makes absolutely no sense is the claim
they made over on VAF that their battery (actually a battery *system*,
since the controller is built-in), can disconnect from a charging system
when there's an overvoltage event, without disconnecting from the load.
Impressive, given that there are only two terminals on the battery...
It would be an easier sell for me if I had a separate BMS that really
could block charge voltage and still supply the load, and that didn't
auto-disconnect without operator control, and oh yeah, didn't cost
roughly 10 X the price of my 'no-name' SLAs that last for 4-5 years on
average.
Anyway, SLA batteries can go a year or more without recharging, as well,
as long as they're not defective, not stored on a freezing environment,
and there's no parasitic load.
Charlie
--
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Ron Burnett <ronburnett(at)charter.net> |
When I test my battery with a voltmeter it is 12.5 across the main posts. If I
test the positive and move the negative lead to the firewall ground post, it is
11.7. Is this normal?
Electrically challenged.
Thanks,
Ron Burnett
May you have the Lord's blessings today!
Sent from my iPad
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Premature EarthX death? |
At 02:07 PM 6/16/2020, you wrote:
>I let my fully charged EarthX sit for 12 months thinking it would be fine.
>It was not. It was completely discharged and would not take a re-charge.
>
Hmmm . . . according to EarthX literature, expected
self discharge rates are pretty much in line with
other LiFePo4 products.
What conditions was it stored in? Did you have
any conversation about it with EarthX?
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Ken Ryan <keninalaska(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: With Flooded cells, at what discharge does |
damage start?
I agree. Based on published specs it should have been okay. But 12 months
on the shelf in my heated shop and it was dead. I should have contacted
EarthX, but I just blamed myself and bit the bullet. Just one experience,
probably an anomaly. Hopefully.
On Tue, Jun 16, 2020 at 1:02 PM Charlie England
wrote:
> On 6/16/2020 2:07 PM, Ken Ryan wrote:
>
> I let my fully charged EarthX sit for 12 months thinking it would be fine.
> It was not. It was completely discharged and would not take a re-charge.
>
>
> On Tue, Jun 16, 2020 at 8:49 AM Charlie England
> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On Mon, Jun 15, 2020 at 11:08 AM bcone1381 wrote:
>>
>>> bcone1964(at)gmail.com>
>>>
>>> Vic Syracuse has an article in this months Sport Aviation (June 2020)
>>> that deals with Batteries and Alternators.
>>>
>>> he says not to mistreat a battery by constantly leaving it on a non
>>> approved battery tender/charger between flight.
>>>
>>> Help me understand what an "approved charger" or what to avoid.
>>> Specific products will be good. May I assume maybe there are different
>>> chargers for different battery types?
>>>
>>> --------
>>> Brooks Cone
>>> Bearhawk Patrol Kit Build
>>
>> I haven't read the article yet, but suspect he's talking about 'trickle
>> chargers' that can output significantly higher than desirable voltage when
>> the battery is fully charged and no longer loads the charger's output. This
>> results in overcharging and shortening of the battery's life. Even with
>> 'smart' chargers, if you don't monitor what they're doing, they could
>> develop faults that would overcharge the battery.
>>
>> Here's the thing. With any current-tech sealed lead acid battery, or any
>> lithium tech battery, their self discharge rates are so low that they will
>> go for months, or even years, without being connected to a charger. Unless
>> you only fly once a year, you're unlikely to ever need an external charge
>> as long as the battery is healthy enough to be safe to fly with. I've had
>> years in the past decade when family responsibilities kept my flying down
>> to about 5-10 hrs a year, and I still rarely needed to charge the battery
>> in my plane. My choice is to 'just (don't) do it', unless I've done
>> something stupid like leave a load on the battery while I'm not flying. If
>> it's not there, it can't hurt the battery. I'm uncomfortable with even
>> leaving a smart charger connected to a battery when I'm not around to check
>> on it occasionally, because a catastrophic fault could damage a lot more
>> than the charger/battery combo.
>>
>> FWIW,
>>
>> Charlie
>>
> Hmmm...
> From the EarthX website on the page dealing with charging.
> https://earthxbatteries.com/our-batteries/battery-charging
>
> Very first sentence:
> EarthX lithium batteries can sit on the shelf for up to a year without the
> need to charge it due to the low self discharge rate which is about 2% a
> month, compared to a lead acid battery which is approximately 30% per month.
>
> Obviously, you could have gotten a defective battery. Or, was it stored in
> freezing temps, or with a parasitic load, etc?
>
>
> I'm playing Luddite on the lithium in a/c issue for now, because I'm not
> convinced that enough has been *proven* about failure modes. Especially
> with stuff like EX's built-in 'black box' BMS. (No, I don't accept the
> FAA's word for it; they approved a bad crankshaft design from Lyc and
> *multiple* bad crankshaft designs from Continental.) The company is very
> active on the VAF forum, and their answers to some technical questions made
> it obvious that their public-facing rep is very short on engineering chops.
> One area that makes absolutely no sense is the claim they made over on VAF
> that their battery (actually a battery *system*, since the controller is
> built-in), can disconnect from a charging system when there's an
> overvoltage event, without disconnecting from the load. Impressive, given
> that there are only two terminals on the battery...
>
> It would be an easier sell for me if I had a separate BMS that really
> could block charge voltage and still supply the load, and that didn't
> auto-disconnect without operator control, and oh yeah, didn't cost roughly
> 10 X the price of my 'no-name' SLAs that last for 4-5 years on average.
>
> Anyway, SLA batteries can go a year or more without recharging, as well,
> as long as they're not defective, not stored on a freezing environment, and
> there's no parasitic load.
>
> Charlie
>
>
> Virus-free.
> www.avast.com
>
> <#m_7123981709312888432_DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Charlie England <ceengland7(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Battery test |
On Tue, Jun 16, 2020 at 4:06 PM Ron Burnett wrote:
> ronburnett(at)charter.net>
>
> When I test my battery with a voltmeter it is 12.5 across the main posts.
> If I test the positive and move the negative lead to the firewall ground
> post, it is 11.7. Is this normal?
>
> Electrically challenged.
> Thanks,
>
> Ron Burnett
>
>
> I'll bet that if you measure from the firewall ground post to the battery
negative, you'll see ~0.7V. That means you have enough resistance in that
path to drop 0.7V in the path from firewall post to negative battery
terminal.
Is starter rotation sluggish?
Charlie
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Ken Ryan <keninalaska(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Premature EarthX death? |
It was on the bench, heated shop. I should have contacted EarthX but I just
blamed myself. I am sure of the time frame because I had load tested it and
made notations, and stored those notes with the battery.
Ken
On Tue, Jun 16, 2020 at 1:16 PM Robert L. Nuckolls, III <
nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> wrote:
> At 02:07 PM 6/16/2020, you wrote:
>
> I let my fully charged EarthX sit for 12 months thinking it would be fine.
> It was not. It was completely discharged and would not take a re-charge.
>
>
> Hmmm . . . according to EarthX literature, expected
> self discharge rates are pretty much in line with
> other LiFePo4 products.
>
> What conditions was it stored in? Did you have
> any conversation about it with EarthX?
>
>
> Bob . . .
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Battery test |
| From: | "user9253" <fransew(at)gmail.com> |
No, that is not normal. Is the master switch turned on and aircraft electrical
loads turned on during this test? I suggest taking apart all connectors
between the battery negative post and the firewall ground post. Clean them
and make sure the crimps are good. Then put it back together.
You wrote "test the positive". Is the positive voltmeter probe touching the battery
positive post and the negative voltmeter probe touching the firewall ground post?
--------
Joe Gores
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=496866#496866
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | David Carter <david(at)carter.net> |
| Subject: | SDS CPI-2 internal crowbar |
This thread over on VAF is interesting. I have the CPI-2 with their
recommended small backup battery in my single-alternator, single-battery
(for the main electrical system) VFR-only airplane.
I'm planning an IFR upgrade with a full suite of Garmin G3X goodies, and
want to follow the Z101 architecture.
It seems that their internal crowbar & fuse leave me stuck with their
backup battery.
http://www.vansairforce.com/community/showthread.php?t=154648&page=34
--
---
David Carter
david(at)carter.net
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Ron Burnett <ronburnett(at)charter.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Battery test |
The master and no loads were on. I did have the probe on the positive terminal
and when the negative probe was moved to the bolt head on the firewall with the
forest of tabs inside the cabin, is where it dropped.7 volts.
Will do as you suggested when I can.
Ron Burnett
May you have the Lord's blessings today!
Sent from my iPad
> On Jun 16, 2020, at 4:54 PM, user9253 wrote:
>
>
> No, that is not normal. Is the master switch turned on and aircraft electrical
> loads turned on during this test? I suggest taking apart all connectors
> between the battery negative post and the firewall ground post. Clean them
> and make sure the crimps are good. Then put it back together.
> You wrote "test the positive". Is the positive voltmeter probe touching the
battery
> positive post and the negative voltmeter probe touching the firewall ground post?
>
> --------
> Joe Gores
>
>
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=496866#496866
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Matthew S. Whiting" <m.whiting(at)frontier.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Z101 with Rotax 915iS |
Yes, exactly what I was looking at. I would probably spring a few hundred m
ore for a B&C unit, but I suspect a car one would do the job as a second alt
ernator. I am attending the Lockwood installation course in August, assumin
g covid doesn=99t return and kill it, so I will know more then and be a
ble to ask some questions, but it looks very doable with the Rotax pulley an
d mounting rings. Although those pieces alone are about $1,000 as I recall.
Crazy expensive, but then I own a BMW motorcycle so I am used to parts tha
t cost 3X what they should.
Matt
> On Jun 17, 2020, at 5:13 AM, Charlie England wrote:
>>
> Followup; if this is the right option, looks like you could buy all the Ro
tax drive & mounting bits, and still save about $1000 on the alternator itse
lf, by using an off the shelf automotive model. The image in that parts brea
kout looks like a very common Nippon Denso internally regulated alternator t
hat's available in output levels from around 35A to over 55A. They're all ba
sically the same external dimensions.
>
> Charlie
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Matthew S. Whiting" <m.whiting(at)frontier.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Z101 with Rotax 915iS |
I believe Joe is correct and this is the reason I desire an external alternator.
Even though the 915 has two alternators, it effectively only has one from the
perspective of ships power. From page 3 of the Appendix to the Rotax 915iS
installation manual.
Engagement of the backup power supply system Generator B is done by the Engine
Control Unit (ECU) in the case of over voltage and under voltage. If the voltage
of power supply system Generator A decreases signifi- cantly or at all, the
control transition of the power supplies is additionally done per mechanical
means (relays drop out). These mechanism allow engagement of backup power supply
under every probable circumstance.
If power supply system Generator B is used to supply the aircraft electrical system
(possible in common opera- tion mode) it must be noted that in case of failure
this power supply system B is disconnected from the aircraft to serve as
the backup to the EMS.
> On Jun 17, 2020, at 5:15 AM, Ken Ryan wrote:
>
>
> All accurate Joe. But I think there is a wrinkle. It is my understanding that
if Gen A fails, AND the Emergency Power Switch is closed, THEN Gen B will operate
both Engine and power the Bus. At least that's my understanding.
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: What is an RG battery? |
| From: | "BonniCase" <BonniCase(at)protonmail.com> |
Hello....i didn't have good experience with RG battery. If you are having with
your battery backup. If possible, try connecting it to a different outlet. If
it is in a surge protector, remove it off the surge protector and connect it directly
to the outlet. If there are still issues, it may be an issue with the
unit itself.
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=496883#496883
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Ernest Christley <echristley(at)att.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Z101 with Rotax 915iS |
$1,000?!=C2- For a pulley and some brackets?For those prices, you could
have a machine shop design and custom build the pieces.=C2- Does no on in
your EAA chapter own a lathe?=C2- No one around you does aluminum castin
g?
I mean, c'mon Rotax.=C2- I understand you've got to make a profit.=C2-
But, you don't have to make it all off of one sale.
ing(at)frontier.com> wrote:
Yes, exactly what I was looking at. =C2-I would probably spring a few hu
ndred more for a B&C unit, but I suspect a car one would do the job as a se
cond alternator. =C2-I am attending the Lockwood installation course in A
ugust, assuming covid doesn=99t return and kill it, so I will know mo
re then and be able to ask some questions, but it looks very doable with th
e Rotax pulley and mounting rings. =C2-Although those pieces alone are ab
out $1,000 as I recall. =C2-Crazy expensive, but then I own a BMW motorcy
cle so I am used to parts that cost 3X what they should. =C2-
Matt
On Jun 17, 2020, at 5:13 AM, Charlie England wrote:
Followup; if this is the right option, looks like you could buy all the Rot
ax drive & mounting bits, and still save about $1000 on the alternator itse
lf, by using an off the shelf automotive model. The image in that parts bre
akout looks like a very common Nippon Denso internally regulated alternator
that's available in output levels from around 35A to over 55A. They're all
basically the same external dimensions.
Charlie
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: digest distribution stopped? |
| From: | "farmrjohn" <faithvineyard(at)yahoo.com> |
Well, still no digest even after supposedly re-subscribing with the Matronics Email
Distribution Tool and completing the email confirmation link. The tool shows
subscribed to the AeroElectric list but I haven't received any digests like
I had been. Is anyone else experiencing this?
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=496886#496886
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "skywagon185guy ." <skywagon185(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: With Flooded cells, at what discharge does damage |
start?
Solar charger.....
These are wonderful for certain applications, but, not for flooded 12v
common batteries. A "12v panel", can raise to 18v on a sunny day.
Even if it is only pumping out 0.1 amp, that will overcharge most lead acid
batteries eventually, leading to "gassing".
A cheap fix possible for using a low current panel is to trap the voltage
output with a zener type diode or similar chosen to shunt current at some
recommended voltage.
On Sat, Jun 13, 2020 at 5:41 PM Ernest Christley wrote:
> Would a solar trickle charger help? I got one off Amazon for less than
> $15 that is flexible and tops out at 14.4V.
>
> steve(at)tomasara.com> wrote:
>
>
> Greetings,
>
> This isn't a relevant question for modern aircraft but I think the
> membership of this list will likely know so I hope I don't bother anyone by
> posting here.
>
> If you have a rarely used car with a traditional flooded cell lead-acid
> battery and keep an eye on the battery voltage, at what voltage should it
> be recharged to maintain a normal life? My old jeep has a small load while
> parked so the battery slowly drains and it is neither convenient for me to
> disconnect the battery nor keep a maintainer connected. If I charge it
> back up with my smart charger before the (nominally 70deg f) battery
> voltage drops to say, 12V will I still get full life out of the battery?
>
> Thanks in advance,
> Steve Stearns
> O235 Longeze
> Boulder/Longmont CO
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: SDS CPI-2 internal crowbar |
At 04:44 PM 6/16/2020, you wrote:
>This thread over on VAF is interesting. I have
>the CPI-2 with their recommended small backup
>battery in my single-alternator, single-battery
>(for the main electrical system) VFR-only airplane.=C2
>
>I'm planning an IFR upgrade with a full suite of
>Garmin G3X goodies, and want to follow the Z101 architecture. =C2
>
>It seems that their internal crowbar & fuse
>leave me stuck with their backup battery. =C2
>
><http://www.vansairforce.com/community/showthread.php?t=154648&page=34>
http://www.vansairforce.com/community/showthread.php?t=154648&page=34
This thread is a bit mystifying. OV conditions come from
one and only one source(s) . . . alternators with failed
regulators.
An OV condition is not a transient event . . . it's
a consistently rising voltage that will generally
be limited by the battery(ies) as their chemistry
gamely absorbs the excess energy condition. Hence
the voltage does not rise quickly (i.e. volts per
second) but rather sedately in electronic terms.
For decades we have been designing, qualifying and
integrating aviation electro-whizzies that are
capable players in the wild and wooley world
of vehicular DC power systems . . . matters not
whether cars, trucks, earth movers . . . or
airplanes.
In 1935 some pretty smart cookies in
the aviation industry got together in Washington
DC and founded the Radio Technical Commission
for Aeronautics (known today as RTCA).
https://tinyurl.com/y78zvrt8
For 85 years these folk have been sifting the
sands of physics in performance of electrical
and electronics systems for aircraft. Their
goal was to craft guidelines for the design
and qualification of all manner of electrical
accessory to (1) insure design performance
under all anticipated conditions and (2)
make sure that all accessories 'play nice'
in the same sandbox such that arguments
and spats do not put airframe or crew
at risk.
When it comes to ov definition, detection
and response, the attached figures speak
to 70+ years of design philosophy in
aviation electrical systems. 14V devices
are TESTED to withstand 20V perturbations
for 1S and 30 (or 40) Volt perturbations
for 100mS.
Every device bolted to an airplane is
expected to shrug off bus voltage
perturbations between the high and
low voltage plots for intervals of
time laid out on the x-axis. When
tasked with my first ov relay design
about 1975, the rule of thumb was to
design for a 50mS response to a step
increase in bus voltage from 14.2
to 20 volts.
While the electronics were solid-state,
the 'timers' were pretty crude by contemporary
standards. Today, micro-controllers
allow us to start a timer when the
voltage exceeds some lower discriminator,
say 15 volts. If the voltage stays above
that value for 500 milliseconds, we
trip the ov protection system. If the
voltage falls below 15v before
time-out, the timer resets and the process
starts over.
This all but eliminates nuisance tripping
of an ov protection system while offering
robust but timely management of a recalcitrant
regulator/alternator.
Contemporary design recommendations are
not difficult to accommodate . . . been
doing it for decades. I've designed
many products, some incorporating delicate
silicon, wherein power was supplied
directly from ship's bus . . .
Often we were requested to qualify for
indirect effects of lightning strike. Again,
not difficult.
I hope this lays foundation for consternation
felt when I read about difficulties builders are
having with the built-in ov protection on
some product. It's even more difficult
to understand how suppliers can offer
what appears to be capable of producing
really gee-whiz performance in some device
but are unable to tailor electrical input-output
ports to comfortably thrive in the aircraft
environment. Adding any form of OV 'protection'
to an accessory is completely redundant; i.e.
unnecessary.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Ken Ryan <keninalaska(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Z101 with Rotax 915iS |
If Gen A fails, the ECU will disconnect Gen B from the charging system
(battery) and connect it to essential engine loads. Rotax does not want you
to do it, but if you then close the Emergency Power switch, Gen B will also
be re-connected to the charging system. In this condition, it would be
possible to load the generator to the point where voltage drops to a level
where the essential engine equipment fails. Because Rotax does not publish
how much current the engine requires, it is difficult to determine what is
safely available for running non-engine equipment.
On Wed, Jun 17, 2020 at 5:37 AM Matthew S. Whiting
wrote:
> m.whiting(at)frontier.com>
>
> I believe Joe is correct and this is the reason I desire an external
> alternator. Even though the 915 has two alternators, it effectively only
> has one from the perspective of ship=99s power. From page 3 of the
Appendix
> to the Rotax 915iS installation manual.
>
> =9CEngagement of the backup power supply system Generator B is done
by the
> Engine Control Unit (ECU) in the case of over voltage and under voltage.
If
> the voltage of power supply system Generator A decreases signifi- cantly
or
> at all, the control transition of the power supplies is additionally done
> per mechanical means (relays drop out). These mechanism allow engagement
of
> backup power supply under every probable circumstance.
>
> If power supply system Generator B is used to supply the aircraft
> electrical system (possible in common opera- tion mode) it must be noted
> that in case of failure this power supply system B is disconnected from t
he
> aircraft to serve as the backup to the EMS.=9C
>
>
> > On Jun 17, 2020, at 5:15 AM, Ken Ryan wrote:
> >
> > =EF=BB
> > All accurate Joe. But I think there is a wrinkle. It is my understandin
g
> that if Gen A fails, AND the Emergency Power Switch is closed, THEN Gen B
> will operate both Engine and power the Bus. At least that's my
> understanding.
>
>
===========
===========
===========
===========
===========
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Ernest Christley <echristley(at)att.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Z101 with Rotax 915iS |
$1,000?!=C2- For a pulley and some brackets?For those prices, you could
have a machine shop design and custom build the pieces.=C2- Does no on in
your EAA chapter own a lathe?=C2- No one around you does aluminum castin
g?
I mean, c'mon Rotax.=C2- I understand you've got to make a profit.=C2-
But, you don't have to make it all off of one sale.
ing(at)frontier.com> wrote:
Yes, exactly what I was looking at. =C2-I would probably spring a few hu
ndred more for a B&C unit, but I suspect a car one would do the job as a se
cond alternator. =C2-I am attending the Lockwood installation course in A
ugust, assuming covid doesn=99t return and kill it, so I will know mo
re then and be able to ask some questions, but it looks very doable with th
e Rotax pulley and mounting rings. =C2-Although those pieces alone are ab
out $1,000 as I recall. =C2-Crazy expensive, but then I own a BMW motorcy
cle so I am used to parts that cost 3X what they should. =C2-
Matt
On Jun 17, 2020, at 5:13 AM, Charlie England wrote:
Followup; if this is the right option, looks like you could buy all the Rot
ax drive & mounting bits, and still save about $1000 on the alternator itse
lf, by using an off the shelf automotive model. The image in that parts bre
akout looks like a very common Nippon Denso internally regulated alternator
that's available in output levels from around 35A to over 55A. They're all
basically the same external dimensions.
Charlie
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Surplus Wire |
| From: | "BMC_Dave" <bmcdave85(at)gmail.com> |
The shield is sized for the combined current of the wires right? I'd like to use
it for the other current conductor if I can.
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=496895#496895
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Charlie England <ceengland7(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Surplus Wire |
On Wed, Jun 17, 2020 at 4:23 PM BMC_Dave wrote:
>
> The shield is sized for the combined current of the wires right? I'd like
> to use it for the other current conductor if I can.
>
>
> *In general*, that's not a bet I'd make, because shields are, well,
shields. You don't normally see them carrying serious current, in the sense
of actual power (RF transmission lines obviously excepted). Having said
that, if we're still talking about 24 awg wire, it's extremely unlikely
that the shield would be any smaller than that. If you're talking about
using the shield for a single circuit's ground return, it sounds
reasonable, but check for yourself by stripping a conductor, measuring
approx. dia. with calipers, and then do the same with the shield 'drain'
wire, assuming that it's a foil style shield. If it's braided copper
strands, then the effective gauge might well be much larger than the
combination of all 5 conductors combined. Just check it. Compute cross
sectional area for a bare 24 awg wire, and do the same for the shield
drain, using the basic pi * r^2 formula for the area of a circle.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Ernest Christley <echristley(at)att.net> |
| Subject: | Re: With Flooded cells, at what discharge does damage |
start?
I recently bought a solar panel that maxes out at 14.4V.=C2- It was adve
rtised for that, but I tested it anyway.=C2- Given that it will output 0.
0V half the time, it's max output of 0.38A should be just right.
It's flexible, and I attached to my canopy cover with velcro.
185(at)gmail.com> wrote:
Solar charger.....These are wonderful for certain applications, but, not f
or flooded 12v common batteries.=C2- A "12v panel", can raise to 18v on a
sunny day.Even if it is only pumping out 0.1 amp, that will overcharge mos
t lead acid batteries eventually, leading to "gassing".A cheap fix possible
for using=C2-a low current panel is to trap the voltage output with a ze
ner type diode or similar chosen to shunt current at some recommended volta
ge.
On Sat, Jun 13, 2020 at 5:41 PM Ernest Christley wrote
:
Would a solar trickle charger help?=C2- I got one off Amazon for less th
an $15 that is flexible and tops out at 14.4V.
ara.com> wrote:
Greetings,
This isn't a relevant question for modern aircraft but I think the membersh
ip of this list will likely know so I hope I don't bother anyone by posting
here.
If you have a rarely used car with a traditional flooded cell lead-acid bat
tery and keep an eye on the battery voltage, at what voltage should it be r
echarged to maintain a normal life?=C2- My old jeep has a small load whil
e parked so the battery slowly drains and it is neither convenient for me t
o disconnect the battery nor keep a maintainer connected.=C2- If I charge
it back up with my smart charger=C2-before the (nominally 70deg f) batte
ry voltage drops to say, 12V will I still get full life out of the battery?
Thanks in advance,Steve StearnsO235=C2-LongezeBoulder/Longmont CO
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Ernest Christley <echristley(at)att.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Z101 with Rotax 915iS |
They don't publish how much the engine requires, but would it be difficult
to insert a meter between the generator and the engine bus?
l.com> wrote:
If Gen A fails, the ECU will disconnect Gen B from the charging system (ba
ttery) and connect it to essential engine loads. Rotax does not want you to
do it, but if you then close the Emergency Power switch, Gen B will also b
e re-connected to the charging system. In this condition, it would be possi
ble to load the generator to the point where voltage drops to a level where
the essential engine equipment fails. Because Rotax does not publish how m
uch current the engine requires, it is difficult to determine what is safel
y available for running non-engine equipment.
On Wed, Jun 17, 2020 at 5:37 AM Matthew S. Whiting
wrote:
ontier.com>
I believe Joe is correct and this is the reason I desire an external altern
ator.=C2- Even though the 915 has two alternators, it effectively only ha
s one from the perspective of ship=99s power.=C2- From page 3 of th
e Appendix to the Rotax 915iS installation manual.
=9CEngagement of the backup power supply system Generator B is done b
y the Engine Control Unit (ECU) in the case of over voltage and under volta
ge. If the voltage of power supply system Generator A decreases signifi- ca
ntly or at all, the control transition of the power supplies is additionall
y done per mechanical means (relays drop out). These mechanism allow engage
ment of backup power supply under every probable circumstance.
If power supply system Generator B is used to supply the aircraft electrica
l system (possible in common opera- tion mode) it must be noted that in cas
e of failure this power supply system B is disconnected from the aircraft t
o serve as the backup to the EMS.=9C
> On Jun 17, 2020, at 5:15 AM, Ken Ryan wrote:
>
> =EF=BB
> All accurate Joe. But I think there is a wrinkle. It is my understanding
that if Gen A fails, AND the Emergency Power Switch is closed, THEN Gen B w
ill operate both Engine and power the Bus. At least that's my understanding
.
-
Electric-List" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://www.matronics.co
m/Navigator?AeroElectric-List
FORUMS -
eferrer" target="_blank">http://forums.matronics.com
WIKI -
errer" target="_blank">http://wiki.matronics.com
b Site -
=C2- =C2- =C2- =C2- =C2- -Matt Dralle, List Admin.
rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/contribution
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Z101 with Rotax 915iS |
| From: | C&K <yellowduckduo(at)gmail.com> |
Well on the 912is since gen A is rated at 16 amps and gen B at 30 amps
that's a big hint.
But then I read that having both fuel pumps on might trip off gen A
which just seems like poor design if true.
Don't know if this is the same on the 915.
Ken L.
On 17/06/2020 10:07 AM, Ken Ryan wrote:
> If Gen A fails, the ECU will disconnect Gen B from the charging system
> (battery) and connect it to essential engine loads. Rotax does not
> want you to do it, but if you then close the Emergency Power switch,
> Gen B will also be re-connected to the charging system. In this
> condition, it would be possible to load the generator to the point
> where voltage drops to a level where the essential engine equipment
> fails. Because Rotax does not publish how much current the engine
> requires, it is difficult to determine what is safely available for
> running non-engine equipment.
>
> On Wed, Jun 17, 2020 at 5:37 AM Matthew S. Whiting
> > wrote:
>
> >
>
> I believe Joe is correct and this is the reason I desire an
> external alternator. Even though the 915 has two alternators, it
> effectively only has one from the perspective of ships power.
> From page 3 of the Appendix to the Rotax 915iS installation manual.
>
> Engagement of the backup power supply system Generator B is done
> by the Engine Control Unit (ECU) in the case of over voltage and
> under voltage. If the voltage of power supply system Generator A
> decreases signifi- cantly or at all, the control transition of the
> power supplies is additionally done per mechanical means (relays
> drop out). These mechanism allow engagement of backup power supply
> under every probable circumstance.
>
> If power supply system Generator B is used to supply the aircraft
> electrical system (possible in common opera- tion mode) it must be
> noted that in case of failure this power supply system B is
> disconnected from the aircraft to serve as the backup to the EMS.
>
>
> > On Jun 17, 2020, at 5:15 AM, Ken Ryan > wrote:
> >
> >
> > All accurate Joe. But I think there is a wrinkle. It is my
> understanding that if Gen A fails, AND the Emergency Power Switch
> is closed, THEN Gen B will operate both Engine and power the Bus.
> At least that's my understanding.
>
>
> ==========
> -
> 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: | Ben Beaird <n13en71(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | Z-11 ground avionics bus question |
I hope the answer to this question is not too obvious;
On Z-11 (and others), the connection between the instrument panel ground
bus and the avionics ground bus is designated 5X20AWG. What exactly does
that mean?
- Do I take up 5 tabs on my ground buses with 20 ga wires?
Thanks,
Ben
Glastar
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Surplus Wire |
At 04:12 PM 6/17/2020, you wrote:
>
>The shield is sized for the combined current of the wires right? I'd
>like to use it for the other current conductor if I can.
NO . . . it's for conducting the products of electro-static
coupling. Essentially zero current. Run AMPs through
a known length of shield, measure voltage drop through
that segment. Compute the AWG equivalent from the
resistance values in a wire table.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Z-11 ground avionics bus question |
At 06:57 PM 6/17/2020, you wrote:
>I hope the answer to this question is not too obvious;
>
>On Z-11 (and others), the connection between the
>instrument panel ground bus and the avionics
>ground bus is designated 5X20AWG. What exactly does that mean?=C2
> * Do I take up 5 tabs on my ground buses with 20 ga wires?
Yeah . . . 5 separate strands of 20AWG as long as
you have the spares . . . otherwise . . . plan-B.
The individual strands are easy.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Surplus Wire |
| From: | "BMC_Dave" <bmcdave85(at)gmail.com> |
Looking at the BMS13-48 spec the flat shield is tin coated copper, 0.0015" +-.0004
thk and 0.020" wide. I counted 16 strands in the braid I disassembled.
So 0.02"x.0011"x16 is 0.000352 sqin area, which is between 13-14ga (13.6, apparently).
So that's what, 20ish Amps conservatively?
So the 5x 24ga conductors, slightly de-rated to 10A, seems the shield would be
more than up to it.
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=496905#496905
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Matthew S. Whiting" <m.whiting(at)frontier.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Z101 with Rotax 915iS |
What emergency power switch? I see no such reference in the 915iS installation
manual. I looked at HIC A and B and X3 and I see no such switch terminals.
X3-1 allows external power to be used in the event that both generator A and B
fail together, but I see no emergency power switch.
> On Jun 18, 2020, at 3:36 AM, Ken Ryan wrote:
>
>
> If Gen A fails, the ECU will disconnect Gen B from the charging system (battery)
and connect it to essential engine loads. Rotax does not want you to do it,
but if you then close the Emergency Power switch, Gen B will also be re-connected
to the charging system. In this condition, it would be possible to load
the generator to the point where voltage drops to a level where the essential
engine equipment fails. Because Rotax does not publish how much current the engine
requires, it is difficult to determine what is safely available for running
non-engine equipment.
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Z-11 ground avionics bus question |
| From: | "johnbright" <john_s_bright(at)yahoo.com> |
n13en71(at)gmail.com wrote:
> I hope the answer to this question is not too obvious;
>
>
> On Z-11 (and others), the connection between the instrument panel ground bus
and the avionics ground bus is designated 5X20AWG. What exactly does that mean?
> Do I take up 5 tabs on my ground buses with 20 ga wires?Thanks,
> Ben
> Glastar
Hi Ben,
Have you seen Figure 18-17 in the Aeroelectric Connection Book? (and the accompanying
text) Note that in Figure 18-17, "(Instrument) Panel Ground Bus" means
forest of tabs aft side of firewall in the case of a tractor and in the cabin
in the case of a pusher. The term "Panel Ground Bus" has been changed to "Firewall
Ground Bus") on newer dwgs like Z101.
--------
John Bright, RV-6A, at FWF, O-360
Z-101 single batt dual alt SDS EM-5-F.
john_s_bright(at)yahoo.com, Newport News, Va
https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1u6GeZo6pmBWsKykLNVQMvu4o1VEVyP4K
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=496907#496907
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Ken Ryan <keninalaska(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Z101 with Rotax 915iS |
In the latest Installation Manual it is referred to as "Battery Backup
Switch."
On Thu, Jun 18, 2020 at 3:41 AM Matthew S. Whiting
wrote:
> m.whiting(at)frontier.com>
>
>
> What emergency power switch? I see no such reference in the 915iS
> installation manual. I looked at HIC A and B and X3 and I see no such
> switch terminals. X3-1 allows external power to be used in the event tha
t
> both generator A and B fail together, but I see no emergency power switch
.
>
>
> > On Jun 18, 2020, at 3:36 AM, Ken Ryan wrote:
> >
> > =EF=BB
> > If Gen A fails, the ECU will disconnect Gen B from the charging system
> (battery) and connect it to essential engine loads. Rotax does not want y
ou
> to do it, but if you then close the Emergency Power switch, Gen B will al
so
> be re-connected to the charging system. In this condition, it would be
> possible to load the generator to the point where voltage drops to a leve
l
> where the essential engine equipment fails. Because Rotax does not publis
h
> how much current the engine requires, it is difficult to determine what i
s
> safely available for running non-engine equipment.
>
>
===========
===========
===========
===========
===========
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Surplus Wire |
At 09:55 PM 6/17/2020, you wrote:
>
>Looking at the BMS13-48 spec the flat shield is tin coated copper,
>0.0015" +-.0004 thk and 0.020" wide. I counted 16 strands in the
>braid I disassembled.
>
>So 0.02"x.0011"x16 is 0.000352 sqin area, which is between 13-14ga
>(13.6, apparently). So that's what, 20ish Amps conservatively?
>
>So the 5x 24ga conductors, slightly de-rated to 10A, seems the
>shield would be more than up to it.
Not sure about your numbers. 14AWG solid wire is .065" diam. 3.14 x
(.065/2)^2 = 0.0033 sq"
so I think your shield cross section compared to 14 AWG is off by a
factor of 10?
24AWG is .02" diameter for a cross section of 3.14 x (.02/2)^2 =
0.000314 sq" x 5 strands
is a total of 0.00157 sq". Working backwards I get a diameter of
0.0447 which is
pretty close to 17AWG wire for equivalent resistance of the bundled strands.
I get 0.00048 sq" total cross section for the shield which works back to a
0.0247" diameter wire - just a tad smaller than 22AWG.
Keep in mind also that when the shield is a power path for
currents in central conductors, temperature rise is promoted
by BOTH current pathways under a single jacket.
I've used shields as return paths for countless, low
power or signal pathways but I'd have to think long
and carefully about pushing that combination of
conductor/insulation to its thermal limits.
What application are you considering where you find an
advantage in using the shield for this wire as a power-path?
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Surplus Wire |
| From: | "BMC_Dave" <bmcdave85(at)gmail.com> |
Yeah I got my zeros mixed up there. The shield is equivalent to a single 24ga wire,
so that kills the idea. Thanks.
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=496913#496913
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Finn Lassen <finn.lassen(at)verizon.net> |
| Subject: | Altitude encoder output voltages |
I want to make a serial to graycode converter to replace the AK350 for
input to Garmin GTX 320A transponder.
I'd rather have the altitude come from the Dynon D-10A than the AK350 --
no discrepancy between what ATC sees and what I see on the Dynon (at
29.92 alt setting).
I found the table on
http://www.aeroelectric.com/articles/Altitude_Encoding/modecascii.txt
I intend to use an Arduino Nano or similar.
But my memory is real vague on the polarity and voltage levels.
Is it correct that the encoder has open-collector outputs and the
transponder pull-up resistors to system voltage?
Does the transponder expect inverted inputs (0 in table no input and 1
in table pulling input to ground)?
Finn
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Altitude encoder output voltages |
At 08:21 PM 6/18/2020, you wrote:
>
>I want to make a serial to graycode converter to replace the AK350
>for input to Garmin GTX 320A transponder.
>
>I'd rather have the altitude come from the Dynon D-10A than the
>AK350 -- no discrepancy between what ATC sees and what I see on the
>Dynon (at 29.92 alt setting).
>
>I found the table on
>http://www.aeroelectric.com/articles/Altitude_Encoding/modecascii.txt
>
>I intend to use an Arduino Nano or similar.
>
>But my memory is real vague on the polarity and voltage levels.
>
>Is it correct that the encoder has open-collector outputs and the
>transponder pull-up resistors to system voltage?
>
>Does the transponder expect inverted inputs (0 in table no input and
>1 in table pulling input to ground)?
>
>Finn
Man! That goes back to the dark ages . . . I did some
bench test sets for Cessna/ARC radios waayyy back when
wherein I think outputs from the encoder were
basically open collector with pull-ups in the load.
Hence, the "1" voltage was what ever the load
circuitry provided.
You can't go wrong with open collectors. Lay out
your board to allow adding pull-ups to a 5v rail
should they prove necessary/useful. If I'm all
wet and the polarities are reversed a simple
bit-flip statement will fix it.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Premature EarthX death? |
At 04:23 PM 6/16/2020, you wrote:
>It was on the bench, heated shop. I should have contacted EarthX but
>I just blamed myself.
>I am sure of the time frame because I had load tested it and made
>notations, and stored those notes with the battery.
>
>Ken
Do you still have the carcass?
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | What's all this 'maintainer' stuff anyhow? |
The Battery Tender Jr. (BTJr) saga continued . . .
I let the BTJr recharged battery set for 24+ hours
and this morning I read 12.74 volts open circuit.
Recall that our BTJr charger-maintainer 'relaxed'
to a maintenance level of 13.3V. Okay, I put
the battery on a bench supply set for 13.3 volts.
The test article battery immediately presented
a 'load' of 25mA.
Now, if this value represents the battery's
internal leakage, then one might predict
that the battery would self-discharge to
less than useless in 12000mAh/25mA = 480H
or thereabouts ~ 20 days.
This particular battery is a Orscheln Farm & Home
lawn tractor battery. I think it retails for
about $35 and this particular subject is 3+
years old but kept on the same maintainer that
were using to do the BTJr recharge studies.
I'll leave it on the bench for awhile to see if the
'maintenance' current changes.
The next step is to cap check the battery again
to see how well the BTJr stuffed the energy
back in.
Watch this space . . .
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Sebastien <cluros(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Altitude encoder output voltages |
How much does an Arduino cost. For about $70 Dynon sells a serial to
greycode converter.
On Fri, Jun 19, 2020, 07:38 Robert L. Nuckolls, III <
nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> wrote:
> At 08:21 PM 6/18/2020, you wrote:
>
> finn.lassen(at)verizon.net>
>
> I want to make a serial to graycode converter to replace the AK350 for
> input to Garmin GTX 320A transponder.
>
> I'd rather have the altitude come from the Dynon D-10A than the AK350 --
> no discrepancy between what ATC sees and what I see on the Dynon (at 29.92
> alt setting).
>
> I found the table on
> http://www.aeroelectric.com/articles/Altitude_Encoding/modecascii.txt
>
> I intend to use an Arduino Nano or similar.
>
> But my memory is real vague on the polarity and voltage levels.
>
> Is it correct that the encoder has open-collector outputs and the
> transponder pull-up resistors to system voltage?
>
> Does the transponder expect inverted inputs (0 in table no input and 1 in
> table pulling input to ground)?
>
> Finn
>
>
> Man! That goes back to the dark ages . . . I did some
> bench test sets for Cessna/ARC radios waayyy back when
> wherein I think outputs from the encoder were
> basically open collector with pull-ups in the load.
> Hence, the "1" voltage was what ever the load
> circuitry provided.
>
> You can't go wrong with open collectors. Lay out
> your board to allow adding pull-ups to a 5v rail
> should they prove necessary/useful. If I'm all
> wet and the polarities are reversed a simple
> bit-flip statement will fix it.
>
>
> Bob . . .
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Ken Ryan <keninalaska(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Premature EarthX death? |
No, sorry Bob. I used to ride motorcycles and it was not unusual that I
would trash a battery letting it sit over the winter. So my mindset was
that it must have been my fault (again) so I just got rid of it and bought
a new one, vowing to keep it on the maintainer.
On Fri, Jun 19, 2020 at 6:40 AM Robert L. Nuckolls, III <
nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> wrote:
> At 04:23 PM 6/16/2020, you wrote:
>
> It was on the bench, heated shop. I should have contacted EarthX but I
> just blamed myself.
> I am sure of the time frame because I had load tested it and made
> notations, and stored those notes with the battery.
>
> Ken
>
>
> Do you still have the carcass?
>
> Bob . . .
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Ken Ryan <keninalaska(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Premature EarthX death? |
This was a number of years ago, before the model with the dual bms and
warning light lead. I don't remember whether or not that model's bms was
supposed to protect it from over discharge.
On Fri, Jun 19, 2020 at 7:13 AM Ken Ryan wrote:
> No, sorry Bob. I used to ride motorcycles and it was not unusual that I
> would trash a battery letting it sit over the winter. So my mindset was
> that it must have been my fault (again) so I just got rid of it and bought
> a new one, vowing to keep it on the maintainer.
>
>
> On Fri, Jun 19, 2020 at 6:40 AM Robert L. Nuckolls, III <
> nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> wrote:
>
>> At 04:23 PM 6/16/2020, you wrote:
>>
>> It was on the bench, heated shop. I should have contacted EarthX but I
>> just blamed myself.
>> I am sure of the time frame because I had load tested it and made
>> notations, and stored those notes with the battery.
>>
>> Ken
>>
>>
>> Do you still have the carcass?
>>
>> Bob . . .
>>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Premature EarthX death? |
At 10:16 AM 6/19/2020, you wrote:
>This was a number of years ago, before the model
>with the dual bms and warning light lead. I
>don't remember whether or not that model's bms
>was supposed to protect it from over discharge.=C2
I believe their bms always protected from over discharge
but it could not protect against self discharge. For example,
a battery that has been 'protected' due to very low state
of charge still needs to be recharged asap. Just because
it has protected itself from external discharge, it cannot
stand of effects of internal discharge. This MIGHT be what
happened to yours.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Finn Lassen <finn.lassen(at)verizon.net> |
| Subject: | Altitude encoder output voltages |
Half of the emails from the Matronics list server ends up AOL spam
filter. Several don't make it at all. Got this using the list browser:
"How much does an Arduino cost. For about $70 Dynon sells a serial to
greycode converter."
I ordered three Nanos for $6. May take some weeks to get them.
I have 74LS05 hex drivers and PC boards laying around.
Then there's the fun of DYI.
Then there's the fact that I can program it to accept any of the inputs
from the D-10A.
Not really needed, but there's plenty of space in a Nano for a table up
to 67,000' or higher.
Here's another question.
There are several serial altitude formats:
Format 1
Used By
Dynon Encoder Serial-to-Parallel Converter, Garmin AT (formerly UPS
Aviation Technologies)
Baud rate
1200
Format
#AL, space, +/-sign, five altitude bytes, T+25, checksum, carriage return
Example message
#AL +05200T+25D7[CR]
Format 2
Used By
Magellan
Baud rate
1200
Format
$MGL, +/- sign, five altitude digits, T+25, checksum, carriage return
Example message
$MGL+05200T+25E3[CR]
Format 3
Used By
Northstar, Garmin
Baud rate
2400
Format
ALT, space, five altitude bytes, carriage return
Example message
ALT 05200[CR]
Format 4
Used By
Garmin GTX330 (set on Icarus input), Garmin GTX327 (set on Icarus
input), Garmin GTX328, Icarus, Trimble
Baud rate
9600
Format
ALT, space, five altitude bytes, carriage return
Example message
ALT 05200[CR]
Format 3 and 4 apparently do not have an altitude +/- sign.
So, what happens when you're below 0' pressure altitude?
Do they reason that if you're flying that low there's no radar coverage
anyway?
Finn
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I want to make a serial to graycode converter to replace the AK350 for
input to Garmin GTX 320A transponder.
I'd rather have the altitude come from the Dynon D-10A than the AK350 --
no discrepancy between what ATC sees and what I see on the Dynon (at
29.92 alt setting).
I found the table on
http://www.aeroelectric.com/articles/Altitude_Encoding/modecascii.txt
I intend to use an Arduino Nano or similar.
But my memory is real vague on the polarity and voltage levels.
Is it correct that the encoder has open-collector outputs and the
transponder pull-up resistors to system voltage?
Does the transponder expect inverted inputs (0 in table no input and 1
in table pulling input to ground)?
Finn
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Ken Ryan <keninalaska(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Premature EarthX death? |
Thanks Bob. Now that you have pointed it out, it seems obvious that the BMS
could never protect from self-discharge!
Ken
On Fri, Jun 19, 2020 at 7:50 AM Robert L. Nuckolls, III <
nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> wrote:
> At 10:16 AM 6/19/2020, you wrote:
>
> This was a number of years ago, before the model with the dual bms and
> warning light lead. I don't remember whether or not that model's bms was
> supposed to protect it from over discharge.=C3=82
>
>
> I believe their bms always protected from over discharge
> but it could not protect against self discharge. For example,
> a battery that has been 'protected' due to very low state
> of charge still needs to be recharged asap. Just because
> it has protected itself from external discharge, it cannot
> stand of effects of internal discharge. This MIGHT be what
> happened to yours.
>
>
> Bob . . .
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Premature EarthX death? |
At 02:19 PM 6/19/2020, you wrote:
>Thanks Bob. Now that you have pointed it out, it seems obvious that
>the BMS could never protect from self-discharge!
>
>Ken
How long had the battery been in
satisfactory service before it when
t.u.?
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Ken Ryan <keninalaska(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Premature EarthX death? |
It was never in service. It was for an unfinished project. It was about two
or three years old, I think. It had been charged periodically during the
first couple of years using EarthX recommended charger. Then at about 2 or
3 years old I finally developed a load test system and so I did a load
test. I no longer have that record, but it tested as expected. Then I
charged it back up and it sat for a year. That's when it was dead. I
suppose it is possible that I did not charge it after the load test. But at
the price of those things and having previous experience failing motorcycle
batteries, that seems unlikely.
On Fri, Jun 19, 2020 at 12:14 PM Robert L. Nuckolls, III <
nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> wrote:
> At 02:19 PM 6/19/2020, you wrote:
>
> Thanks Bob. Now that you have pointed it out, it seems obvious that the
> BMS could never protect from self-discharge!
>
> Ken
>
>
> How long had the battery been in
> satisfactory service before it when
> t.u.?
>
>
> Bob . . .
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Premature EarthX death? |
At 03:26 PM 6/19/2020, you wrote:
>It was never in service. It was for an
>unfinished project. It was about two or three
>years old, I think. It had been charged
>periodically during the first couple of=C2 years
>using EarthX recommended charger. Then at about
>2 or 3 years old I finally developed a load test
>system and so I did a load test. I no longer
>have that record, but it tested as expected.
>Then I charged it back up and it sat for a year.
>That's when it was dead. I suppose it is
>possible that I did not charge it after the load
>test. But at the price of those things and
>having previous experience failing motorcycle batteries, that seems
unlikely.
bummer . . .
for years at my seminars I suggested
that builders don't buy a battery until
a few weeks before first flight. 'til then
you can test with some jury-rigged car
battery.
I think I made that suggestion the first
time when an attendee stated that he was
going to 'cruise the booths at OSH next
month to see if he could snag a good deal
on a battery.' He asked for recommendations.
He admitted being years away from flying.
That was before lithium . . . also very
early in evolution of AGM products. I
suggested he would be money and risk ahead
with a 'fresh' battery in his newly minted
airplane. I think that advice still holds water.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Pat Little <roughleg(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | Minimum length of fusible link wire segment |
Bob, in a recent post you state that there is a 9-inch rule of thumb
minimum length for fusible link wire segments. Could you explain the
physics behind that, please?
Pat
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | What's all this 'maintainer' stuff anyhow? |
The Battery Tender Jr. (BTJr) saga continued . . .
> Recall that our BTJr charger-maintainer 'relaxed'
> 'load' of 25mA.
> Now, if this value represents the battery's
> internal leakage, then one might predict
> that the battery would self-discharge to
> less than useless in 12000mAh/25mA = 480H
> or thereabouts ~ 20 days.
After 24+ hours, the maintenance current
is down to 19mA . . . which raises another
question . . . what is the long term behavior
of maintenance current for this battery?
I'll explore that later.
Now for the second cap-check.
Watch this space . . .
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | <berkut13(at)berkut13.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Premature EarthX death? |
You do know there is a specific process to =9Cre-activate=9D
an EarthX battery once the discharge protection is activated, right?
Was that tried? It won=99t accept a charge until that is
completed.
-James
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Ken
Ryan
Sent: Friday, June 19, 2020 3:27 PM
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: Premature EarthX death?
It was never in service. It was for an unfinished project. It was about
two or three years old, I think. It had been charged periodically during
the first couple of years using EarthX recommended charger. Then at
about 2 or 3 years old I finally developed a load test system and so I
did a load test. I no longer have that record, but it tested as
expected. Then I charged it back up and it sat for a year. That's when
it was dead. I suppose it is possible that I did not charge it after the
load test. But at the price of those things and having previous
experience failing motorcycle batteries, that seems unlikely.
On Fri, Jun 19, 2020 at 12:14 PM Robert L. Nuckolls, III
wrote:
At 02:19 PM 6/19/2020, you wrote:
Thanks Bob. Now that you have pointed it out, it seems obvious that the
BMS could never protect from self-discharge!
Ken
How long had the battery been in
satisfactory service before it when
t.u.?
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Ken Ryan <keninalaska(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Premature EarthX death? |
I believe the charger which I bought from EarthX has that capability. What
exactly is this procedure?
On Sat, Jun 20, 2020, 08:19 wrote:
> You do know there is a specific process to =9Cre-activate=9D
an EarthX battery
> once the discharge protection is activated, right? Was that tried? It
> won=99t accept a charge until that is completed.
>
> -James
>
>
> *From:* owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:
> owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] *On Behalf Of *Ken Ryan
> *Sent:* Friday, June 19, 2020 3:27 PM
> *To:* aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
> *Subject:* Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: Premature EarthX death?
>
>
> It was never in service. It was for an unfinished project. It was about
> two or three years old, I think. It had been charged periodically during
> the first couple of years using EarthX recommended charger. Then at about
2
> or 3 years old I finally developed a load test system and so I did a load
> test. I no longer have that record, but it tested as expected. Then I
> charged it back up and it sat for a year. That's when it was dead. I
> suppose it is possible that I did not charge it after the load test. But
at
> the price of those things and having previous experience failing motorcyc
le
> batteries, that seems unlikely.
>
>
> On Fri, Jun 19, 2020 at 12:14 PM Robert L. Nuckolls, III <
> nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> wrote:
>
> At 02:19 PM 6/19/2020, you wrote:
>
> Thanks Bob. Now that you have pointed it out, it seems obvious that the
> BMS could never protect from self-discharge!
>
> Ken
>
>
> How long had the battery been in
> satisfactory service before it when
> t.u.?
>
> Bob . . .
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Ken Ryan <keninalaska(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Premature EarthX death? |
Here is a FAQ from EarthX that includes discussion of re-charging an
over-discharged battery. I have the Optimate charger and I tried it several
times.
https://earthxbatteries.com/faqs
On Sat, Jun 20, 2020 at 8:22 AM Ken Ryan wrote:
> I believe the charger which I bought from EarthX has that capability. Wha
t
> exactly is this procedure?
>
> On Sat, Jun 20, 2020, 08:19 wrote:
>
>> You do know there is a specific process to =9Cre-activate=9D
an EarthX
>> battery once the discharge protection is activated, right? Was that
>> tried? It won=99t accept a charge until that is completed.
>>
>> -James
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> *From:* owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:
>> owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] *On Behalf Of *Ken Ryan
>> *Sent:* Friday, June 19, 2020 3:27 PM
>> *To:* aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
>> *Subject:* Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: Premature EarthX death?
>>
>>
>>
>> It was never in service. It was for an unfinished project. It was about
>> two or three years old, I think. It had been charged periodically during
>> the first couple of years using EarthX recommended charger. Then at abou
t 2
>> or 3 years old I finally developed a load test system and so I did a loa
d
>> test. I no longer have that record, but it tested as expected. Then I
>> charged it back up and it sat for a year. That's when it was dead. I
>> suppose it is possible that I did not charge it after the load test. But
at
>> the price of those things and having previous experience failing motorcy
cle
>> batteries, that seems unlikely.
>>
>>
>>
>> On Fri, Jun 19, 2020 at 12:14 PM Robert L. Nuckolls, III <
>> nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> wrote:
>>
>> At 02:19 PM 6/19/2020, you wrote:
>>
>> Thanks Bob. Now that you have pointed it out, it seems obvious that the
>> BMS could never protect from self-discharge!
>>
>> Ken
>>
>>
>> How long had the battery been in
>> satisfactory service before it when
>> t.u.?
>>
>> Bob . . .
>>
>>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "skywagon185guy ." <skywagon185(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Premature EarthX death? |
Here is a guess at the charging, or lack of, problem... from a guy that has
never used the Xearth battery.
Most Li based chargers, controllers, BMS, etc. have top and bottom voltage
state sensors.
Translating this.... if the battery voltage for any reason has fallen below
the minimum value, the charge controller will essentially block any attempt
to charge the battery as it believes the battery is unsafe to charge.
The typical method to overcome this charging blockage is to trick the
controller or bypass it for a very brief period of time. And, using a
conventional charger attached to the battery in such a way, usually the
battery posts, as to put a brief charge into the battery. Enough of a
charge to get the cells voltage to rise above a minimum level. Once that
is done, usually connecting the battery to the Li charger, it will sense
that the battery is sufficiently at a safe state and begin normal
charging...
On Sat, Jun 20, 2020 at 9:30 AM Ken Ryan wrote:
> I believe the charger which I bought from EarthX has that capability. Wha
t
> exactly is this procedure?
>
> On Sat, Jun 20, 2020, 08:19 wrote:
>
>> You do know there is a specific process to =9Cre-activate=9D
an EarthX
>> battery once the discharge protection is activated, right? Was that
>> tried? It won=99t accept a charge until that is completed.
>>
>> -James
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> *From:* owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:
>> owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] *On Behalf Of *Ken Ryan
>> *Sent:* Friday, June 19, 2020 3:27 PM
>> *To:* aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
>> *Subject:* Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: Premature EarthX death?
>>
>>
>>
>> It was never in service. It was for an unfinished project. It was about
>> two or three years old, I think. It had been charged periodically during
>> the first couple of years using EarthX recommended charger. Then at abou
t 2
>> or 3 years old I finally developed a load test system and so I did a loa
d
>> test. I no longer have that record, but it tested as expected. Then I
>> charged it back up and it sat for a year. That's when it was dead. I
>> suppose it is possible that I did not charge it after the load test. But
at
>> the price of those things and having previous experience failing motorcy
cle
>> batteries, that seems unlikely.
>>
>>
>>
>> On Fri, Jun 19, 2020 at 12:14 PM Robert L. Nuckolls, III <
>> nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> wrote:
>>
>> At 02:19 PM 6/19/2020, you wrote:
>>
>> Thanks Bob. Now that you have pointed it out, it seems obvious that the
>> BMS could never protect from self-discharge!
>>
>> Ken
>>
>>
>> How long had the battery been in
>> satisfactory service before it when
>> t.u.?
>>
>> Bob . . .
>>
>>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | bob noffs <icubob(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Premature EarthX death? |
i can't believe this conversation is going on and earthx hasn't been
contacted. from my experience with them they really are the experts on
this. no offense to anyone but THIS is their thing.
On Sat, Jun 20, 2020 at 11:19 AM wrote:
> You do know there is a specific process to =9Cre-activate=9D
an EarthX battery
> once the discharge protection is activated, right? Was that tried? It
> won=99t accept a charge until that is completed.
>
> -James
>
>
> *From:* owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:
> owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] *On Behalf Of *Ken Ryan
> *Sent:* Friday, June 19, 2020 3:27 PM
> *To:* aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
> *Subject:* Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: Premature EarthX death?
>
>
> It was never in service. It was for an unfinished project. It was about
> two or three years old, I think. It had been charged periodically during
> the first couple of years using EarthX recommended charger. Then at about
2
> or 3 years old I finally developed a load test system and so I did a load
> test. I no longer have that record, but it tested as expected. Then I
> charged it back up and it sat for a year. That's when it was dead. I
> suppose it is possible that I did not charge it after the load test. But
at
> the price of those things and having previous experience failing motorcyc
le
> batteries, that seems unlikely.
>
>
> On Fri, Jun 19, 2020 at 12:14 PM Robert L. Nuckolls, III <
> nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> wrote:
>
> At 02:19 PM 6/19/2020, you wrote:
>
> Thanks Bob. Now that you have pointed it out, it seems obvious that the
> BMS could never protect from self-discharge!
>
> Ken
>
>
> How long had the battery been in
> satisfactory service before it when
> t.u.?
>
> Bob . . .
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | David Carter <david(at)carter.net> |
| Subject: | What to do with a SB1B-14? |
Hi,
I'm planning to upgrade my RV-7A electrical system based on the Z101
design. I recently purchased a new BC460-H aux alternator & a generic Ford
regulator. I then had the good fortune of having someone give me brand
new SB1B-14
backup regulator.
I currently have a Plane Power internally-regulated primary alternator
installed.
I'm looking for suggestions on what to do.
Return the generic Ford regulator, keep the B&C regulator, and deviate from
Z101?
Put the SB1B-14 up for sale?
Try to trade the SB1B-14 for a LR3D-14 to go with a new B&C primary
alternator to replace the PP?
Regards,
David
--
---
David Carter
david(at)carter.net
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Ken Ryan <keninalaska(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Premature EarthX death? |
The battery was discarded a couple of years ago. I see no point in
contacting them now.
On Sun, Jun 21, 2020, 04:58 bob noffs wrote:
> i can't believe this conversation is going on and earthx hasn't been
> contacted. from my experience with them they really are the experts on
> this. no offense to anyone but THIS is their thing.
>
> On Sat, Jun 20, 2020 at 11:19 AM wrote:
>
>> You do know there is a specific process to =9Cre-activate=9D
an EarthX
>> battery once the discharge protection is activated, right? Was that
>> tried? It won=99t accept a charge until that is completed.
>>
>> -James
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> *From:* owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:
>> owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] *On Behalf Of *Ken Ryan
>> *Sent:* Friday, June 19, 2020 3:27 PM
>> *To:* aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
>> *Subject:* Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: Premature EarthX death?
>>
>>
>>
>> It was never in service. It was for an unfinished project. It was about
>> two or three years old, I think. It had been charged periodically during
>> the first couple of years using EarthX recommended charger. Then at abou
t 2
>> or 3 years old I finally developed a load test system and so I did a loa
d
>> test. I no longer have that record, but it tested as expected. Then I
>> charged it back up and it sat for a year. That's when it was dead. I
>> suppose it is possible that I did not charge it after the load test. But
at
>> the price of those things and having previous experience failing motorcy
cle
>> batteries, that seems unlikely.
>>
>>
>>
>> On Fri, Jun 19, 2020 at 12:14 PM Robert L. Nuckolls, III <
>> nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> wrote:
>>
>> At 02:19 PM 6/19/2020, you wrote:
>>
>> Thanks Bob. Now that you have pointed it out, it seems obvious that the
>> BMS could never protect from self-discharge!
>>
>> Ken
>>
>>
>> How long had the battery been in
>> satisfactory service before it when
>> t.u.?
>>
>> Bob . . .
>>
>>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: What to do with a SB1B-14? |
At 08:56 AM 6/21/2020, you wrote:
>Hi,=C2
>
>I'm planning to upgrade my RV-7A electrical
>system based on the Z101 design. I recently
>purchased a new BC460-H aux alternator & a
>generic Ford regulator. I then had the good
>fortune of having someone give me brand new=C2 SB1B-14 backup regulator.=C2
>
>I currently have a Plane Power
>internally-regulated primary alternator installed.=C2
>
>I'm looking for suggestions on what=C2 to do.=C2
>
>Return the generic Ford regulator, keep the B&C
>regulator, and deviate from Z101?=C2
>
>Put the =C2 SB1B-14 up for sale?=C2
>
>Try to trade the SB1B-14 for a LR3D-14 to go
>with a new B&C primary alternator to replace the PP?=C2
>David Carter
>david(at)carter.net
Remember, the Z-figures are, first and foremost, illustrations
of ARCHITECTURE . . . yes, there are specific component callouts
. . . but there are often more than one, perhaps many alternatives
that would perform as advertised without violating the spirit and
intent of the architecture.
I really down-scaled the price, weight and complexity of the
aux alternator installation shown in Z101. That alternator
has a low probability of ever being needed in distress. For
the vast majority if not all of it's lifetime in the airplane,
(except for pre-flight testing) it sits there doing nothing.
I deleted low voltage warning and ov management because
any time you have that system running, you're automatically
in a state of heightened awareness.
Low voltage warning is redundant. You turned it on in the
first place because the main alternator rolled over.
Probability of having two alternators go bad (fail
to function -OR- go into ov runaway) during the
consumption of one tank of fuel is nanoscopic.
Hence it seemed quite reasonable to reduce the bells-n-
whistles in the aux alternator system to a minimum.
But that is YOUR CHOICE. If you already have hardware
in hand there's not a thing wrong with going ahead and
using it. You COULD install it with the same utility
as the Ford regulator . . . leave off the lv warning
light and alternator loaded current sensor.
That SB1 current sensor was crafted to assuage worries
by those-who-know-more-about-airplanes than we do
in Washington.
In retrospect, there were MUCH easier ways to
annunciate the alternator's activation than hanging
that Hall sensor on the b-lead. Further, there's
no need to annunciate 'overload' by flashing the
annunciator . . . the alternator is a 40A machine
in an rpm-limited installation . . . overloading
it simply means you get a depressed bus voltage
which is easily detected on a variety of displays
these days.
I wouldn't agonize over the decision much. The
SB1 has a rich and successful history of value
and performance on a LOT of TC and OBAM aircraft.
Go ahead and use it . . . trimming features is
your option. But most of all folks, don't let
architecture component suggestions drive expensive
or impractical decisions . . . you done good
David . . . we're talking about it here before
you make any big moves.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | David Carter <david(at)carter.net> |
| Subject: | Re: What to do with a SB1B-14? |
Bob - thanks, that all makes sense to me. I assume there's also no need to
swap out the internally-regulated PP main alternator?
On Sun, Jun 21, 2020 at 12:24 PM Robert L. Nuckolls, III <
nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> wrote:
> At 08:56 AM 6/21/2020, you wrote:
>
> Hi,=C3=82
>
> I'm planning to upgrade my RV-7A electrical system based on the Z101
> design. I recently purchased a new BC460-H aux alternator & a generic For
d
> regulator. I then had the good fortune of having someone give me brand ne
w=C3=82
> SB1B-14 backup regulator.=C3=82
>
> I currently have a Plane Power internally-regulated primary alternator
> installed.=C3=82
>
> I'm looking for suggestions on what=C3=82 to do.=C3=82
>
> Return the generic Ford regulator, keep the B&C regulator, and deviate
> from Z101?=C3=82
>
> Put the =C3=82 SB1B-14 up for sale?=C3=82
>
> Try to trade the SB1B-14 for a LR3D-14 to go with a new B&C primary
> alternator to replace the PP?=C3=82
>
>
> David Carter
> david(at)carter.net
>
>
> Remember, the Z-figures are, first and foremost, illustrations
> of ARCHITECTURE . . . yes, there are specific component callouts
> . . . but there are often more than one, perhaps many alternatives
> that would perform as advertised without violating the spirit and
> intent of the architecture.
>
> I really down-scaled the price, weight and complexity of the
> aux alternator installation shown in Z101. That alternator
> has a low probability of ever being needed in distress. For
> the vast majority if not all of it's lifetime in the airplane,
> (except for pre-flight testing) it sits there doing nothing.
>
> I deleted low voltage warning and ov management because
> any time you have that system running, you're automatically
> in a state of heightened awareness.
>
> Low voltage warning is redundant. You turned it on in the
> first place because the main alternator rolled over.
> Probability of having two alternators go bad (fail
> to function -OR- go into ov runaway) during the
> consumption of one tank of fuel is nanoscopic.
>
> Hence it seemed quite reasonable to reduce the bells-n-
> whistles in the aux alternator system to a minimum.
> But that is YOUR CHOICE. If you already have hardware
> in hand there's not a thing wrong with going ahead and
> using it. You COULD install it with the same utility
> as the Ford regulator . . . leave off the lv warning
> light and alternator loaded current sensor.
>
> That SB1 current sensor was crafted to assuage worries
> by those-who-know-more-about-airplanes than we do
> in Washington.
>
> In retrospect, there were MUCH easier ways to
> annunciate the alternator's activation than hanging
> that Hall sensor on the b-lead. Further, there's
> no need to annunciate 'overload' by flashing the
> annunciator . . . the alternator is a 40A machine
> in an rpm-limited installation . . . overloading
> it simply means you get a depressed bus voltage
> which is easily detected on a variety of displays
> these days.
>
> I wouldn't agonize over the decision much. The
> SB1 has a rich and successful history of value
> and performance on a LOT of TC and OBAM aircraft.
> Go ahead and use it . . . trimming features is
> your option. But most of all folks, don't let
> architecture component suggestions drive expensive
> or impractical decisions . . . you done good
> David . . . we're talking about it here before
> you make any big moves.
>
>
> Bob . . .
>
--
---
David Carter
david(at)carter.net
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Peter Pengilly" <Peter(at)sportingaero.com> |
| Subject: | Current consumption of Facet cube fuel pump |
Does anyone know the power rating (or current consumption) of a Facet 40105
fuel pump when operating at the low pressure end of its range (3 psi)?
Thanks, Peter
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Current consumption of Facet cube fuel pump |
| From: | Joe Dubner <jdubner(at)yahoo.com> |
Peter,
Can't speak for the "low pressure end of its range" but I measured mine drawing
1.4A at 14V in a Long-EZ. Fed with 20 AWG wire and protected by a 5A fuse.
--
Joe
Independence, OR
Peter Pengilly wrote on 6/21/2020 14:46:
> Does anyone know the power rating (or current consumption) of a Facet 40105
> fuel pump when operating at the low pressure end of its range (3 psi)?
>
>
>
> Thanks, Peter
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: What's all this 'maintainer' stuff anyhow? |
At 10:40 AM 6/20/2020, you wrote:
>The Battery Tender Jr. (BTJr) saga continued . . .
I finished plotting and annotating some
Battery Tender Jr. performance compared
to a laboratory-grade charging profile
with a bench power supply.
I hope the plots are self explanatory:
https://tinyurl.com/ybzv8t8n
It's interesting that in spite of the fact
that the BTJr wall-wart does not feature
an oft recommended 'top-off' feature, the
energy pumped into our test article battery
was not substantially different than application
of the 'lab-grade' recharging profile.
I've got a couple BTJr C-Ms shepherding
100AH truck batteries out in the shop. They've
been on maintenance for over a year. Just
for grins, I'll go measure the maintenance
current on them tomorrow.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Christopher Cee Stone <rv8iator(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: What's all this 'maintainer' stuff anyhow? |
The Battery Tender Jr. (BTJr) saga continued . . .
Thanks Bob! Very illuminating info for the BTjr. Have you run same for
Schumacher SC 13xx maintainers?
...chris stone
On Mon, Jun 22, 2020 at 4:38 AM Robert L. Nuckolls, III <
nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> wrote:
> At 10:40 AM 6/20/2020, you wrote:
>
> The Battery Tender Jr. (BTJr) saga continued . . .
>
>
> I finished plotting and annotating some
> Battery Tender Jr. performance compared
> to a laboratory-grade charging profile
> with a bench power supply.
>
> I hope the plots are self explanatory:
>
> https://tinyurl.com/ybzv8t8n
>
> It's interesting that in spite of the fact
> that the BTJr wall-wart does not feature
> an oft recommended 'top-off' feature, the
> energy pumped into our test article battery
> was not substantially different than application
> of the 'lab-grade' recharging profile.
>
> I've got a couple BTJr C-Ms shepherding
> 100AH truck batteries out in the shop. They've
> been on maintenance for over a year. Just
> for grins, I'll go measure the maintenance
> current on them tomorrow.
>
> Bob . . .
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: What's all this 'maintainer' stuff anyhow? |
At 08:52 AM 6/22/2020, you wrote:
>>The Battery Tender Jr. (BTJr) saga continued . . .
>>
>>Thanks Bob Very illuminating info for the BTjr
>>Have you run same for Schumacher SC 13xx maintainers?
Not that particular series . . . here's a family of
plots I took on a variety of C-M products
a few years ago . . .
https://tinyurl.com/m3o6mtu
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Ernest Christley <echristley(at)att.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Current consumption of Facet cube fuel pump |
From the product description:
Facet fuel pumps have low power requirements (about 1 amp at 12 volts)
gaero.com> wrote:
Does anyone know the power rating (or current consumption) of a Facet 40105
fuel pump when operating at the low pressure end of its range (3 psi)?
=C2-
Thanks, Peter
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Current consumption of Facet cube fuel pump |
At 09:00 AM 6/24/2020, you wrote:
> From the product description:
>Facet fuel pumps have low power requirements (about 1 amp at 12 volts)
> wrote:
>Does anyone know the power rating (or current consumption) of a
>Facet 40105 fuel pump when operating at the low pressure end of its
>range (3 psi)?
>Thanks, Peter
The reciprocating electric fuel pump has a
rich and what is now perhaps ancient history.
Early patents on this technology date back
as far as 1920. Here's a small sample of
patents awarded on this concept over the
past 100 years!
https://tinyurl.com/knsz7y9
The fundamental idea was to have a linear
solenoid compress a spring that pushed
a piston toward the pump's outlet port.
A pair of check valves would (1) allow
the piston to 'suck' fuel on the magnetic
stroke while compressing the spring and
(2) allowing spring force on the
piston to 'push' fuel through the outlet
port. There's an illustrated narrative
of this process attached.
Earliest versions featured electrical
contacts in series with the solenoid
coil that would close when the spring
was at or near full extension. This was
a source of wear and radio noise. Later
improvements added a transistor to reduce
current in the contacts to milliamps
offering very long contact life and
virtually zero electrical noise.
Still later improvements replace the
contacts with a solid state timer that
simply pulses the coil so many times
a minute. If there is no 'demand', i.e.
carb float bowel closed, the piston and
spring assumes fully compressed condition
until flow resumes. Outlet pressure is
set by spring force.
Therefore, energy required to supply this
pump is constant irrespective of pressure
or flow. "Average" current flow may be
on the order of 2A but peak current will
be higher. Given that fuses can be 'hammered'
by repetitive pulses at or near the fuse
rating, one should power these pumps
from a 5A fuse or breaker through
22 or 20AWG wire.
I've got one of these thing laying
around here somewhere . . . I'll see if
I can set it up to capture current
traces to explore the energy signature
for average, peak and RMS values of
current.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Current consumption of Facet cube fuel pump |
| From: | Werner Schneider <glastar(at)gmx.net> |
I had them once measured on a 12V battery with 0.9A continouse and peak 1.2A
Cheers
On 24.06.2020 16:00, Ernest Christley wrote:
> From the product description:
>
> Facet fuel pumps have low power requirements (about 1 amp at 12 volts)
>
> wrote:
>
>
> Does anyone know the power rating (or current consumption) of a Facet
> 40105 fuel pump when operating at the low pressure end of its range (3
> psi)?
>
> Thanks, Peter
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Peter Pengilly" <Peter(at)sportingaero.com> |
| Subject: | Current consumption of Facet cube fuel pump |
Thanks All, I looked all over the interweb for quite a while and couldn't
find the answer!
Peter
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
On Behalf Of Robert L.
Nuckolls, III
Sent: 24 June 2020 19:23
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Current consumption of Facet cube fuel pump
At 09:00 AM 6/24/2020, you wrote:
>From the product description:
Facet fuel pumps have low power requirements (about 1 amp at 12 volts)
> wrote:
Does anyone know the power rating (or current consumption) of a Facet 40105
fuel pump when operating at the low pressure end of its range (3 psi)?
Thanks, Peter
The reciprocating electric fuel pump has a
rich and what is now perhaps ancient history.
Early patents on this technology date back
as far as 1920. Here's a small sample of
patents awarded on this concept over the
past 100 years!
https://tinyurl.com/knsz7y9
The fundamental idea was to have a linear
solenoid compress a spring that pushed
a piston toward the pump's outlet port.
A pair of check valves would (1) allow
the piston to 'suck' fuel on the magnetic
stroke while compressing the spring and
(2) allowing spring force on the
piston to 'push' fuel through the outlet
port. There's an illustrated narrative
of this process attached.
Earliest versions featured electrical
contacts in series with the solenoid
coil that would close when the spring
was at or near full extension. This was
a source of wear and radio noise. Later
improvements added a transistor to reduce
current in the contacts to milliamps
offering very long contact life and
virtually zero electrical noise.
Still later improvements replace the
contacts with a solid state timer that
simply pulses the coil so many times
a minute. If there is no 'demand', i.e.
carb float bowel closed, the piston and
spring assumes fully compressed condition
until flow resumes. Outlet pressure is
set by spring force.
Therefore, energy required to supply this
pump is constant irrespective of pressure
or flow. "Average" current flow may be
on the order of 2A but peak current will
be higher. Given that fuses can be 'hammered'
by repetitive pulses at or near the fuse
rating, one should power these pumps
from a 5A fuse or breaker through
22 or 20AWG wire.
I've got one of these thing laying
around here somewhere . . . I'll see if
I can set it up to capture current
traces to explore the energy signature
for average, peak and RMS values of
current.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "David Lewis" <Davidlewisstart(at)gmail.com> |
I've become aware of a wiring documentation tool named WireViz. I think this might
be a recent release as I find no mention of it in searches here or on VAF.
An overview description can be found on this GitHub page:
https://github.com/formatc1702/WireViz
I'm slogging through the wiring of my RV7A project and at first blush this looks
like a potentially efficient mechanism to document what I've done. I'm interested
in hearing about any user experiences from folks here, or comments regarding
gotcha's I should consider before embarking on a new learning curve.
Thank you in advance.
David
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=497028#497028
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Art Zemon <art(at)zemon.name> |
That's fantastic! I wish that I had had that tool when I was designing the
wiring for my BD-4C.
I used LibreOffice Draw to make my wiring diagrams. It worked but was
pretty time-consuming. Had WireViz been available, After a quick glance,
WireViz seems better, since it automatically handles the tedious layout
details.
-- Art Z.
On Wed, Jun 24, 2020 at 11:41 PM David Lewis
wrote:
> Davidlewisstart(at)gmail.com>
>
> I've become aware of a wiring documentation tool named WireViz. I think
> this might be a recent release as I find no mention of it in searches here
> or on VAF. An overview description can be found on this GitHub page:
> https://github.com/formatc1702/WireViz
>
> I'm slogging through the wiring of my RV7A project and at first blush this
> looks like a potentially efficient mechanism to document what I've done.
> I'm interested in hearing about any user experiences from folks here, or
> comments regarding gotcha's I should consider before embarking on a new
> learning curve.
--
https://CheerfulCurmudgeon.com/
*If I am not for myself, who will be for me? If I am only for myself, what
am I? If not now, when?*
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | RV10 Single Batt + Dual Alternator |
| From: | "supik" <bionicad(at)hotmail.com> |
I think I am somehow close to the Z101. As the batt in the RV10 is located in the
tailcone -with the ALT-2 connected to the ESS bus I tried to avoid the long
always hot wire between the BATT and ALT-2 B lead.
ESS BUS switch with ALT-2 is normally ON during normal flight. ALT-2 is set at
lower voltage vs. ALT-1
I know I'll get crucified for the 2 AVIONICS BUSES..I plane to move the autopilot
and its servos from the AVIONX ESS bus to the ESS BUS to avoid inductive loads
on the AVIONX ESS bus.
The 50amp CB between the MAIN BUS and ESS BUS is there to protect the diode and
possibly isolate the MAIN BUS if ESS BUS develops a hard fault.
Do you see any other potential NO GO issues with this setup or is it acceptable?
--------
Igor
RV10 in progress
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=497053#497053
Attachments:
http://forums.matronics.com//files/diagram_om_ela_igor_v_034_536.jpg
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "skywagon185guy ." <skywagon185(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: What's all this 'maintainer' stuff anyhow? |
Hi Bob,
Thanks for the plot information...Maintainers and their profiles.
Your details brought up a question.
Would you have a suggestion for a simple setup for measuring internal
cell/battery resistance, IR, of lithium based cells.
Modelers use a lot of Lipo based batteries. And there is a strong need to
keep track of their condition and it seems like tracking IR could be the
best option. A practical way to run the tests is sorely needed.
Your suggestions are always appreciated. D
On Mon, Jun 22, 2020 at 4:38 AM Robert L. Nuckolls, III <
nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> wrote:
> At 10:40 AM 6/20/2020, you wrote:
>
> The Battery Tender Jr. (BTJr) saga continued . . .
>
>
> I finished plotting and annotating some
> Battery Tender Jr. performance compared
> to a laboratory-grade charging profile
> with a bench power supply.
>
> I hope the plots are self explanatory:
>
> https://tinyurl.com/ybzv8t8n
>
> It's interesting that in spite of the fact
> that the BTJr wall-wart does not feature
> an oft recommended 'top-off' feature, the
> energy pumped into our test article battery
> was not substantially different than application
> of the 'lab-grade' recharging profile.
>
> I've got a couple BTJr C-Ms shepherding
> 100AH truck batteries out in the shop. They've
> been on maintenance for over a year. Just
> for grins, I'll go measure the maintenance
> current on them tomorrow.
>
> Bob . . .
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: RV10 Single Batt + Dual Alternator |
| From: | "user9253" <fransew(at)gmail.com> |
The schematic diagram is overly complicated.
The utility bus can be eliminated and those loads can be powered directly from
the Main power bus.
Both avionics buses can be eliminated and those loads can be powered directly from
the Essential bus.
The two alternators will be connected in parallel whenever both contactors are
energized.
Is one of the alternators set at a lower output voltage than the other one?
The two relays are unnecessary failure points.
Eventually some other pilot will fly your plane.
Will that pilot know what to do when some component fails?
--------
Joe Gores
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=497055#497055
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: RV10 Single Batt + Dual Alternator |
| From: | "bobmeyers" <bobmeyers(at)meyersfamily.org> |
I would rethink what you are trying to accomplish.
With all the monkey motion going on, it would seem you would be better served
going with a Z-14 rather than a gummed up Z-101.
Why an avionic bus at all let alone two? I would kill them both and their relays.
A utility bus seems way over the top. If you wish to control a utility device just
have a power switch for that device co-located with it. I would kill the utility
bus
If the motivation for the avionics buses is to avoid brown out of all the avionic
devices not on the GAD 27, a Z-14 system will solve that for you. Most of the
Garmin devices have a second power input you can connect to a second bus. You
can use a bridge rectifier to enable dual power feeds to any device that only
has one power input.
When I wired my RV14 I first drew up something similar to the ideas behind Z-101.
If the current Z-101 had been around I may have been more confident in using
that kind of layout. I went with a Z-14 layout instead.
When I get in my plane, I turn on batt 2 and all the avionics come up and stay
up. I turn on batt 1 as part of my startup checklist and during engine start,
no brown outs to the avionics occur.
This is the only reason I didn't go with my sorta Z-101 back then. I can think
of no other reason to choose between a straight Z-101 or a Z-14.
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=497058#497058
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: RV10 Single Batt + Dual Alternator |
| From: | "supik" <bionicad(at)hotmail.com> |
Version 35
-UTIL BUS eliminated / rebranded to MAIN BUS fuse block (non essential stuff)
-AutoPilot head unit + servos moved to ESS BUS
https://i.ibb.co/VwNhKK5/Diagram-OM-ELA-Igor-v-035.jpg
--------
Igor
RV10 in progress
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=497060#497060
Attachments:
http://forums.matronics.com//files/diagram_om_ela_igor_v035_322.jpg
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Measuring battery internal resistance |
At 07:27 PM 6/26/2020, you wrote:
>Hi Bob,
>Thanks for the plot information...Maintainers and their profiles.
>Your details brought up a question.
>Would you have a suggestion for a simple setup
>for measuring internal cell/battery resistance, IR, of lithium based cells.
>Modelers use a lot of Lipo based
>batteries.=C2 And there is a strong need to keep
>track of their condition and it seems like
>tracking IR could be the best option. A
>practical way to run the tests is sorely needed.
>Your suggestions are always appreciated.
Hmmmm . . . internal resistance can be
measured 'instantly' as opposed to doing
a total-discharge cap-check. The results
of a 'severe load' test considers
a combination of chemical potential
(capacity) -AND- internal resistance
(ohmic losses). An internal resistance
test can be conducted at lower energy
levels than the load-test. Of course,
all three tests require some instrumentation
and process.
The hammer-n-tongs way to measure cell
impedance is to load with some handy value
resistor, measure the voltage then increase
the load by say, double or tripling it
and read the voltage again.
Example: Suppose your battery under test
puts out 12.35 volts with a 10 ohm load.
Your base current is 12.35/10 = 1.235 amps
Temporarily add a second load resistor . . .
any practical value, let's say another
10 ohms. Let's assume the new reading is
12.220 volts. Okay, total R across the
battery is now 5 ohms. 12.22/5 = 2.444
amps.
So, for a delta current of 2.444A
we read a delta-volts of 0.015V
.015/2.444 = 6 milliohms
One could craft a test box containing
the necessary resistors, push-button
and meter connections to simplify the
setup but you'd still have to get out
the calculator and do the math.
I designed a direct reading battery
resistance meter about 20 years ago.
It featured a constant current load
system that was switched with a
multi-vibrator at about 10 cycles
per second.
It toggled between 1 and 11 amps.
A pk-to-pk reading voltmeter would show
the ripple voltage created at the battery
terminals as the electronic load oscillated
between the two current values.
Internal resistance was nearly direct
reading where 10 mv pk-pk equated to
1 milliohm of resistance. I've probably
got those drawings around here somewhere.
In my recent studies of on the garden
tractor battery . . .
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Battery_Tender_Jr_Performance/03_BTJr+C
CCY_Energy.jpg
I was able to command the CBA IV battery
analyzer to deviate between two accurately
known load values while accurately reporting
the battery voltage. That delta-E/Delta-A
deduced a rather high internal resistance of
about 60 milliohms.
So there's three ways to go about it ranging
from the hammer-n-tongs to poke-n-read.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Measuring battery internal resistance |
| From: | Dick Tasker <dick(at)thetaskerfamily.com> |
Oops. For your example, the delta current is actually 2.444-1.235=1.209A. So the
R=0.015/1.209=12.4 milliohms.
You forgot to subtract the first reading. Other than the simple math error (something
I do all the time...) the rest of the explanation is spot on.
Dick Tasker
Robert L. Nuckolls, III wrote:
> At 07:27 PM 6/26/2020, you wrote:
>> Hi Bob,
>> Thanks for the plot information...Maintainers and their profiles.
>> Your details brought up a question.
>> Would you have a suggestion for a simple setup for measuring internal cell/battery
resistance, IR, of lithium based cells.
>> Modelers use a lot of Lipo based batteries. And there is a strong need to keep
track of their condition and it seems like tracking IR could be the best option.
A practical way to run the tests is
>> sorely needed.
>> Your suggestions are always appreciated.
>
> Hmmmm . . . internal resistance can be
> measured 'instantly' as opposed to doing
> a total-discharge cap-check. The results
> of a 'severe load' test considers
> a combination of chemical potential
> (capacity) -AND- internal resistance
> (ohmic losses). An internal resistance
> test can be conducted at lower energy
> levels than the load-test. Of course,
> all three tests require some instrumentation
> and process.
>
> The hammer-n-tongs way to measure cell
> impedance is to load with some handy value
> resistor, measure the voltage then increase
> the load by say, double or tripling it
> and read the voltage again.
>
> Example: Suppose your battery under test
> puts out 12.35 volts with a 10 ohm load.
> Your base current is 12.35/10 = 1.235 amps
>
> Temporarily add a second load resistor . . .
> any practical value, let's say another
> 10 ohms. Let's assume the new reading is
> 12.220 volts. Okay, total R across the
> battery is now 5 ohms. 12.22/5 = 2.444
> amps.
>
> So, for a delta current of 2.444A
> we read a delta-volts of 0.015V
>
> .015/2.444 = 6 milliohms
>
> One could craft a test box containing
> the necessary resistors, push-button
> and meter connections to simplify the
> setup but you'd still have to get out
> the calculator and do the math.
>
> I designed a direct reading battery
> resistance meter about 20 years ago.
> It featured a constant current load
> system that was switched with a
> multi-vibrator at about 10 cycles
> per second.
>
> It toggled between 1 and 11 amps.
> A pk-to-pk reading voltmeter would show
> the ripple voltage created at the battery
> terminals as the electronic load oscillated
> between the two current values.
>
> Internal resistance was nearly direct
> reading where 10 mv pk-pk equated to
> 1 milliohm of resistance. I've probably
> got those drawings around here somewhere.
>
> In my recent studies of on the garden
> tractor battery . . .
>
> http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Battery_Tender_Jr_Performance/03_BTJr+CCCY_Energy.jpg
>
> I was able to command the CBA IV battery
> analyzer to deviate between two accurately
> known load values while accurately reporting
> the battery voltage. That delta-E/Delta-A
> deduced a rather high internal resistance of
> about 60 milliohms.
>
> So there's three ways to go about it ranging
> from the hammer-n-tongs to poke-n-read.
>
>
> Bob . . .
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Drummond Grinalds <dgrinalds(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | Diodes - Ground Pwr/Battery Master Contactors |
Hi - This is my first question for the forum.
I am building RV8 w single aft battery/ dual alternator. Ground power
contactor and battery master battery contactors are aft. Obtained both
contactors from B&C with 1N5400 diodes. Total of 3 diodes (2 on the
Ground Pwr Contactor and 1 on the Battery Master Contactor.)
Diagram from Aircraft Spruce with the Piper jacks written by AeroElectric
showed using 1N5402 diodes on the Ground Pwr contactor. Are there
compelling reasons to swap out my 1N5400 diodes with 1N5402 or other?
Thanks for reading and for responding.
Drum
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Diodes - Ground Pwr/Battery Master Contactors |
At 08:04 AM 6/28/2020, you wrote:
>Hi - =C2 This is my first question for the forum. =C2
>
>I am building RV8 w single aft battery/ dual
>alternator.=C2 Ground power contactor and battery
>master battery contactors are aft. =C2 Obtained
>both contactors from B&C with 1N5400
>diodes.=C2 Total of 3 diodes =C2 (2 =C2 on the Ground
>Pwr Contactor =C2 and =C2 1 on the Battery Master Contactor.)
>
>Diagram from Aircraft Spruce with the Piper
>jacks written by AeroElectric =C2 showed using
>1N5402 diodes on =C2 the =C2 Ground Pwr
>contactor.=C2 Are there compelling reasons =C2 to =C2
>swap out =C2 my 1N5400 diodes with 1N5402 or other?
>
>Thanks=C2 for reading and for responding.
The 1N54xx series devices are essentially
identical for our purposes. The XX denotes
reverse voltage rating that range from 50
to 1000 volts. See:
https://www.vishay.com/docs/88
516/1n5400.pdf
For our purposes, any of those devices
will be operated within limits on a
14v aircraft.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Charlie England <ceengland7(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Diodes - Ground Pwr/Battery Master Contactors |
On Sun, Jun 28, 2020 at 8:15 AM Drummond Grinalds
wrote:
> Hi - This is my first question for the forum.
>
> I am building RV8 w single aft battery/ dual alternator. Ground power
> contactor and battery master battery contactors are aft. Obtained both
> contactors from B&C with 1N5400 diodes. Total of 3 diodes (2 on the
> Ground Pwr Contactor and 1 on the Battery Master Contactor.)
>
> Diagram from Aircraft Spruce with the Piper jacks written by AeroElectric
> showed using 1N5402 diodes on the Ground Pwr contactor. Are there
> compelling reasons to swap out my 1N5400 diodes with 1N5402 or other?
>
> Thanks for reading and for responding.
>
> Drum
>
> Same current rating. Voltage ratings of 50V vs 200V.
http://www.datasheetcatalog.com/info_redirect/datasheets/newjerseysemiconductor/1N5400-1N5408.pdf.shtml
When I buy diodes, I usually get higher voltage ratings because they
typically don't cost much (if any) more in small quantities than lower
voltage ratings. But if B&C shipped 50V rated diodes with their contactors,
I'd be confident that 50V is good enough. (Even 1A current rating would be
good enough for the shunt around the coil, but the 3A diodes are physically
more rugged.)
Charlie
Virus-free.
www.avast.com
<#DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Measuring battery internal resistance |
At 10:29 PM 6/27/2020, you wrote:
>
>
>Oops. For your example, the delta current is actually
>2.444-1.235=1.209A. So the R=0.015/1.209=12.4 milliohms.
>
>You forgot to subtract the first reading. Other than the simple
>math error (something I do all the time...) the rest of the
>explanation is spot on.
>
>Dick Tasker
>
Good catch! Thank you sir.
BTW . . . I've been playing with my
newly acquired CBA IV battery analyzer
from West Mountain Radio.
I've confirmed suspicions that not
all 18650 cells are what they're 'marked
up' to be.
A few utility cells in the stable
are marked with truing amazing
capacity values like 3800 and 9000 mAh!
While doing cap checks on the cells I'm
noticing some common traits in LiFePO4
cells that contribute to and article/white
paper on system integration of lithium
onto our airplanes.
I do have a couple of cells by Panasonic
that were advertised as 2900 mAh devices.
They are proving to perform as advertised.
Just for grins, I conducted a quick
delta-I resistance check on one of the
cells last night. Snapshot attached.
The CBA IV software has a 'dynamic'
current mode that allows you to change the
load current while the test is running.
Pretty cool . . .
I've got brand new Aerovoltz and Hawker
batteries ordered on which I'll conduct
and record a library of performance curves
for comparison in the white paper.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "skywagon185guy ." <skywagon185(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Measuring battery internal resistance |
Thanks Bob and Dick for the details of measuring IR....
I will pursue a simple test setup....
Dave
On Sat, Jun 27, 2020 at 6:50 PM Robert L. Nuckolls, III <
nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> wrote:
> At 07:27 PM 6/26/2020, you wrote:
>
> Hi Bob,
> Thanks for the plot information...Maintainers and their profiles.
> Your details brought up a question.
> Would you have a suggestion for a simple setup for measuring internal
> cell/battery resistance, IR, of lithium based cells.
> Modelers use a lot of Lipo based batteries.=C3=82 And there is a strong
need
> to keep track of their condition and it seems like tracking IR could be t
he
> best option. A practical way to run the tests is sorely needed.
> Your suggestions are always appreciated.
>
>
> Hmmmm . . . internal resistance can be
> measured 'instantly' as opposed to doing
> a total-discharge cap-check. The results
> of a 'severe load' test considers
> a combination of chemical potential
> (capacity) -AND- internal resistance
> (ohmic losses). An internal resistance
> test can be conducted at lower energy
> levels than the load-test. Of course,
> all three tests require some instrumentation
> and process.
>
> The hammer-n-tongs way to measure cell
> impedance is to load with some handy value
> resistor, measure the voltage then increase
> the load by say, double or tripling it
> and read the voltage again.
>
> Example: Suppose your battery under test
> puts out 12.35 volts with a 10 ohm load.
> Your base current is 12.35/10 = 1.235 amps
>
> Temporarily add a second load resistor . . .
> any practical value, let's say another
> 10 ohms. Let's assume the new reading is
> 12.220 volts. Okay, total R across the
> battery is now 5 ohms. 12.22/5 = 2.444
> amps.
>
> So, for a delta current of 2.444A
> we read a delta-volts of 0.015V
>
> .015/2.444 = 6 milliohms
>
> One could craft a test box containing
> the necessary resistors, push-button
> and meter connections to simplify the
> setup but you'd still have to get out
> the calculator and do the math.
>
> I designed a direct reading battery
> resistance meter about 20 years ago.
> It featured a constant current load
> system that was switched with a
> multi-vibrator at about 10 cycles
> per second.
>
> It toggled between 1 and 11 amps.
> A pk-to-pk reading voltmeter would show
> the ripple voltage created at the battery
> terminals as the electronic load oscillated
> between the two current values.
>
> Internal resistance was nearly direct
> reading where 10 mv pk-pk equated to
> 1 milliohm of resistance. I've probably
> got those drawings around here somewhere.
>
> In my recent studies of on the garden
> tractor battery . . .
>
>
> http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Battery_Tender_Jr_Performance/03_BTJ
r+CCCY_Energy.jpg
>
> I was able to command the CBA IV battery
> analyzer to deviate between two accurately
> known load values while accurately reporting
> the battery voltage. That delta-E/Delta-A
> deduced a rather high internal resistance of
> about 60 milliohms.
>
> So there's three ways to go about it ranging
> from the hammer-n-tongs to poke-n-read.
>
>
> Bob . . .
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Measuring battery internal resistance |
At 03:58 PM 6/28/2020, you wrote:
>Thanks Bob and Dick for the details of measuring IR....
>I will pursue a simple test setup....
>Dave
What are the highest and lowest voltage battery
packs you want to test?
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "skywagon185guy ." <skywagon185(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Measuring battery internal resistance |
Bob,
Majority are 3 to 6 cell packs.
The highest would be a 6 cell pack. Thus, 6 x 4.2 or about 25 vdc.
The lowest would be a 3 cell pack. About 12.5 vdc.
Dave
On Sun, Jun 28, 2020 at 3:11 PM Robert L. Nuckolls, III <
nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> wrote:
> At 03:58 PM 6/28/2020, you wrote:
>
> Thanks Bob and Dick for the details of measuring IR....
> I will pursue a simple test setup....
> Dave
>
>
> What are the highest and lowest voltage battery
> packs you want to test?
>
>
> Bob . . .
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Michael Townley <mtown52(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | Teflon fuel line |
Hi -This is my first question for the forum.
I may use a Teflon fuel pipe with anodized AN fittings in an RV9 between
the fuel tank and the Andair fuel selector. The anodized fittings don
=99t
seem to conduct electricity (even though the teflon fuel line has a
metal-braid covered inside a plastic covering). I wondered whether this
will be a problem/danger due to possible electrostatic charge from the
flowing fuel.
Thanks for any suggestions
Michael Townley
--
Mike Townley 0419393470
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "prestonkavanagh" <preston.kavanagh(at)gmail.com> |
"I used LibreOffice Draw to make my wiring diagrams. It worked but was pretty time-consuming."
IF WireViz is the new best choice for documenting cables, what's the choice for
the schematics? I want to add details to a Z101 foundation. Absent software
it will be pencil lines on a paper printout, and that's well short of the standard.
What is the recommended software? Recognize that for me this is rare
and occasional use - I'll give up some functionality for drag and drop simplicity.
Regards, PK
--------
PBK3
PA-12, BD-4, RV6a, gliders
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=497078#497078
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Charlie England <ceengland7(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Teflon fuel line |
On Mon, Jun 29, 2020 at 3:38 AM Michael Townley wrote:
> Hi -This is my first question for the forum.
>
> I may use a Teflon fuel pipe with anodized AN fittings in an RV9 between
> the fuel tank and the Andair fuel selector. The anodized fittings don
=99t
> seem to conduct electricity (even though the teflon fuel line has a
> metal-braid covered inside a plastic covering). I wondered whether this
> will be a problem/danger due to possible electrostatic charge from the
> flowing fuel.
>
> Thanks for any suggestions
> Michael Townley
>
> --
> Mike Townley 0419393470
>
Interesting question. When Teflon lined hose 1st came on the market, there
were significant issues with static buildup due to flow in the
non-conductive hose. Because of that, I suspect that you can't even buy
Teflon lined hose these days without carbon impregnated Teflon used as the
liner. So, while I can't answer your question with authority, I don't worry
about it in my installation, since the carbon impregnated Teflon provides a
static bleed connection along all components in the fuel system, keeping
all the fuel at the same electrical potential.
Thinking about it, if the anodized fittings were a problem, then you'd have
the same issue even with aluminum 'hard line', because every joint would be
an electrical break in the path. (The male taper of the fitting would
insulate from the aluminum female on the tubing.) The old 'rubber' hoses
likely had carbon in the liner too, and we never heard about static issues
due to anodized aluminum fittings. Shucks, even the anodized fittings may
bleed off the static charge, even though they seem to check as open on an
ohm meter. 'Static straps' are usually quite high in resistance, so they
don't provide a low voltage current path to ground (think about the danger
if you're wearing a wrist strap & touch the wrong thing in a circuit....
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antistatic_device#:~:text=Antistatic%20mat,
-An%20antistatic%20floor&text=Typical%20resistance%20is%20on%20the,line%2
0in%20an%20electrical%20outlet.
I'd suggest checking with your vendor, to be sure that the hose you're
planning to use has a carbon impregnated Teflon liner.
FWIW,
Charlie
Virus-free.
www.avast.com
<#DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Teflon fuel line |
| From: | "user9253" <fransew(at)gmail.com> |
No danger from static for a couple of reasons.
Fuel can only ignite if it is mixed with oxygen (air). Since the fuel line does
not contain air, it can not ignite. And even if there is air in the fuel line,
the ratio of fuel to air needs to be within a certain range to ignite. The
mixture will be too rich.
Even if the fuel air ratio is ideal for combustion, there is still no need to
worry. A metal airplane like your RV-9 will keep all parts of the fuel system
at the same voltage. No sparks will jump. Some fuel systems use non-conductive
rubber hose. In that case, the danger is not from static, but from mechanical
damage or kinking.
Anodized metal fittings might not be good conductors of electricity, but will
conduct enough to prevent high voltages from building up.
--------
Joe Gores
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=497080#497080
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Teflon fuel line |
| From: | "johnbright" <john_s_bright(at)yahoo.com> |
mtown52(at)gmail.com wrote:
> ... I may use a Teflon fuel pipe with anodized AN fittings... between the fuel
tank and the... fuel selector... I wondered whether this will be a problem/danger
due to possible electrostatic charge from the flowing fuel.
>
> Michael Townley
>
Teflon should have an additive to make it conductive else the flow of a non-conductive
medium, like gasoline, will generate an electrostatic charge that will
June 07, 2020 - June 30, 2020
AeroElectric-Archive.digest.vol-pl