AeroElectric-Archive.digest.vol-ml
August 05, 2014 - August 29, 2014
topic in the archives.
>
> I have successfully built and tested several copper foil/tape comm antennas for
my Cozy MkIV and would like to build a transponder antenna the same way.
>
> Will the following work for a Mode S transponder:
>
> 1. Vertically oriented 1/2 wave dipole.
> 2. 1/2" copper tape with ferrites
> 3. Each leg 6.25" long
>
> Thanks.
>
>
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=428048#428048
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Half wave copper foil dipole transponder antenna |
| From: | "rnbraud" <rnbraud(at)yahoo.com> |
Hello Kent,
I am trying to avoid the antenna sticking out of the airplane. I see where Advanced
Aircraft Electronics makes an "L2" transponder antenna which looks a lot
like my other foil tape antennas.
I was hoping maybe I could make my own "L2" type of antenna with my leftover RST
antenna kit.
Just want to confirm if it is feasible and if the leg lengths and vertical orientation
is correct.
If this does not work, I will make my transponder antenna as you mentioned and
place it either out at the end of the strake or right under the pilot seat protruding
out of the fuselage.
Thanks.
kjashton(at)vnet.net wrote:
> See. http://www.cozybuilders.org/ref_info/RST_82704.pdf
>
> The transponder is a little different than the other antennae. The reference
discusses it. Keep the coax run short and put it on the bottom of the airplane.
Mine is under removable front seats. You can make the antenna from an AN
bolt but they are very cheap on ebay.
> -kent
>
>
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=428053#428053
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Half wave copper foil dipole transponder antenna |
| From: | Kent or Jackie Ashton <kjashton(at)vnet.net> |
As I understand it, a ground plane made of copper foils will work as well as the
solid ground plane. And vertical orientation sounds right. As for where to
put it, just consider that folks who try to put them in the nose of a canard
airplane or up front on the airplane often run into problems climbing out away
from the radar station because the bodies of the crew (bags of salt-water) and
the engine blank off line-of sight with the radar.
Quick: When you are 30 miles from a station at 5000', the angle to the station
from the horizon is ___. :-)
ANS: 1.57 degrees. I doesn't take much nose up deck angle to hide the antenna.
Ask me how I know.
-Kent
On Aug 5, 2014, at 4:56 PM, rnbraud wrote:
>
> Hello Kent,
>
> I am trying to avoid the antenna sticking out of the airplane. I see where Advanced
Aircraft Electronics makes an "L2" transponder antenna which looks a lot
like my other foil tape antennas.
>
> I was hoping maybe I could make my own "L2" type of antenna with my leftover
RST antenna kit.
>
> Just want to confirm if it is feasible and if the leg lengths and vertical orientation
is correct.
>
> If this does not work, I will make my transponder antenna as you mentioned and
place it either out at the end of the strake or right under the pilot seat protruding
out of the fuselage.
>
> Thanks.
>
>
>
> kjashton(at)vnet.net wrote:
>> See. http://www.cozybuilders.org/ref_info/RST_82704.pdf
>>
>> The transponder is a little different than the other antennae. The reference
discusses it. Keep the coax run short and put it on the bottom of the airplane.
Mine is under removable front seats. You can make the antenna from an AN
bolt but they are very cheap on ebay.
>> -kent
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=428053#428053
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Half wave copper foil dipole transponder antenna |
At 02:23 PM 8/5/2014, you wrote:
>
>I hope this isn't a duplicate, but I was unable to find sufficient
>info on this topic in the archives.
>
>I have successfully built and tested several copper foil/tape comm
>antennas for my Cozy MkIV and would like to build a transponder
>antenna the same way.
>
>Will the following work for a Mode S transponder:
>
>1. Vertically oriented 1/2 wave dipole.
yes . . .
>2. 1/2" copper tape with ferrites
not particularly useful at VHF, useless
at uhf
>3. Each leg 6.25" long
Yeah . . . about that. Suggest you look over the
Bob Archer SA-005 descriptions and pictures
on the 'net.
http://tinyurl.com/mdho4z8
Bob uses double sided ECB material to craft an
antenna and matching section all in one piece.
As you can see . . . his 'dipole' is rather
wide . . . which yields a low SWR over a rather
wide frequency range . . . not that you NEED
the bandwidth . . . but the wider elements makes
their length less critical.
Here's Bob's narratives on transponder
antennas.
http://tinyurl.com/lwgonmx
Suggest you consider a dipole of at last 1/2"
wide material . . . 1" wouldn't hurt. Assembled
onto a sheet of plexiglas and attached to the
feedline with a Pawsey stub balun.
http://tinyurl.com/lnjhmem
http://tinyurl.com/lxzlpky
The 'thing' about ferrite beads strung onto the
feedline has been popularly circulated through
many venues but there are caveats . . .
First, the torroid material must be a pretty
good performer at the frquency of interest . . .
NO torroid materials I'm aware of are suited
for service at 1000mHz.
Second, the inductance presented by a coil of
wire on a core varies as the SQUARE of the
turns on the core. Effective use of torroid
cores as de-coupling baluns calls for MULTIPLE
turns on one core. This picture shows 7 passes
of wire through the core for an effective
inductance 47x that of a single pass.
[]
Hence, one would need to string 47 single
cores onto the coax as a string of beads to
equal the effectiveness of one core wound with
seven turns . . . but generally useful only
at 200mHz and below.
There used to be a commercial vhf comm antenna
offered that used the multi-turn torroid de-coupling
philosophy. I think it was called the "airwhip" . . .
don't find anything about the company now . . .
it's been a few years.
Now that I have ready access to an EMC lab,
any antenna you'd like to fabricate as
a shippable assembly could be mailed to me
for a quick look-see in the lab.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Ferrites on the feed line (OOPS) |
> . . . . This picture shows 7 passes
> of wire through the core for an effective
> inductance 49x that of a single pass.
>
>
>[]
>
>
> Hence, one would need to string 49 single
> cores onto the coax as a string of beads to
> equal the effectiveness of one core wound with
> seven turns . . . but generally useful only
> at 200mHz and below.
My third grade teacher visited me in a dream
last night . . . raised her eybrows and said,
"Are you sure 'bout that?"
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Linda Walker <l.p(at)talk21.com> |
| Subject: | Hall effect sensor |
=0ABob et al.=0A=0AI have a VMS 1000 engine instumentation system that pres
ently uses a hall effect sensor on the main alternator "B" lead to measure
current for the display.=0AI'm now installing an auxilliary alternator on t
he vacuum pad which ties into the same starter contactor to battery contact
or lead as the main alternator, a la Figure Z-12.=0A=0AQuestions:=0AIs it f
easible to route the starter contactor to battery contactor lead through t
he VMS hall effect sensor to monitor either alternator's current?=0AWhat is
the possible effect during engine start, (current going in the opposite di
rection ), on the sensor which is marked for a particular wire/current dire
ction?=0A=0AAny advice much appreciated.=0APatrick Elliott, Surrey, England
.=0AG-LGEZ
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Hall effect sensor |
At 03:42 PM 8/6/2014, you wrote:
Bob et al.
I have a VMS 1000 engine instumentation system that presently uses a
hall effect sensor on the main alternator "B" lead to measure current
for the display.
I'm now installing an auxilliary alternator on the vacuum pad which
ties into the same starter contactor to battery contactor lead as the
main alternator, a la Figure Z-12.
Questions:
Is it feasible to route the starter contactor to battery contactor
lead through the VMS hall effect sensor to monitor either alternator's current?
What is the possible effect during engine start, (current going in
the opposite direction ), on the sensor which is marked for a
particular wire/current direction?
You can run BOTH b-leads through the single hall-sensor
which will then measure TOTAL current for both alternators
or, obviously, current on each functioning alternator
independently.
Don't run starter current through the hall-sensor. It
won't damage it but it probably WILL super-excite any
retentive tendencies and leave you with a non-zero reading
when indeed there is no current to be measured.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Half wave copper foil dipole transponder antenna |
Transponder uplink frequency is 1030 MHz, downlink frequency is 1090 MHz.
So wouldn't we be building a transponder dipole with each leg about
2.75 inches (or so) long? The 6.25 inch per leg dimension would fit
an operating frequency close to 450 MHz.
Mike RV6A Corvallis, OR
> At 02:23 PM 8/5/2014, you wrote:
>>
>>I hope this isn't a duplicate, but I was unable to find sufficient
>>info on this topic in the archives.
>>
>>I have successfully built and tested several copper foil/tape comm
>>antennas for my Cozy MkIV and would like to build a transponder
>>antenna the same way.
>>
>>Will the following work for a Mode S transponder:
>>
>>1. Vertically oriented 1/2 wave dipole.
>
> yes . . .
>
>>2. 1/2" copper tape with ferrites
>
> not particularly useful at VHF, useless
> at uhf
>
>>3. Each leg 6.25" long
>
> Yeah . . . about that. Suggest you look over the
> Bob Archer SA-005 descriptions and pictures
> on the 'net.
>
> http://tinyurl.com/mdho4z8
>
> Bob uses double sided ECB material to craft an
> antenna and matching section all in one piece.
> As you can see . . . his 'dipole' is rather
> wide . . . which yields a low SWR over a rather
> wide frequency range . . . not that you NEED
> the bandwidth . . . but the wider elements makes
> their length less critical.
>
> Here's Bob's narratives on transponder
> antennas.
>
> http://tinyurl.com/lwgonmx
>
> Suggest you consider a dipole of at last 1/2"
> wide material . . . 1" wouldn't hurt. Assembled
> onto a sheet of plexiglas and attached to the
> feedline with a Pawsey stub balun.
>
> http://tinyurl.com/lnjhmem
>
> http://tinyurl.com/lxzlpky
>
> The 'thing' about ferrite beads strung onto the
> feedline has been popularly circulated through
> many venues but there are caveats . . .
>
> First, the torroid material must be a pretty
> good performer at the frquency of interest . . .
> NO torroid materials I'm aware of are suited
> for service at 1000mHz.
>
> Second, the inductance presented by a coil of
> wire on a core varies as the SQUARE of the
> turns on the core. Effective use of torroid
> cores as de-coupling baluns calls for MULTIPLE
> turns on one core. This picture shows 7 passes
> of wire through the core for an effective
> inductance 47x that of a single pass.
>
>
> []
>
>
> Hence, one would need to string 47 single
> cores onto the coax as a string of beads to
> equal the effectiveness of one core wound with
> seven turns . . . but generally useful only
> at 200mHz and below.
>
> There used to be a commercial vhf comm antenna
> offered that used the multi-turn torroid de-coupling
> philosophy. I think it was called the "airwhip" . . .
> don't find anything about the company now . . .
> it's been a few years.
>
> Now that I have ready access to an EMC lab,
> any antenna you'd like to fabricate as
> a shippable assembly could be mailed to me
> for a quick look-see in the lab.
>
>
> Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Half wave copper foil dipole transponder antenna |
At 11:28 PM 8/7/2014, you wrote:
>
>Transponder uplink frequency is 1030 MHz, downlink frequency is 1090 MHz.
>So wouldn't we be building a transponder dipole with each leg about
>2.75 inches (or so) long? The 6.25 inch per leg dimension would fit
>an operating frequency close to 450 MHz.
>
>Mike RV6A Corvallis, OR
Good catch! I put the dyslexic brain onto the
6.25 and read it as 2.65 . . . and indeed, the
original figure may have been a typo. But yes
indeed, an antenna 12.5" long would make a poor
transponder antenna.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Transporting Li batteries |
| From: | Richard Girard <aslsa.rng(at)gmail.com> |
DOT Outlines New Standards For The Transport Of Lithium Batteries
Air, Ground Shipments In The New Rule
The U.S. DOT has issued new standards to strengthen safety conditions for
the shipment of lithium cells and batteries. These changes, some of which
focus specifically on shipments by air, will better ensure that lithium
cells and batteries are able to withstand normal transportation conditions
and are packaged to reduce the possibility of damage that could lead to an
unsafe situation.
<http://www.aero-news.net/#>
=9CSafety is our number one priority, and this rule provides an addit
ional
layer of protection to the shipment of lithium batteries, which we all
depend on daily to power our phones and our laptops,=9D said Transpor
tation
Secretary Anthony Foxx. =9CToday=99s standards are part of our
ongoing work to
improve safety for all travelers, including those who travel with or ship
lithium batteries.=9D
The Department's Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration
(PHMSA) developed this rule in close coordination with the Federal Aviation
Administration (FAA). Voluntary compliance is encouraged upon publication
of the final rule; however mandatory compliance is effective six months
after publication.
The rule will also provide a greater level of consistency with
international standards, including the International Civil Aviation
Organization=99s (ICAO) Technical Instructions for the Safe Transport
of
Dangerous Goods by air. =9COur continuing efforts to harmonize U.S. H
azardous
Materials Regulations with international standards improve consistency in
procedures and terminology when shipping lithium batteries around the
globe,=9D noted PHMSA Administrator Cynthia L. Quarterman.
According to a DOT news release, the final rule will:
- Enhance packaging and hazard communication requirements for lithium
batteries transported by air;
- Replace equivalent lithium content with Watt-hours for lithium ion
cells and batteries;
- Adopt separate shipping descriptions for lithium metal batteries and
lithium ion batteries;
- Revise provisions for the transport of small and medium lithium cells
and batteries including cells and batteries packed with, or contained in
,
equipment;
- Revise the requirements for the transport of lithium batteries for
disposal or recycling;
- Harmonize the provisions for the transport of low production and
prototype lithium cells and batteries with the ICAO Technical Instructio
ns
and the International Maritime Dangerous Goods Code; and
- Adopt new provisions for the transport of damaged, defective, and
recalled lithium batteries.
PHMSA develops and enforces regulations for the safe, reliable, and
environmentally sound operation of the nation's 2.6 million mile pipeline
transportation system and the nearly one million daily shipments of
hazardous materials by land, sea, and air.
FMI: www.phmsa.dot.gov
Rick Girard
It isn't necessary to have relatives in Kansas City in order to be unhappy.
- Groucho Marx
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "B Tomm" <fvalarm(at)rapidnet.net> |
| Subject: | Transporting Li batteries |
drum roll.....and the new standards are...?
Bevan :)
_____
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Richard
Girard
Sent: Friday, August 08, 2014 7:13 AM
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Transporting Li batteries
DOT Outlines New Standards For The Transport Of Lithium Batteries
Air, Ground Shipments In The New Rule
The U.S. DOT has issued new standards to strengthen safety conditions for
the shipment of lithium cells and batteries. These changes, some of which
focus specifically on shipments by air, will better ensure that lithium
cells and batteries are able to withstand normal transportation conditions
and are packaged to reduce the possibility of damage that could lead to an
unsafe situation.
<http://www.aero-news.net/#>
"Safety is our number one priority, and this rule provides an additional
layer of protection to the shipment of lithium batteries, which we all
depend on daily to power our phones and our laptops," said Transportation
Secretary Anthony Foxx. "Today's standards are part of our ongoing work to
improve safety for all travelers, including those who travel with or ship
lithium batteries."
The Department's Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration
(PHMSA) developed this rule in close coordination with the Federal Aviation
Administration (FAA). Voluntary compliance is encouraged upon publication of
the final rule; however mandatory compliance is effective six months after
publication.
The rule will also provide a greater level of consistency with international
standards, including the International Civil Aviation Organization's (ICAO)
Technical Instructions for the Safe Transport of Dangerous Goods by air.
"Our continuing efforts to harmonize U.S. Hazardous Materials Regulations
with international standards improve consistency in procedures and
terminology when shipping lithium batteries around the globe," noted PHMSA
Administrator Cynthia L. Quarterman.
According to a DOT news release, the final rule will:
* Enhance packaging and hazard communication requirements for lithium
batteries transported by air;
* Replace equivalent lithium content with Watt-hours for lithium ion
cells and batteries;
* Adopt separate shipping descriptions for lithium metal batteries and
lithium ion batteries;
* Revise provisions for the transport of small and medium lithium
cells and batteries including cells and batteries packed with, or contained
in, equipment;
* Revise the requirements for the transport of lithium batteries for
disposal or recycling;
* Harmonize the provisions for the transport of low production and
prototype lithium cells and batteries with the ICAO Technical Instructions
and the International Maritime Dangerous Goods Code; and
* Adopt new provisions for the transport of damaged, defective, and
recalled lithium batteries.
PHMSA develops and enforces regulations for the safe, reliable, and
environmentally sound operation of the nation's 2.6 million mile pipeline
transportation system and the nearly one million daily shipments of
hazardous materials by land, sea, and air.
FMI: www.phmsa.dot.gov <http://www.phmsa.dot.gov/>
Rick Girard
It isn't necessary to have relatives in Kansas City in order to be unhappy.
- Groucho Marx
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Valovich, Paul" <pvalovich(at)dcscorp.com> |
RV-8A, 420 total hours. Electrical design based on Z13/8 architecture. AFS
4500 EFIS taking ammeter current readings from 50 MV / 60 amp shunt.
Ammeter reading suddenly became very intermittent - mostly inop. Replaced w
ires, D-sub pins, connectors. Extensive troubleshooting with Advanced Fligh
t Systems has led to questions about whether shunt is working properly.
How does one troubleshoot a shunt? No moving parts; no visible damage; All
other electrical systems operating normally.
Paul Valovich
Ridgecrest, CA
N192NM
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Shunt Questions |
| From: | Daniel Hooper <enginerdy(at)gmail.com> |
Could you hook it up temporarily to a good quality volt meter (at the remote
end)?
That could help eliminate some things.
Daniel Hooper
> On Aug 9, 2014, at 11:16 AM, "Valovich, Paul" wrot
e:
>
> RV-8A, 420 total hours. Electrical design based on Z13/8 architecture. AFS
4500 EFIS taking ammeter current readings from 50 MV / 60 amp shunt.
>
> Ammeter reading suddenly became very intermittent =93 mostly inop. R
eplaced wires, D-sub pins, connectors. Extensive troubleshooting with Advanc
ed Flight Systems has led to questions about whether shunt is working proper
ly.
>
> How does one troubleshoot a shunt? No moving parts; no visible damage; All
other electrical systems operating normally.
> Paul Valovich
> Ridgecrest, CA
> N192NM
>
>
>
3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3
D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3
D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3
D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3
D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Jeff Luckey <jluckey(at)pacbell.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Shunt Questions |
=0AHow does one troubleshoot a shunt? =0A=0A=0AGreat question - shunts are
about as "solid-state" as they come.=0A=0ABased on you conversations w/ Adv
anced, we assume that it's not =0Asomething in their system.=C2- Have you
tried swapping-in a known-good =0Ashunt?=0A=0AAs you may already know, a s
hunt is really just a highly-calibrated, very low-resistance resistor.=C2
- On many shunts the main element is soldered between the connection post
s.=C2- I'm wondering if there is some kind of mechanical problem in there
somewhere.=C2- I assume there are no visible cracks or other damage.=0A
=0A=0ATo test a shunt you could:=0A=0A1.=C2- hook-up a test circuit (on t
he bench) with a battery and some small load - maybe a couple of automotive
brake lights (or equivalent).=C2- You want a load of around 5 amps for t
his test.=0A=0A2. Hook-up a DVM to the shunt on the mili-volt scale.=C2-
Your shunt you should be reading just about 1 mV per Amp of current in the
circuit. (technically that's 5/6 mV per Amp, but that's really splitting ha
irs)=0A=0A3. While the circuit is on, agitate the shunt: bang in on the ben
ch top or hit it w/ a plastic mallet and see if the reading remains steady.
=C2- Perhaps some part of the shunt is damaged/cracked and it is having i
ntermittent connection problems. (you will want to have good solid connecti
ons on the shunt terminals for this test - alligator clips probably won't d
o it)=0A=0A4. It would be fun to test w/ high load, something like 40-50 am
ps, but I can't think of an easy way to create a load like that - maybe oth
er Listers have some ideas...=0A=0A=0AGood Luck & keep us posted,=0A=0A-Jef
f=0A=0A=0A=0A=0A=0A=0AOn Saturday, August 9, 2014 9:28 AM, "Valovich, Paul"
wrote:=0A =0A=0A=0A =0ARV-8A, 420 total hours. Ele
ctrical design based on Z13/8 architecture. AFS 4500 EFIS taking ammeter cu
rrent readings from 50 MV / 60 amp shunt.=0A=C2-=0AAmmeter reading sudden
ly became very intermittent =93 mostly inop. Replaced wires, D-sub pi
ns, connectors. Extensive troubleshooting with Advanced Flight Systems has
led to questions about whether shunt is working properly.=0A=C2-=0AHow do
es one troubleshoot a shunt? No moving parts; no visible damage; All other
electrical systems operating normally. =0APaul Valovich=0ARidgecrest, CA=0A
======================
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Shunt Questions |
At 12:10 PM 8/9/2014, you wrote:
>How does one troubleshoot a shunt?
>
>Great question - shunts are about as "solid-state" as they come.
>
>Based on you conversations w/ Advanced, we assume that it's not
>something in their system. Have you tried swapping-in a known-good shunt?
>
>As you may already know, a shunt is really just a highly-calibrated,
>very low-resistance resistor. On many shunts the main element is
>soldered between the connection posts. I'm wondering if there is
>some kind of mechanical problem in there somewhere. I assume there
>are no visible cracks or other damage.
The only shunts I've seen 'fail' were
destroyed by gross over-current. If the thing
is not discolored and the screws are tight,
it's good.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Shunt Questions |
I destroyed a Dynon supplied shunt because the plastic base melted. It was located
FWF.
The fix was to fabricate a new base out of Bakelite. I remember the day when they
were all made that way...
Vern
===================================================
Sent from my iThing. It is responsible for all gramma and typo terrors.
> On Aug 9, 2014, at 12:32 PM, "Robert L. Nuckolls, III"
wrote:
>
>
> At 12:10 PM 8/9/2014, you wrote:
>
>> How does one troubleshoot a shunt?
>>
>> Great question - shunts are about as "solid-state" as they come.
>>
>> Based on you conversations w/ Advanced, we assume that it's not something in
their system. Have you tried swapping-in a known-good shunt?
>>
>> As you may already know, a shunt is really just a highly-calibrated, very low-resistance
resistor. On many shunts the main element is soldered between the
connection posts. I'm wondering if there is some kind of mechanical problem
in there somewhere. I assume there are no visible cracks or other damage.
>
> The only shunts I've seen 'fail' were
> destroyed by gross over-current. If the thing
> is not discolored and the screws are tight,
> it's good.
>
>
>
> Bob . . .
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Shunt Questions |
| From: | "user9253" <fransew(at)gmail.com> |
See the attached picture from Dynon's installaiton manual. Is the shunt
located in position A or B or C? When the shunt is located in position "A",
which measures current into or out of the battery, as you know, very little
current flows through the shunt when the battery is fully charged.
The following pertains to a shunt in position "A". The engine needs to be
off while troubleshooting. If the electrical system operates normally, the
shunt must be good. If the shunt has a higher than normal resistance,
then there would be a larger voltage drop across the shunt. This would
show up as lower system voltage and a higher ammeter reading.
Since the electrical system operates normally, I suspect a bad connection
between the shunt and EFIS, or a problem within the EFIS.
Even though the EFIS displays amps, it actually measures millivolts.
I would test the EFIS by applying a millivolt signal to the ammeter input.
This millivolt signal could be provided by a resistor network or by an almost
dead flashlight battery.
Joe
--------
Joe Gores
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=428262#428262
Attachments:
http://forums.matronics.com//files/shunt_location_143.jpg
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Shunt Questions |
| From: | "Eric M. Jones" <emjones(at)charter.net> |
Shunts and Hall Effect sensors.
Hall effect sensors seemed to be quite nice since they were small and could directly
interface with other electronics. But it is harder and harder to justify
their use over a simple shunt.
As for troubleshooting a shunt, cracks can be very hard to detect, so bolting another
in its place is a good approach. Shunts are ultra-reliable, but everything
fails sometime.
There is another way to measure current, and that is to measure the voltage at
each end of the wire in question. This is done by running a small (like AWG 26)
wire from each end of the high-current conductor (whose current you want to
know) to some voltmeter. The technique works because ESSENTIALLY NO CURRENT flows
in the tiny sense wires. The voltage sensor then measures the voltage drop
through the fatwire. Of course, you need to know something else, like the true
current/voltage drop, or true fatwire resistance. But this technique is the
preferred way for really big and reasonably long power conductors.
And there is no separate shunt or Hall Effect sensor.
--------
Eric M. Jones
www.PerihelionDesign.com
113 Brentwood Drive
Southbridge, MA 01550
(508) 764-2072
emjones(at)charter.net
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=428270#428270
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Shunt Questions |
There is another way to measure current, and that is to measure the
voltage at each end of the wire in question. This is done by running
a small (like AWG 26) wire from each end of the high-current
conductor (whose current you want to know) to some voltmeter. The
technique works because ESSENTIALLY NO CURRENT flows in the tiny
sense wires. The voltage sensor then measures the voltage drop
through the fatwire. Of course, you need to know something else, like
the true current/voltage drop, or true fatwire resistance. But this
technique is the preferred way for really big and reasonably long
power conductors.
And there is no separate shunt or Hall Effect sensor.
I have used this technique in several applications
where calibration is not an issue. The ammeter shunt's
resistor is made from a special alloy7 called 'manganin'.
http://tinyurl.com/3f79fgy
This is an alloy crafted both for it's practical
resistance and very low temperature coefficient of
resistance. The ordinary conductors used to wire
things up tend to have higher temperature
coefficients. Which makes their use as an ammeter
rather squirrely. As the wire heats up, it's temperature
goes up, resistance goes up, power dissipated goes up,
temperature rises some more and so it goes. If one
plots current versus voltage drop in a wire in free-
air (waiting for temperature to stabilize after each
new current setting), you get a rather non-linear curve
that isn't even repeatable except when the ambient
conditions in which the wire operates are held constant.
One practical way to use wiring as a 'shunt' is to
detect lamp failure or perhaps failure in some other
load like pitot heat. In this case, it is sufficient
to simply know that current is flowing in the
wire . . . or not. It is not necessary to know how
much current flows.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Shunt Questions |
Even though the EFIS displays amps, it actually measures millivolts.
I would test the EFIS by applying a millivolt signal to the ammeter input.
This millivolt signal could be provided by a resistor network or by an almost
dead flashlight battery.
Even an 'almost dead' battery is probably too much . . .
Suggest you craft a millivolt test source from a couple
of resistors and a good flashlight cell. Any other combination
of resistors can be used as long as you hit the 'output
target' in the upper half of a 50mV full scale input
to the EFIS.
Emacs!
This is not an 'accurate' source, only a practical
source for carrying out a divide-and-conquer experiment
to isolate your fault.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Jeff Luckey <jluckey(at)pacbell.net> |
Bob (Nuckolls),=0A=0AYesterday I used a few the toggle switch symbols for T
urboCad that you shared a while back.- They really class-up the drawings
and saved me an hour (at least) of having to gin them up myself.=0A=0A-
=0AJust wanted to say thanks,=0A=0A-Jeff
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Thanks to Bob |
At 11:01 AM 8/11/2014, you wrote:
>Bob (Nuckolls),
>
>Yesterday I used a few the toggle switch symbols for TurboCad that
>you shared a while back. They really class-up the drawings and
>saved me an hour (at least) of having to gin them up myself.
>
>Just wanted to say thanks,
You're most welcome. I'm pleased to be of service!
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Thanks to Bob |
| From: | Sacha <uuccio(at)gmail.com> |
Hi Jeff/Bob
Where are they? I missed that post.
Regards
Sacha
> On Aug 11, 2014, at 18:01, Jeff Luckey wrote:
>
> Yesterday I used a few the toggle switch symbols for TurboCad that you shared
a while back.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Thanks to Bob |
At 02:39 PM 8/11/2014, you wrote:
>
>Hi Jeff/Bob
>Where are they? I missed that post.
>Regards
>Sacha
It's in the AutoCAD symbols library file at:
http://tinyurl.com/o7axyq8
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Thanks to Bob |
| From: | John Tipton <jmtipton(at)btopenworld.com> |
Yes: never received these postings - why does that happen (fairly frequently too,
that you only start receiving the posting halfway through the thread)
Regards
John
Sent from my iPad
----x--O--x----
> On 11 Aug 2014, at 10:13 pm, "Robert L. Nuckolls, III"
wrote:
>
>
> At 02:39 PM 8/11/2014, you wrote:
>>
>> Hi Jeff/Bob
>> Where are they? I missed that post.
>> Regards
>> Sacha
>
> It's in the AutoCAD symbols library file at:
>
> http://tinyurl.com/o7axyq8
>
>
>
> Bob . . .
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Thanks to Bob |
At 03:08 AM 8/12/2014, you wrote:
>
>
>Yes: never received these postings - why does that happen (fairly
>frequently too, that you only start receiving the posting halfway
>through the thread)
>
>Regards
>
>John
>
>Sent from my iPad
This was not a recent posting. Jeff opened
the thread with a note about how he was able
to exploit some of the data that's available
from the website. Based on an inquiry, I followed
up with a link to the specific file that contained
the bulk of my AutoCAD symbols library. So you weren't
behind the 8-ball on this one.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Sacha" <uuccio(at)gmail.com> |
> Yes: never received these postings - why does that happen (fairly
frequently too, that you only start receiving the posting halfway through
the thread)
The same happens to me too; haven't figured out why...
Sacha
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | david johnston <abnranger69(at)hotmail.com> |
| Subject: | GPS ant placement? |
A couple questions ref GPS ant placement=3B
I have two GPS ant to install on a Cessna. My two com ant are located on e
ach side at about mid wing root. My understanding is that GPS ant need to b
e located at least 18" from a com ant=2C preferably not near the leading ed
ge of anything. Anybody have any comments or experience with interference
issues=2C placement? How far apart do GPS ant need to be from each other?
Couldn't find any refs in Bob's book=2C 12th edition.....
Thanx=2C
Dave
abnranger69(at)hotmail.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Daniel Hooper <enginerdy(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: GPS ant placement? |
GPS antennas need a clear view of the sky, or a clear view through
non-conductive materials (like fiberglass or plexiglass). You might be
able to get away with some obstructions, but fewer is better.
You should not put anything too close to transmitting antennas in
general, so the COM antenna spacing seems reasonable-- but GPS antennas
do not transmit, so you should be able to place them right next to one
another without a problem.
On Aug 12, 2014, at 7:19 PM, david johnston
wrote:
> A couple questions ref GPS ant placement;
>
> I have two GPS ant to install on a Cessna. My two com ant are located
on each side at about mid wing root. My understanding is that GPS ant
need to be located at least 18" from a com ant, preferably not near the
leading edge of anything. Anybody have any comments or experience with
interference issues, placement? How far apart do GPS ant need to be
from each other?
>
> Couldn't find any refs in Bob's book, 12th edition.....
>
> Thanx,
> Dave
> abnranger69(at)hotmail.com
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | BobsV35B(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: GPS ant placement? |
Good Afternoon Dave,
I am aFRAID MY COMMENTS MAY NOT HELP AT ALL, BUT IF YOU ARE PLACING THOSE
ANTENNAS ON A CERTIFIED AIRPLANE, IT IS BEST IF YOU REFER TO A CURRENT faa
APPROVED VERSION OF THE iNSTALLATION MANUAL.
TO COMPLY WITH THE FarS YOU MAY HAVE TO CONFORM TO WHAT HAS BEEN WRITTEN BY
THE faa.
aBOUT TWO YEARS AGO, THE fedS ADDED VERY RESTRICTIVE LANGUAGE TO THE
CURRENT INSTALL MANUALS OF SEVERAL CURRENT Gps UNITS. sINCE IT IS REQUIRED THAT
THE INSTALLATION CONFORM TO THE INSTRUCTIONS IN THE CURRENT INSTALL MANUAL,
YOU MAY WELL BE BOUND BY THE NEW DATA. i HAVE SEEN MANY INSTALLATIONS THAT
HAVE WORKED FINE WITH THE ANTENNAS WITHIN FOUR INCHES OF EACH OTHER AND
WTHIN A FOOT OR TWO OF cOM ANTENNAS, BUT THE NEW fed GUIDANCE CALLS FOR no
ANTENNA ON THE CENTER LINE AND FOR SPACING TWO ANTENNAS ONE ON EACH SIDE OF
THE CENTER LINE. tHEY ALSO CALL FOR THE gps ANTENNAS TO BE A MINIMUM OF NINE
INCHES APART. oNCE AGAIN. i THINK THEY ARE NUTS, BUT i ALSO DO FEEL THAT
YOU WILL HAVE TO COMPLY WITH THOSE NEW RULES UNLESS YOU CAN GET A der TO
WRITE UP SOMETHING ELSE.
MOST OF THE faa FOLKS ARE GOOD PEOPLE AND WANT TO DO A GOOD JOB. BUT SOME
OF THEM GET CARRIED AWAY WITH A "WHAT IF" ATTITUDE CARRIED TO THE EXTREME.
iN ANY CASE, IT IS CERTAINLY BEST TO GET A COPYOF THE LATEST VERSION OF THE
INSTALL MANUAL BEFORE YOU CUT METAL.
hAPPY sKIES,
oLD bOB
Darn I accidentally capitalized most of this message. Please excuse my
error!
In a message dated 8/12/2014 7:22:00 P.M. Central Daylight Time,
abnranger69(at)hotmail.com writes:
A couple questions ref GPS ant placement;
I have two GPS ant to install on a Cessna. My two com ant are located on
each side at about mid wing root. My understanding is that GPS ant need to
be located at least 18" from a com ant, preferably not near the leading
edge of anything. Anybody have any comments or experience with interference
issues, placement? How far apart do GPS ant need to be from each other?
Couldn't find any refs in Bob's book, 12th edition.....
Thanx,
Dave
abnranger69(at)hotmail.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Panel mounted USB power ports for Apple devices? |
At 08:40 AM 8/14/2014, you wrote:
>
>And then you can have the "certified" one from Wichita
>
>http://www.aircraftspruce.com/catalog/elpages/chargingport11-13044.php
>
>Not sure if that price does include the installation and paperwork :)
Here's a classic demonstration of effects for burdens placed
on TC aviation by the regulatory processes. If the
commercial manifestation of this product can be retailed
for $10, certainly a 'robust' version tailored to aviation
could be retailed for $20. This presumes, of course, that
that the two markets offer similar production opportunities.
So even in aviation-volumes, it shouldn't need to sell for
more than $60.
I'm presently wrestling with a product that was added to
the TC of some production airplanes 40+ years ago in a time
when the demands for production and spares was perhaps
300 units a year. The device had a design fault that
masqueraded as an intermittent failure in associated
equipment. For decades. the manufacturer of the no-fault
equipment was called into 'fix' the problem . . . seems
that from time-to-time, they had demonstrable quality
control issues . . . so it just seemed likely that the
intermittent behaviors (especially on new airplanes)
was their fault also.
Every time the problem rose to the surface of problem stew
pot, a tiger-team would assemble to gather data, analyse,
deduce root and ancillary causes, and recommend remediation
and make the problem go away.
It wasn't until about 14 years ago that I was both
a member of such a team for perhaps the third time
in previous 20 years or so. At least I was now considered to be
a tiger with some juice. I saw the deficiency of design and
even offered to redesign the device for supplier
at no charge.
No joy. The product flow hand dwindled to much smaller
numbers and the paper-thrashing costs for bringing a
new product to market would have more than doubled the
price to the OEM . . . It was one of those cases where
the perceived expenses against returns just didn't
instill warm-fuzzies in powers that be several layers
up the chain of command. But the sum-total of costs
over time continued to peck away at both OEM and consumer
pocket books.
Last winter, a rash of events in brand new airplanes
emerged. I helped craft a no-cert band-aid which
somebody decided to cut in half. The band-aid went
on the airplane and everybody relaxed. The half-a-
band-aid had a manufacturing cost on the order of $10
but the market price was $hundreds$ . . .
Now, the half band-aid isn't working and a new
pride of tigers are under the gun to 'fix it this
time' but don't spend any more money on that piece
of crap gizmo from the guys who actually have
nothing to do with the real problem.
This time, an opportunity presented for taking the
already qualified guts out of one box and putting
it into the enclosure for the problem child. Simply
a matter of exploiting a 30-year old gizmo with a high
volume production rate and long successful track
record by making it form, fit and function replacement
for the 40 year old gizmo that should have been
replaced decades ago.
There's a constellation of factors that have made
it close to impossible for aviation to evolve with
the agility and economics enjoyed by most other
high-tech products. Suffice it to say, that the
price of the 'approved' USB power supply is not
terribly surprising. If this product surfaced say
30 years ago for the same price (adjusted for
inflation) a dozen companies would have
jumped in and kick-@$$ to compete with it and the
price would go down.
All of this and a million more examples were predicted
over a century ago . . .
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: one-wire alternators- the subject that just won't |
die
| From: | Bill Boyd <sportav8r(at)gmail.com> |
Charlie: I have the same question. Did you ever hear back and I somehow
missed it here?
-Bill Boyd
On Wed, Jul 23, 2014 at 3:58 PM, Charlie England
wrote:
> Hi Bob,
>
> Please forgive me, but I need a refresher on why one-wire (internally
> regulated) alternators are no longer recommended for a/c; even banned from
> 'the Book'. I do remember (scratch that; know from experience) that if the
> B-lead contactor opens while the alternator is under load, there can be a
> 'load dump' (high voltage spike) issue that can kill the electronics (the
> regulator) in the alternator. Makes sense. But if the only way the B-lead
> contactor is allowed to open is due to an overvoltage fault, does it
> matter? At that point, it's a given that the regulator is already toast,
> and the entire alternator will be swapped out to fix it. Given the very
> high reliability of modern automotive alternators, and that the only time
> the B-lead contactor would need to open under load is during a true OV
> fault event, what's the compelling reason to keep the 'not recommended'
> philosophy?
>
> I've had a couple of different career paths involving running a soldering
> iron & modifying stuff (both consumer and industrial electronics
> maintenance), so I'm not 'afraid' to dig into an alternator to modify it
> for external regulation. But I'm of the 'if it ain't broke, don't fix it'
> school.
>
> I'd like to be educated on what I'm overlooking in terms of risk, failure
> modes (fire?), etc.
>
> If it's reasonable to bring the one-wire alternator (with contactor style
> OV protection)back into the mix, the next question will be about
> integrating a backup dynamo style alternator without spending close to half
> an Aviation Unit for the hardware. :-)
>
> Many thanks,
>
> Charle
>
> *
>
>
> *
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: one-wire alternators- the subject that just |
won't die
At 11:04 AM 8/14/2014, you wrote:
>Charlie: I have the same question. Did you ever hear back and I
>somehow missed it here?
>
>-Bill Boyd
See http://tinyurl.com/ndz7gtw
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "R&J. Curtis" <RnJCurtis(at)charter.net> |
| Subject: | ELT: 406 vs 121.5 |
I know that there have been some discussions on 121.5 Mhz vs 406 Mhz ELT's.
My question is, what is the general consensus of opinion as to
recommendations on a new experimental aircraft? I don't presently have an
ELT, but will be purchasing one in the near future. Also interested in
initial cost and cost of maintenance ie. batteries.
What are the expectations that the 406 will be mandated, and when? Does the
406 have a large advantage? I know that it can pinpoint location much more
accurately.
Should I spring for the extra bucks for a 406? What great advantage do you
receive when you pay $1800+ as apposed to $600?
That should be enough questions for now!
Roger Curtis
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: ELT: 406 vs 121.5 |
At 06:16 PM 8/14/2014, you wrote:
>
>I know that there have been some discussions on 121.5 Mhz vs 406 Mhz
>ELT's. My question is, what is the general consensus of opinion as
>to recommendations on a new experimental aircraft? I don't
>presently have an ELT, but will be purchasing one in the near
>future. Also interested in initial cost and cost of maintenance ie. batteries.
>
>What are the expectations that the 406 will be mandated, and
>when? Does the 406 have a large advantage? I know that it can
>pinpoint location much more accurately.
>
>Should I spring for the extra bucks for a 406? What great advantage
>do you receive when you pay $1800+ as apposed to $600?
Are you seeing new 121.5/243Mhz ELTs for sale?
I think part 91 prohibits them as new installations
after 6-21-95 . . .
Emacs!
Then there is the matter of just how useful the
older ELT will be in finding your wreck. See:
http://tinyurl.com/kz93ymy
I'm seeing ACK 406 ELTs with GPS data
ports for 500-700 dollars.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: ELT: 406 vs 121.5 |
| From: | Eric Page <edpav8r(at)yahoo.com> |
$1,800? The ACK E-04 406MHz ELT new installation kit is $589 at Aircraft Spruce:
http://bit.ly/1lZI2q7
Eric
> On Aug 14, 2014, at 4:16 PM, "R&J. Curtis" wrote:
> I know that there have been some discussions on 121.5 Mhz vs 406 Mhz ELT's. My
question is, what is the general consensus of opinion as to recommendations
on a new experimental aircraft? I don't presently have an ELT, but will be purchasing
one in the near future. Also interested in initial cost and cost of
maintenance ie. batteries.
>
> What are the expectations that the 406 will be mandated, and when? Does the
406 have a large advantage? I know that it can pinpoint location much more accurately.
>
> Should I spring for the extra bucks for a 406? What great advantage do you receive
when you pay $1800+ as apposed to $600?
>
> That should be enough questions for now!
>
> Roger Curtis
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | D L Josephson <dlj04(at)josephson.com> |
| Subject: | Re: ELT: 406 vs 121.5 |
First, keep in mind that 406 MHz ELTs are *also* 121.5 MHz ELTs, so
existing monitoring on 121.5 is not going to go away any time soon. FCC
announced around five years ago that they were planning to ban
manufacture and use of 121.5/243 ELTs, but gave up when AOPA and FAA
asked them not to do that. FCC will not approve any new 121.5/243 MHz
ELT transmitter designs but existing models can still be made, sold and
installed.
There are three TSOs that apply to ELTs. The early ones like the
original Narco ELT-10 meet TSO C91 and have a mechanical G switch that
was never too reliable, and went off by itself some times. You can
continue to use one if installed in your plane but you may not make a
new installation of a C91 ELT. In 1985 the spec was revised to TSO C91a
which requires a much better G switch. You can still buy and install
these. The new 406 MHz ELTs meet TSO C126 as well as C91a, and besides
transmitting to the satellites for a near instant fix on where you are,
have a still better G switch. Most have the ability for the user to test
them easily.
If you don't care whether people find your wreck, a used C91a unit is
probably fine. If I were buying a new one, under $600 for a 406 MHz unit
is cheap enough, I think.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Bill Boyd <sportav8r(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: one-wire alternators- the subject that just |
won't die
Wow. I have updated my Connection a few times over the years but not since the
dawn of my personal ipad era. I will purchase an updated digital version - this
looks like a must have so I can peruse the aeroelectric scriptures anytime,
anywhere.
Thanks for all your work over the years to make this resource available, Bob.
Outstanding.
> On Aug 14, 2014, at 1:22 PM, "Robert L. Nuckolls, III"
wrote:
>
>
> At 11:04 AM 8/14/2014, you wrote:
>> Charlie: I have the same question. Did you ever hear back and I somehow missed
it here?
>>
>> -Bill Boyd
>
> See http://tinyurl.com/ndz7gtw
>
>
>
> Bob . . .
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "B Tomm" <fvalarm(at)rapidnet.net> |
| Subject: | Re: ELT: 406 vs 121.5 |
121.5 is no longer monitored via "satelites". Cross country pilots should
still listen on 121.5 if able, and report. Airborne searches and ground
crews can still home in on the 121.5. But if you want to be "saved", and
not just "recovered eventually", you must have 406 with GPS connected. If
"recovery" is good enough for you but your plane has a passenger seat, your
choice affects them too.
Bevan
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of D L
Josephson
Sent: Friday, August 15, 2014 2:09 AM
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Re: ELT: 406 vs 121.5
-->
First, keep in mind that 406 MHz ELTs are *also* 121.5 MHz ELTs, so existing
monitoring on 121.5 is not going to go away any time soon. FCC announced
around five years ago that they were planning to ban manufacture and use of
121.5/243 ELTs, but gave up when AOPA and FAA asked them not to do that. FCC
will not approve any new 121.5/243 MHz ELT transmitter designs but existing
models can still be made, sold and installed.
There are three TSOs that apply to ELTs. The early ones like the original
Narco ELT-10 meet TSO C91 and have a mechanical G switch that was never too
reliable, and went off by itself some times. You can continue to use one if
installed in your plane but you may not make a new installation of a C91
ELT. In 1985 the spec was revised to TSO C91a which requires a much better G
switch. You can still buy and install these. The new 406 MHz ELTs meet TSO
C126 as well as C91a, and besides transmitting to the satellites for a near
instant fix on where you are, have a still better G switch. Most have the
ability for the user to test them easily.
If you don't care whether people find your wreck, a used C91a unit is
probably fine. If I were buying a new one, under $600 for a 406 MHz unit is
cheap enough, I think.
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: ELT: 406 vs 121.5 |
| From: | Tim Andres <tim2542(at)sbcglobal.net> |
Evidently 406 even without GPS is pretty good, local A&P got a call from a customer.
He had been called by the Feds to notify him his ELT was triggered. They
were able to tell him where it was parked on the ramp, GPS not connected yet.
Tim
> On Aug 15, 2014, at 12:55 PM, "B Tomm" wrote:
>
>
> 121.5 is no longer monitored via "satelites". Cross country pilots should
> still listen on 121.5 if able, and report. Airborne searches and ground
> crews can still home in on the 121.5. But if you want to be "saved", and
> not just "recovered eventually", you must have 406 with GPS connected. If
> "recovery" is good enough for you but your plane has a passenger seat, your
> choice affects them too.
>
> Bevan
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of D L
> Josephson
> Sent: Friday, August 15, 2014 2:09 AM
> To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
> Subject: AeroElectric-List: Re: ELT: 406 vs 121.5
>
> -->
>
> First, keep in mind that 406 MHz ELTs are *also* 121.5 MHz ELTs, so existing
> monitoring on 121.5 is not going to go away any time soon. FCC announced
> around five years ago that they were planning to ban manufacture and use of
> 121.5/243 ELTs, but gave up when AOPA and FAA asked them not to do that. FCC
> will not approve any new 121.5/243 MHz ELT transmitter designs but existing
> models can still be made, sold and installed.
>
> There are three TSOs that apply to ELTs. The early ones like the original
> Narco ELT-10 meet TSO C91 and have a mechanical G switch that was never too
> reliable, and went off by itself some times. You can continue to use one if
> installed in your plane but you may not make a new installation of a C91
> ELT. In 1985 the spec was revised to TSO C91a which requires a much better G
> switch. You can still buy and install these. The new 406 MHz ELTs meet TSO
> C126 as well as C91a, and besides transmitting to the satellites for a near
> instant fix on where you are, have a still better G switch. Most have the
> ability for the user to test them easily.
>
> If you don't care whether people find your wreck, a used C91a unit is
> probably fine. If I were buying a new one, under $600 for a 406 MHz unit is
> cheap enough, I think.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Justin Jones <jmjones2000(at)mindspring.com> |
| Subject: | Z-19 Symbol Question |
What is the small square that is in the line between the main battery contactor
and the engine battery contactor on the Z-19 Diagram?
Thanks
Justin
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Kelly McMullen <kellym(at)aviating.com> |
| Subject: | Re: ELT: 406 vs 121.5 |
Excellent description of the differences. There are some other
considerations. ELTs were first required in 1973. Satellite monitoring
did not start until perhaps the mid 1980s, so the loss of sat monitoring
of 121.5 just means less false alarms pursued. The TSO91a units are far
and away the least expensive for new legal install, including
maintenance as most allow usage of standard D cells.
A 406 ELT is 2-3 times more expensive to buy, requires at least double
the install time IF connecting to a GPS, and requires at least 2 and
some 3 lithium batteries. The least expensive ACK requires 3 batteries.
It will come with the main battery, which costs well north of $100 to
replace, and you will have to buy the other 2 photo type batteries that
are 10-20 each, which operate the remote panel and the alarm buzzer. All
3 are good for at least 5 years if not triggered. However, a false alarm
trip that goes for more than 1 hour will not only get you a phone call,
but you will get to replace that main battery, at a minimum. Also, not
entirely clear what recurrent tests will have to be done, as the current
reg is written to testing 121.5 units. Some have a self test built in,
but that may not be sufficient.
Also, there is one more expensive 406 unit with its own built-in GPS,
that incorporates GPS antenna with the transmit antenna, but is
certified without 121.5. As far as I know only a few CAP aircraft have
the capability to home in on a 406 only signal, while all can home on 121.5.
On 8/15/2014 2:08 AM, D L Josephson wrote:
>
>
> First, keep in mind that 406 MHz ELTs are *also* 121.5 MHz ELTs, so
> existing monitoring on 121.5 is not going to go away any time soon.
> FCC announced around five years ago that they were planning to ban
> manufacture and use of 121.5/243 ELTs, but gave up when AOPA and FAA
> asked them not to do that. FCC will not approve any new 121.5/243 MHz
> ELT transmitter designs but existing models can still be made, sold
> and installed.
>
> There are three TSOs that apply to ELTs. The early ones like the
> original Narco ELT-10 meet TSO C91 and have a mechanical G switch that
> was never too reliable, and went off by itself some times. You can
> continue to use one if installed in your plane but you may not make a
> new installation of a C91 ELT. In 1985 the spec was revised to TSO
> C91a which requires a much better G switch. You can still buy and
> install these. The new 406 MHz ELTs meet TSO C126 as well as C91a, and
> besides transmitting to the satellites for a near instant fix on where
> you are, have a still better G switch. Most have the ability for the
> user to test them easily.
>
> If you don't care whether people find your wreck, a used C91a unit is
> probably fine. If I were buying a new one, under $600 for a 406 MHz
> unit is cheap enough, I think.
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | rayj <raymondj(at)frontiernet.net> |
| Subject: | apple charger circuit |
Greetings list.
I saw this Instructable and thought it might be helpful.
http://www.instructables.com/id/THE-Simplest-iPod-iPad-iPhone-charger-circuit/?ALLSTEPS
--
Raymond Julian
Kettle River, MN
The things we admire in men, kindness and generosity, openness, honesty,
understanding and feeling are the concomitants of failure in our system.
And those traits we detest, sharpness, greed, acquisitiveness, meanness,
egotism and self-interest are the traits of success. And while men
admire the quality of the first they love the produce of the second.
-John Steinbeck, novelist, Nobel laureate (1902-1968)
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Stuart Hutchison <stuart(at)stuarthutchison.com.au> |
| Subject: | Re: ELT: 406 vs 121.5 |
Worldwide satellite monitoring of 121.5/243.0MHz was disabled in Feb 2009.
The frequency stability spec for 406MHz is much tighter, facilitating more
accurate Doppler analysis for LEO (moving) satellites, but if you have GPS
fix from your ELT, then GPS position is appended to the digital signal and
your location is known to GEO (fixed overhead) satellites in near-real-time.
The HEXID also positively identifies you against the registry database, so
the 95% of false alarms generated by 121.5MHz systems can be resolved and/or
the search area narrowed down very promptly. It may be legal to install an
analogue, indistinguishable 121.5MHz ELT, but it may take up to 9 hours for
the RCC to determine your position via multiple LEO passes. $600 over seven
years (until battery replacement time) seems like cheap insurance to be
confident of a chance the USAF/CAP could rescue me before I/we bled to death
or succumbed to exposure. As they say in the SAR world, the first 24hrs is
often the only 24hrs to find survivors. It's especially unfortunate when
people survive a crash, only to die in the days that followed before they
were found.
Cheers, Stu
F1 Rocket VH-FLY www.mykitlog.com/rockfly
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Tim
Andres
Sent: 16 August 2014 09:24
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: ELT: 406 vs 121.5
-->
Evidently 406 even without GPS is pretty good, local A&P got a call from a
customer. He had been called by the Feds to notify him his ELT was
triggered. They were able to tell him where it was parked on the ramp, GPS
not connected yet.
Tim
> On Aug 15, 2014, at 12:55 PM, "B Tomm" wrote:
>
> -->
>
> 121.5 is no longer monitored via "satelites". Cross country pilots
> should still listen on 121.5 if able, and report. Airborne searches
> and ground crews can still home in on the 121.5. But if you want to be
"saved", and
> not just "recovered eventually", you must have 406 with GPS connected.
If
> "recovery" is good enough for you but your plane has a passenger seat,
> your choice affects them too.
>
> Bevan
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of D L
> Josephson
> Sent: Friday, August 15, 2014 2:09 AM
> To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
> Subject: AeroElectric-List: Re: ELT: 406 vs 121.5
>
> -->
>
> First, keep in mind that 406 MHz ELTs are *also* 121.5 MHz ELTs, so
> existing monitoring on 121.5 is not going to go away any time soon.
> FCC announced around five years ago that they were planning to ban
> manufacture and use of
> 121.5/243 ELTs, but gave up when AOPA and FAA asked them not to do
> that. FCC will not approve any new 121.5/243 MHz ELT transmitter
> designs but existing models can still be made, sold and installed.
>
> There are three TSOs that apply to ELTs. The early ones like the
> original Narco ELT-10 meet TSO C91 and have a mechanical G switch that
> was never too reliable, and went off by itself some times. You can
> continue to use one if installed in your plane but you may not make a
> new installation of a C91 ELT. In 1985 the spec was revised to TSO
> C91a which requires a much better G switch. You can still buy and
> install these. The new 406 MHz ELTs meet TSO
> C126 as well as C91a, and besides transmitting to the satellites for a
> near instant fix on where you are, have a still better G switch. Most
> have the ability for the user to test them easily.
>
> If you don't care whether people find your wreck, a used C91a unit is
> probably fine. If I were buying a new one, under $600 for a 406 MHz
> unit is cheap enough, I think.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | David & Elaine Lamphere <dalamphere(at)comcast.net> |
| Subject: | Re: ELT: 406 vs 121.5 |
I think that the GPS personal locator beacons are a more cost
effective idea.
They are small, easy to register and easy to use. If you survive the
crash then you turn it on.
If not, it doesn't matter.
Why do the feds want us to go the expensive route?
Dave
On Aug 16, 2014, at 5:00 AM, Stuart Hutchison wrote:
> >
>
> Worldwide satellite monitoring of 121.5/243.0MHz was disabled in Feb
> 2009.
> The frequency stability spec for 406MHz is much tighter,
> facilitating more
> accurate Doppler analysis for LEO (moving) satellites, but if you
> have GPS
> fix from your ELT, then GPS position is appended to the digital
> signal and
> your location is known to GEO (fixed overhead) satellites in near-
> real-time.
> The HEXID also positively identifies you against the registry
> database, so
> the 95% of false alarms generated by 121.5MHz systems can be
> resolved and/or
> the search area narrowed down very promptly. It may be legal to
> install an
> analogue, indistinguishable 121.5MHz ELT, but it may take up to 9
> hours for
> the RCC to determine your position via multiple LEO passes. $600
> over seven
> years (until battery replacement time) seems like cheap insurance to
> be
> confident of a chance the USAF/CAP could rescue me before I/we bled
> to death
> or succumbed to exposure. As they say in the SAR world, the first
> 24hrs is
> often the only 24hrs to find survivors. It's especially unfortunate
> when
> people survive a crash, only to die in the days that followed before
> they
> were found.
>
> Cheers, Stu
>
> F1 Rocket VH-FLY www.mykitlog.com/rockfly
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Tim
> Andres
> Sent: 16 August 2014 09:24
> To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
> Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: ELT: 406 vs 121.5
>
> -->
>
> Evidently 406 even without GPS is pretty good, local A&P got a call
> from a
> customer. He had been called by the Feds to notify him his ELT was
> triggered. They were able to tell him where it was parked on the
> ramp, GPS
> not connected yet.
> Tim
>
>> On Aug 15, 2014, at 12:55 PM, "B Tomm" wrote:
>>
>> -->
>>
>> 121.5 is no longer monitored via "satelites". Cross country pilots
>> should still listen on 121.5 if able, and report. Airborne searches
>> and ground crews can still home in on the 121.5. But if you want
>> to be
> "saved", and
>> not just "recovered eventually", you must have 406 with GPS
>> connected.
> If
>> "recovery" is good enough for you but your plane has a passenger
>> seat,
>> your choice affects them too.
>>
>> Bevan
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
>> [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of
>> D L
>> Josephson
>> Sent: Friday, August 15, 2014 2:09 AM
>> To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
>> Subject: AeroElectric-List: Re: ELT: 406 vs 121.5
>>
>> -->
>>
>> First, keep in mind that 406 MHz ELTs are *also* 121.5 MHz ELTs, so
>> existing monitoring on 121.5 is not going to go away any time soon.
>> FCC announced around five years ago that they were planning to ban
>> manufacture and use of
>> 121.5/243 ELTs, but gave up when AOPA and FAA asked them not to do
>> that. FCC will not approve any new 121.5/243 MHz ELT transmitter
>> designs but existing models can still be made, sold and installed.
>>
>> There are three TSOs that apply to ELTs. The early ones like the
>> original Narco ELT-10 meet TSO C91 and have a mechanical G switch
>> that
>> was never too reliable, and went off by itself some times. You can
>> continue to use one if installed in your plane but you may not make a
>> new installation of a C91 ELT. In 1985 the spec was revised to TSO
>> C91a which requires a much better G switch. You can still buy and
>> install these. The new 406 MHz ELTs meet TSO
>> C126 as well as C91a, and besides transmitting to the satellites
>> for a
>> near instant fix on where you are, have a still better G switch. Most
>> have the ability for the user to test them easily.
>>
>> If you don't care whether people find your wreck, a used C91a unit is
>> probably fine. If I were buying a new one, under $600 for a 406 MHz
>> unit is cheap enough, I think.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: ELT: 406 vs 121.5 |
| From: | John Tipton <jmtipton(at)btopenworld.com> |
Yes: we have the McMurdo 'fast find'
http://www.aircraftspruce.com/catalog/avpages/fastfind-220a.php?clickkey=1218506
http://www.transair.co.uk/sp+McMurdo-Fast-find-220-PLB-with-GPS+3181?utm_campaign=Googlebase&utm_medium=organic&utm_source=Googlebase&gclid=Cj0KEQjwgryfBRDn7cvY-pOit4cBEiQAB3nTbokOhCSCFQLHeqmrA3c9yfvcDIW_yZHQlxi7yiZATNoaAm-N8P8HAQ
John (G-BBKZ)
Sent from my iPad
----x--O--x----
> On 16 Aug 2014, at 11:34 am, David & Elaine Lamphere
wrote:
>
>
> I think that the GPS personal locator beacons are a more cost effective idea.
> They are small, easy to register and easy to use. If you survive the crash then
you turn it on.
> If not, it doesn't matter.
>
> Why do the feds want us to go the expensive route?
>
> Dave
>
>
>> On Aug 16, 2014, at 5:00 AM, Stuart Hutchison wrote:
>>
>>
>> Worldwide satellite monitoring of 121.5/243.0MHz was disabled in Feb 2009.
>> The frequency stability spec for 406MHz is much tighter, facilitating more
>> accurate Doppler analysis for LEO (moving) satellites, but if you have GPS
>> fix from your ELT, then GPS position is appended to the digital signal and
>> your location is known to GEO (fixed overhead) satellites in near-real-time.
>> The HEXID also positively identifies you against the registry database, so
>> the 95% of false alarms generated by 121.5MHz systems can be resolved and/or
>> the search area narrowed down very promptly. It may be legal to install an
>> analogue, indistinguishable 121.5MHz ELT, but it may take up to 9 hours for
>> the RCC to determine your position via multiple LEO passes. $600 over seven
>> years (until battery replacement time) seems like cheap insurance to be
>> confident of a chance the USAF/CAP could rescue me before I/we bled to death
>> or succumbed to exposure. As they say in the SAR world, the first 24hrs is
>> often the only 24hrs to find survivors. It's especially unfortunate when
>> people survive a crash, only to die in the days that followed before they
>> were found.
>>
>> Cheers, Stu
>>
>> F1 Rocket VH-FLY www.mykitlog.com/rockfly
>>
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
>> [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Tim
>> Andres
>> Sent: 16 August 2014 09:24
>> To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
>> Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: ELT: 406 vs 121.5
>>
>> -->
>>
>> Evidently 406 even without GPS is pretty good, local A&P got a call from a
>> customer. He had been called by the Feds to notify him his ELT was
>> triggered. They were able to tell him where it was parked on the ramp, GPS
>> not connected yet.
>> Tim
>>
>>> On Aug 15, 2014, at 12:55 PM, "B Tomm" wrote:
>>>
>>> -->
>>>
>>> 121.5 is no longer monitored via "satelites". Cross country pilots
>>> should still listen on 121.5 if able, and report. Airborne searches
>>> and ground crews can still home in on the 121.5. But if you want to be
>> "saved", and
>>> not just "recovered eventually", you must have 406 with GPS connected.
>> If
>>> "recovery" is good enough for you but your plane has a passenger seat,
>>> your choice affects them too.
>>>
>>> Bevan
>>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
>>> [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of D L
>>> Josephson
>>> Sent: Friday, August 15, 2014 2:09 AM
>>> To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
>>> Subject: AeroElectric-List: Re: ELT: 406 vs 121.5
>>>
>>> -->
>>>
>>> First, keep in mind that 406 MHz ELTs are *also* 121.5 MHz ELTs, so
>>> existing monitoring on 121.5 is not going to go away any time soon.
>>> FCC announced around five years ago that they were planning to ban
>>> manufacture and use of
>>> 121.5/243 ELTs, but gave up when AOPA and FAA asked them not to do
>>> that. FCC will not approve any new 121.5/243 MHz ELT transmitter
>>> designs but existing models can still be made, sold and installed.
>>>
>>> There are three TSOs that apply to ELTs. The early ones like the
>>> original Narco ELT-10 meet TSO C91 and have a mechanical G switch that
>>> was never too reliable, and went off by itself some times. You can
>>> continue to use one if installed in your plane but you may not make a
>>> new installation of a C91 ELT. In 1985 the spec was revised to TSO
>>> C91a which requires a much better G switch. You can still buy and
>>> install these. The new 406 MHz ELTs meet TSO
>>> C126 as well as C91a, and besides transmitting to the satellites for a
>>> near instant fix on where you are, have a still better G switch. Most
>>> have the ability for the user to test them easily.
>>>
>>> If you don't care whether people find your wreck, a used C91a unit is
>>> probably fine. If I were buying a new one, under $600 for a 406 MHz
>>> unit is cheap enough, I think.
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Stuart Hutchison <stuart(at)stuarthutchison.com.au> |
| Subject: | Re: ELT: 406 vs 121.5 |
Principally, I suspect, because the SAR effort often puts numerous searchers' lives
and platforms at significant risk in adverse weather and/or high terrain,
and is astronomically expensive to conduct (which your taxes pay for).
As you say, you may already be dead, but the searchers don't know that until you
are found, which may otherwise take days or even weeks. Do you want to put your
family through that grief? It's like looking for a needle in a haystack where
finding the haystack is a welcome start.
I have a Kannad 406 hardwired and an MT406G handheld. If I ditch, I would certainly
want a 406mHz PLB attached to me. Having spent 18hrs overnight in a liferaft
5nm to sea, I can say with confidence that you would too! If a PLB is all
you have, then be sure to write it into your emergency procedures to activate
the PLB before you reach the ground/water.
Kind regards, Stu
Sent from my iPhone
> On 16 Aug 2014, at 20:34, David & Elaine Lamphere wrote:
>
>
> I think that the GPS personal locator beacons are a more cost effective idea.
> They are small, easy to register and easy to use. If you survive the crash then
you turn it on.
> If not, it doesn't matter.
>
> Why do the feds want us to go the expensive route?
>
> Dave
>
>
>> On Aug 16, 2014, at 5:00 AM, Stuart Hutchison wrote:
>>
>>
>> Worldwide satellite monitoring of 121.5/243.0MHz was disabled in Feb 2009.
>> The frequency stability spec for 406MHz is much tighter, facilitating more
>> accurate Doppler analysis for LEO (moving) satellites, but if you have GPS
>> fix from your ELT, then GPS position is appended to the digital signal and
>> your location is known to GEO (fixed overhead) satellites in near-real-time.
>> The HEXID also positively identifies you against the registry database, so
>> the 95% of false alarms generated by 121.5MHz systems can be resolved and/or
>> the search area narrowed down very promptly. It may be legal to install an
>> analogue, indistinguishable 121.5MHz ELT, but it may take up to 9 hours for
>> the RCC to determine your position via multiple LEO passes. $600 over seven
>> years (until battery replacement time) seems like cheap insurance to be
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Z-19 Symbol Question |
At 06:42 PM 8/15/2014, you wrote:
>
>
>What is the small square that is in the line between the "main
>battery contactor" and the "engine battery contactor" on the Z-19 Diagram?
See notes on face of drawing . . .
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: ELT: 406 vs 121.5 |
| From: | Carlos Trigo <trigo(at)mail.telepac.pt> |
Dave
Don't forget that you can survive the crash but not in condition to turn anything
on!
In that case you will need the Feds to find your ELT.
Carlos
Enviado do meu iPhone
No dia 16/08/2014, s 11:34, David & Elaine Lamphere escreveu:
>
> I think that the GPS personal locator beacons are a more cost effective idea.
> They are small, easy to register and easy to use. If you survive the crash then
you turn it on.
> If not, it doesn't matter.
>
> Why do the feds want us to go the expensive route?
>
> Dave
>
>
> On Aug 16, 2014, at 5:00 AM, Stuart Hutchison wrote:
>
>>
>> Worldwide satellite monitoring of 121.5/243.0MHz was disabled in Feb 2009.
>> The frequency stability spec for 406MHz is much tighter, facilitating more
>> accurate Doppler analysis for LEO (moving) satellites, but if you have GPS
>> fix from your ELT, then GPS position is appended to the digital signal and
>> your location is known to GEO (fixed overhead) satellites in near-real-time.
>> The HEXID also positively identifies you against the registry database, so
>> the 95% of false alarms generated by 121.5MHz systems can be resolved and/or
>> the search area narrowed down very promptly. It may be legal to install an
>> analogue, indistinguishable 121.5MHz ELT, but it may take up to 9 hours for
>> the RCC to determine your position via multiple LEO passes. $600 over seven
>> years (until battery replacement time) seems like cheap insurance to be
>> confident of a chance the USAF/CAP could rescue me before I/we bled to death
>> or succumbed to exposure. As they say in the SAR world, the first 24hrs is
>> often the only 24hrs to find survivors. It's especially unfortunate when
>> people survive a crash, only to die in the days that followed before they
>> were found.
>>
>> Cheers, Stu
>>
>> F1 Rocket VH-FLY www.mykitlog.com/rockfly
>>
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
>> [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Tim
>> Andres
>> Sent: 16 August 2014 09:24
>> To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
>> Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: ELT: 406 vs 121.5
>>
>> -->
>>
>> Evidently 406 even without GPS is pretty good, local A&P got a call from a
>> customer. He had been called by the Feds to notify him his ELT was
>> triggered. They were able to tell him where it was parked on the ramp, GPS
>> not connected yet.
>> Tim
>>
>>> On Aug 15, 2014, at 12:55 PM, "B Tomm" wrote:
>>>
>>> -->
>>>
>>> 121.5 is no longer monitored via "satelites". Cross country pilots
>>> should still listen on 121.5 if able, and report. Airborne searches
>>> and ground crews can still home in on the 121.5. But if you want to be
>> "saved", and
>>> not just "recovered eventually", you must have 406 with GPS connected.
>> If
>>> "recovery" is good enough for you but your plane has a passenger seat,
>>> your choice affects them too.
>>>
>>> Bevan
>>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
>>> [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of D L
>>> Josephson
>>> Sent: Friday, August 15, 2014 2:09 AM
>>> To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
>>> Subject: AeroElectric-List: Re: ELT: 406 vs 121.5
>>>
>>> -->
>>>
>>> First, keep in mind that 406 MHz ELTs are *also* 121.5 MHz ELTs, so
>>> existing monitoring on 121.5 is not going to go away any time soon.
>>> FCC announced around five years ago that they were planning to ban
>>> manufacture and use of
>>> 121.5/243 ELTs, but gave up when AOPA and FAA asked them not to do
>>> that. FCC will not approve any new 121.5/243 MHz ELT transmitter
>>> designs but existing models can still be made, sold and installed.
>>>
>>> There are three TSOs that apply to ELTs. The early ones like the
>>> original Narco ELT-10 meet TSO C91 and have a mechanical G switch that
>>> was never too reliable, and went off by itself some times. You can
>>> continue to use one if installed in your plane but you may not make a
>>> new installation of a C91 ELT. In 1985 the spec was revised to TSO
>>> C91a which requires a much better G switch. You can still buy and
>>> install these. The new 406 MHz ELTs meet TSO
>>> C126 as well as C91a, and besides transmitting to the satellites for a
>>> near instant fix on where you are, have a still better G switch. Most
>>> have the ability for the user to test them easily.
>>>
>>> If you don't care whether people find your wreck, a used C91a unit is
>>> probably fine. If I were buying a new one, under $600 for a 406 MHz
>>> unit is cheap enough, I think.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "B Tomm" <fvalarm(at)rapidnet.net> |
| Subject: | Re: ELT: 406 vs 121.5 |
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of David &
Elaine Lamphere
Sent: Saturday, August 16, 2014 3:35 AM
Why do the feds want us to go the expensive route?
Dave
Because searches cost a lot of money. So much so that I would suggest that
the feds should buy 406s for all of us. It may save them some money. :)
Bevan
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Ken Ryan <keninalaska(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: ELT: 406 vs 121.5 |
Also, people are killed conducting searches. If you want to be found, and
it you want to minimize risk to search and rescue personnel, get a 406.
On Sat, Aug 16, 2014 at 8:58 AM, B Tomm wrote:
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of David &
> Elaine Lamphere
> Sent: Saturday, August 16, 2014 3:35 AM
>
>
> Why do the feds want us to go the expensive route?
>
> Dave
>
>
> Because searches cost a lot of money. So much so that I would suggest that
> the feds should buy 406s for all of us. It may save them some money. :)
>
> Bevan
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Justin Jones <jmjones2000(at)mindspring.com> |
I am using Z-19 to wire my electrically dependent IO-360. I am using Robert Paisley's
EFII system. This system has 2 ECUs and 2 IGN coils. The system requires
that both ECUs and both IGN coils are powered all the time. It also has 2
fuel pumps. Does the Z-19 system use the Low Voltage Monitor Module to switch
on the Engine Battery Bus in the case of a low voltage condition? If I am reading
this correctly, I will need to modify the system to have continuous 12V
power. What is the best way to do this? I think that I will also need to use
another 4-diode bridge rectifier for use with the Coils and extra ECU.
Thanks in advance for the help and tips with the system.
Justin
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Justin Jones <jmjones2000(at)mindspring.com> |
| Subject: | RG / AGM Batteries |
Has anyone considered using or used any of the AGM automotive batteries? They
seem to be a bit larger, but are they the safe to use in aircraft? Duracell,
Everstart, Rayovac, and other brands are inexpensive and readily available. Thoughts
on these RG batteries?
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: RG / AGM Batteries |
| From: | Tim Rhodenbaugh <timrhod(at)aol.com> |
I have used odyssey batteries in my velocity up to 25,000 ft for many years
Sent from my iPad
On Aug 16, 2014, at 9:25 PM, Justin Jones wrote:
>
> Has anyone considered using or used any of the AGM automotive batteries? They
seem to be a bit larger, but are they the safe to use in aircraft? Duracell,
Everstart, Rayovac, and other brands are inexpensive and readily available.
Thoughts on these RG batteries?
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Charlie England <ceengland7(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: RG / AGM Batteries |
On 8/16/2014 8:25 PM, Justin Jones wrote:
>
> Has anyone considered using or used any of the AGM automotive batteries? They
seem to be a bit larger, but are they the safe to use in aircraft? Duracell,
Everstart, Rayovac, and other brands are inexpensive and readily available.
Thoughts on these RG batteries?
>
>
I'd bet that the percentage of homebuilts built in the last decade use
RG batteries is approaching 100. This:
https://www.google.com/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=odyssey+pc680
is the 'gold standard', but a lot of us use much less expensive ones like:
http://www.apexbattery.com/golden-top-battery-cb2012sla-battery-sealed-lead-acid-batteries-golden-top-battery.html
The ones like the Apex I linked, that are made for UPS's & electric
wheel chairs, don't work quite as well as starting batteries as the
Odyssey, but by going to the 20AH, it has worked great for me for
several years.
There are many other choices; just google RG or AGM battery.
Hope that helps,
Charlie
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Jeff Luckey <jluckey(at)pacbell.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Z-19 Function |
Justin,=0A=0AYou may want to consider this design for automatic "fail-over"
/ redundant power for an electrically-dependent engine.=0A=0A-Jeff=0A=0A=0A
=0AOn Saturday, August 16, 2014 1:22 PM, Justin Jones =0A=0AI am using Z-19 to wire my electric
ally dependent IO-360.- I am using Robert Paisley's EFII system.- This
system has 2 ECUs and 2 IGN coils. The system requires that both ECUs and b
oth IGN coils are powered all the time.- It also has 2 fuel pumps.- Doe
s the Z-19 system use the Low Voltage Monitor Module to switch on the Engin
e Battery Bus in the case of a low voltage condition?- If I am reading th
is correctly, I will need to modify the system to have continuous 12V power
.- What is the best way to do this?- I think that I will also need to u
se another 4-diode bridge rectifier for use with the Coils and extra ECU.
=0A=0A=0AThanks in advance for the help and tips with the system.=0A=0AJust
====================
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Jeff Luckey <jluckey(at)pacbell.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Z-19 Function |
I was unable to view the attachment on the prior posting - perhaps the PDF
got corrupted in the upload.- =0A=0A=0ASo, I am re-posting this message w
/ a new attachment.=0A=0AHope it works this time,=0A=0A-Jeff=0A=0A=0A=0AOn
Saturday, August 16, 2014 10:34 PM, Jeff Luckey wrote
:=0A =0A=0A=0AJustin,=0A=0AYou may want to consider this design for automat
ic "fail-over"/ redundant power for an electrically-dependent engine.=0A=0A
-Jeff=0A=0A=0AOn Saturday, August 16, 2014 1:22 PM, Justin Jones wrote:=0A =0A=0A=0A--> AeroElectric-List message posted
by: Justin Jones =0A=0AI am using Z-19 to wire
my electrically dependent IO-360.- I am=0A using Robert Paisley's EFII sy
stem.- This system has 2 ECUs and 2 IGN coils. The system requires that b
oth ECUs and both IGN coils are powered all the time.- It also has 2 fuel
pumps.- Does the Z-19 system use the Low Voltage Monitor Module to switc
h on the Engine Battery Bus in the case of a low voltage condition?- If I
am reading this correctly, I will need to modify the system to have contin
uous 12V power.- What is the best way to do this?- I think that I will
also need to use another 4-diode bridge rectifier for use with the Coils an
d extra ECU.=0A=0A=0AThanks in advance for the help and tips with the syste
m.=0A=0AJustin=0Ahttp://www.matronics.com/Navigato=- - - - -
- - - MATRONICS WEB FORUMS=- - - - - - - - - - &
n--> http://ww====================
==
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: RG / AGM Batteries |
| From: | Justin Jones <jmjones2000(at)mindspring.com> |
Thanks for the info!
On Aug 16, 2014, at 20:04, Charlie England wrote:
>
> On 8/16/2014 8:25 PM, Justin Jones wrote:
>>
>> Has anyone considered using or used any of the AGM automotive batteries? They
seem to be a bit larger, but are they the safe to use in aircraft? Duracell,
Everstart, Rayovac, and other brands are inexpensive and readily available.
Thoughts on these RG batteries?
> I'd bet that the percentage of homebuilts built in the last decade use RG batteries
is approaching 100. This:
> https://www.google.com/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=odyssey+pc680
> is the 'gold standard', but a lot of us use much less expensive ones like:
> http://www.apexbattery.com/golden-top-battery-cb2012sla-battery-sealed-lead-acid-batteries-golden-top-battery.html
>
> The ones like the Apex I linked, that are made for UPS's & electric wheel chairs,
don't work quite as well as starting batteries as the Odyssey, but by going
to the 20AH, it has worked great for me for several years.
>
> There are many other choices; just google RG or AGM battery.
>
> Hope that helps,
>
> Charlie
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: RG / AGM Batteries |
At 08:25 PM 8/16/2014, you wrote:
Has anyone considered using or used any of the AGM automotive
batteries? They seem to be a bit larger, but are they the safe to
use in aircraft? Duracell, Everstart, Rayovac, and other brands are
inexpensive and readily available. Thoughts on these RG batteries?
The term 'aircraft battery' has never been
very relevant except to denote a product
with features that are friendly to aviation.
Like spill resistant vent-caps and
closed manifolds with drain tubes. But to call
this uniquely 'aircraft' implies no other
application (like atv's, wave runners, snow-
mobiles, motorcycles, etc, would not benefit
from the same features.
The valve regulated sealed lead-acid battery
not only eliminates the need for 'spill proofing'
and/or plumbing that conducts spills overboard,
it also offers superior performance over its
flooded or gelled cousins.
The only risks associated with selection of
any VRSLA product are grounded in cranking
performance (ability to deliver substantial
short term loads in to fat wires), capacity
(keeping necessary fires lit for predictable
endurance), quality of the chemistry (how
many charge-discharge cycles before it degrades
to 80% of capacity) and behaviors under severe
stress (overcharge, high-current discharge, etc).
This is generally true of any sealed technology
including but not limited to lead-acid, Ni-Mh,
lithium, etc. etc.
Be an informed shopper armed with the notion that
the term 'aircraft' on the label may well be
nothing more useful than an justification for
a higher asking price . . . assuming of course
that you're not required to have a label that
speaks to TSO.
There is no database that speaks to the $value$
of any particular product over another when
compared under the same operating conditions.
If it's a low-cost battery, then it's a low-cost
experiment. If you watch over the experiment with
some notions of meeting your established
performance goals, then risks to system reliability
are quite low as well.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Z-19 Function |
The system requires that both ECUs and both IGN coils are powered all
the time . . .
Okay, suppose one of these four items doesn't get power
while the other three do . . . what happens?
Suppose half of the system ECU and IGN get a momentary
power interruption, what happens?
Suppose there's complete interruption of power to all
engine support which is 'fixed' in a few seconds,
what happens?
The legacy design philosophy we've applied to all
systems intended for use in unforgiving environments
is the failure mode effects analysis. FMEA looks at
every component of the system and asks:
How can this part fail?
If it does fail, how will I become aware of it?
If not immediately noticed or annunciated by
warning system, is it pre-flight detectable?
If it does fail, how is probable outcome of
the flight affected?
If it is necessary for comfortable continuation
of flight, what are my alternatives?
Here's my personal notions that go to the topic
of system reliability
Nuckolls' first law of airplane systems design sez: "Things break"
The second: "Systems shall be designed so that when things break, no
immediate hazard is created."
The third: "Failure tolerant design dictates that items needed for
comfortable termination of flight are backed up with Plan-B alternatives."
The forth: "Upgrading the quality, reliability, longevity, or
capability of a part shall be because you're tired of replacing it
or want some new operating feature, not because it damned near
got you killed."
Before you march off to craft a never fails power
source(s) . . . it seems prudent to ASSUME there
WILL be failures . . . and craft a system that is
comfortably tolerant of such failures.
Your query to the List cited an imperative for everything
that supports engine operations to be powered at all
times . . . if this is strictly true, then are you
sure that you want to install it on your airplane?
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Z-19 Function |
At 03:02 PM 8/17/2014, you wrote:
>The system requires that both ECUs and both IGN coils are powered
>all the time . . .
Is there a down-loadable installation manual
on this system?
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: RG / AGM Batteries |
| From: | Dj Merrill <deej(at)deej.net> |
On 8/17/2014 3:42 PM, Robert L. Nuckolls, III wrote:
> If it's a low-cost battery, then it's a low-cost
> experiment. If you watch over the experiment with
> some notions of meeting your established
> performance goals, then risks to system reliability
> are quite low as well.
Listers may recall that I tried one of the UB12220 batteries about a
month ago:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B001G8FY38/ref=oh_aui_detailpage_o07_s00?ie=UTF8&psc=1
I received the battery, put it on the Schumacher charger to ensure it
was fully charged (verified with a voltmeter when done), and installed
in the aircraft (O-320). Cranked over well on the first try and seemed
to turn the engine just as well as the "aircraft" battery that I had
removed.
However, two days later I took the airplane out again, and the blade
turned about 1/3 of the way through a revolution and stopped. Battery
was dead. I have no parasitic loads in my aircraft, so when the master
is off, there is nothing else connected to the battery, and I did not
accidentally leave the master switch on. Pulled the battery, put it on
the charger and let it fully charge (verified with a voltmeter). Left
it on the bench unconnected for a couple of days, and the voltage had
dropped to 10.86 volts.
I am assuming that the battery arrived defective, and I've double
checked the voltage output on the charger I used. This is only one data
point, but I will likely go with the PC680 when I get around to ordering
another battery.
On the positive side the company gave me a full refund on the battery,
so the overall "cost" was my time in trying the experiment.
-Dj
--
Dj Merrill - N1JOV - VP EAA Chapter 87
Sportsman 2+2 Builder #7118 N421DJ - http://deej.net/sportsman/
Glastar Flyer N866RH - http://deej.net/glastar/
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Justin Jones <jmjones2000(at)mindspring.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Z-19 Function |
Here is the link to the downloadable instruction manual.
http://flyefii.com/customer_projects/EFII_Ignition_Instruction_sheet_rev9-
13.pdf
There is a Dual ECU addendum at the end of the instructions that deal
with the installation of the dual ECUs. Through numerous emails that I
have exchanged with Robert, I have learned that there the entire system
(both ECUs and IGN coils) draws 2.4 amps. I have also learned that a
single 10A breaker feeds both coils. I would think the 4-diode
rectifier with power from the engine battery bus and the main battery
bus would solve the single-point of failure issue with a single power
source. The system requires 5 breakers. 2- 5A breakers for the ECUs, 1-
10A breaker for the IGN Coils, and 2- 10A breakers for the fuel pumps
(one each).
The reason for installing the electrically dependent system is for the
performance gains and the flexibility of using MOGAS. The system draws
very little current, and WHEN the alternator fails (and it will at some
point), the pilot will be notified (low voltage and low amperage
warnings). At this point the pilot must shed the loads to protect the
remaining battery power. The EFII system will run as low as 6 volts. I
feel that with a dual battery system and a way to isolate the batteries
from each other during flight, a higher level of safety is achieved.
The pilot would simply isolate the batteries and shut off all items that
are drawing a load from that battery bus. When and if the primary
battery=92s voltage gets too low, the pilot simply switches to the other
battery and lands as soon as POSSIBLE.
The challenge is to engineer a reliable and redundant 12V system that
will allow for safe and reliable operation regardless of individual
component, complete bus, or even power source failure.
Any thoughts and tips are much appreciated. I have some experience in
12VDC systems but am by no means an engineer.
Thanks again for the help!
Justin
On Aug 17, 2014, at 12:02 PM, Robert L. Nuckolls, III
wrote:
> The system requires that both ECUs and both IGN coils are powered all
the time . . .
>
> Okay, suppose one of these four items doesn't get power
> while the other three do . . . what happens?
>
> Suppose half of the system ECU and IGN get a momentary
> power interruption, what happens?
>
> Suppose there's complete interruption of power to all
> engine support which is 'fixed' in a few seconds,
> what happens?
>
> The legacy design philosophy we've applied to all
> systems intended for use in unforgiving environments
> is the failure mode effects analysis. FMEA looks at
> every component of the system and asks:
>
> How can this part fail?
> If it does fail, how will I become aware of it?
> If not immediately noticed or annunciated by
> warning system, is it pre-flight detectable?
> If it does fail, how is probable outcome of
> the flight affected?
> If it is necessary for comfortable continuation
> of flight, what are my alternatives?
>
> Here's my personal notions that go to the topic
> of system reliability
>
> Nuckolls' first law of airplane systems design sez: "Things break"
>
> The second: "Systems shall be designed so that when things break, no
immediate hazard is created."
>
> The third: "Failure tolerant design dictates that items needed for
> comfortable termination of flight are backed up with Plan-B
alternatives."
>
> The forth: "Upgrading the quality, reliability, longevity, or
> capability of a part shall be because you're tired of replacing it
> or want some new operating feature, not because it damned near
> got you killed."
>
> Before you march off to craft a never fails power
> source(s) . . . it seems prudent to ASSUME there
> WILL be failures . . . and craft a system that is
> comfortably tolerant of such failures.
>
> Your query to the List cited an imperative for everything
> that supports engine operations to be powered at all
> times . . . if this is strictly true, then are you
> sure that you want to install it on your airplane?
>
>
>
> Bob . . .
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Jeff Luckey <jluckey(at)pacbell.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Z-19 Function |
Justin,=0A=0A...=C2- I have also learned that a single 10A breaker feeds
=0Aboth coils. =C2-I would think the 4-diode rectifier with power from th
e =0Aengine battery bus and the main battery bus would solve the single-poi
nt of failure issue with a single power source...=0A=0AWithout looking a sc
hematic it is difficult to get a clear picture of what you are describing b
ut a single breaker for both coils?=C2- Is that not the definition of a s
ingle point of failure?=0A=0A=0A=0A...=C2- I feel that with a dual batter
y system and a way to isolate the batteries from each other during flight,
a higher level of safety is achieved. =0A=0AAgree.=0A=0A=0A...=C2-=0AThe
pilot would simply isolate the batteries and shut off all items =0Athat are
drawing a load from that battery bus.=C2- ....=0A=0AThe drawing that I p
osted yesterday does the isolation you are talking about but it does so aut
omatically without any interruption of current flow and requires no pilot i
nteraction.=0A=0A=0A=0AThe challenge is to engineer a reliable and redundan
t 12V system that will =0Aallow for safe and reliable operation regardless
of individual =0Acomponent, complete bus, or even power source failure.=0A
=0AThis wheel has been invented many times over.=C2- Between Bob N's Z dr
awing(s) and the one I posted, you should be able accomplish your goals.=0A
=0A=0A-Jeff=0A=0A=0A=0AOn Sunday, August 17, 2014 8:37 PM, Justin Jones wrote:=0A =0A=0A=0AHere is the link to the downlo
adable instruction manual.=C2-http://flyefii.com/customer_projects/EFII_I
gnition_Instruction_sheet_rev9-13.pdf=0A=0AThere is a Dual ECU addendum at
the end of the instructions that deal with the installation of the dual ECU
s. =C2-Through numerous emails that I have exchanged with Robert, I have
learned that there the entire system (both ECUs and IGN coils) draws 2.4 am
ps. =C2-I have also learned that a single 10A breaker feeds both coils.
=C2-I would think the 4-diode rectifier with power from the engine batter
y bus and the main battery bus would solve the single-point of failure issu
e with a single power source. The system requires 5 breakers. =C2-2- 5A b
reakers for the ECUs, 1- 10A breaker for the IGN Coils, and 2- 10A breakers
for the fuel pumps (one each).=C2-=0A=0AThe reason for installing the el
ectrically dependent system is for the performance gains and the flexibilit
y of using MOGAS. =C2-The system draws very little current, and WHEN the
alternator fails (and it will at some point), the pilot will be notified (l
ow voltage and low amperage warnings). =C2-At this point the pilot must s
hed the loads to protect the remaining battery power. =C2-The EFII system
will run as low as 6 volts. =C2-I feel that with a dual battery system a
nd a way to isolate the batteries from each other during flight, a higher l
evel of safety is achieved. =C2-The pilot would simply isolate the batter
ies and shut off all items that are drawing a load from that battery bus.
=C2-When and if the primary battery=99s voltage gets too low, the p
ilot simply switches to the other battery and lands as soon as POSSIBLE.=0A
=0AThe challenge is to engineer a reliable and redundant 12V system that wi
ll allow for safe and reliable operation regardless of individual component
, complete bus, or even power source failure.=0A=0AAny thoughts and tips ar
e much appreciated. I have some experience in 12VDC systems but am by no me
ans an engineer.=0A=0AThanks again for the help!=0A=0AJustin=0A=0A=0A=0AOn
Aug 17, 2014, at 12:02 PM, Robert L. Nuckolls, III <nuckolls.bob@aeroelectr
ic.com> wrote:=0A=0AThe system requires that both ECUs and both IGN coils a
re powered all the=0Atime . . .=0A>=0A>=C2- Okay, suppose one of these fo
ur items doesn't get power=0A>=C2- while the other three do . . . what ha
ppens?=0A>=0A>=C2- Suppose half of the system ECU and IGN get a momentary
=0A>=C2- power interruption, what happens?=0A>=0A>=C2- Suppose there's
complete interruption of power to all=0A>=C2- engine support which is 'fi
xed' in a few seconds,=0A>=C2- what happens?=0A>=0A>=C2- The legacy des
ign philosophy we've applied to all=0A>=C2- systems intended for use in u
nforgiving environments=0A>=C2- is the failure mode effects analysis. FME
A looks at=0A>=C2- every component of the system and asks:=0A>=0A>=0A>How
can this part fail?=0A>=0A>If it does fail, how will I become aware of it?
=0A>=0A>If not immediately noticed or annunciated by =0A>warning system, is
it pre-flight detectable?=0A>=0A>If it does fail, how is probable outcome
of =0A>the flight affected?=0A>=0A>If it is necessary for comfortable conti
nuation =0A>of flight, what are my alternatives?=0A>=0A> =C2- Here's my p
ersonal notions that go to the topic=0A>=C2- of system reliability=0A>=0A
>=0A>Nuckolls' first law of airplane systems design sez: "Things break" =0A
>=C2- =0A>The second: "Systems shall be designed so that when=0Athings br
eak, no immediate hazard is created." =0A>=C2- =0A>The third: "Failure to
lerant design dictates that items=0Aneeded for =0A>comfortable termination
of flight are backed up with Plan-B=0Aalternatives." =0A>=C2- =0A>The for
th: "Upgrading the quality, reliability,=0Alongevity, or =0A>capability of
a part shall be because you're tired of replacing it =0A>or want some new o
perating feature, not because it damned near =0A>got you killed."=0A>=0A>
=C2- Before you march off to craft a never fails power=0A>=C2- source(s
) . . . it seems prudent to ASSUME there=0A>=C2- WILL be failures . . . a
nd craft a system that is=0A>=C2- comfortably tolerant of such failures.
=0A>=0A>=C2- Your query to the List cited an imperative for everything=0A
>=C2- that supports engine operations to be powered at all=0A>=C2- time
s . . . if this is strictly true, then are you=0A>=C2- sure that you want
to install it on your airplane?=0A>=0A>=0A>=0A>=0A>=C2- Bob . . . =0A>hr
ef="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List">http://www.matr
onics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List=0Ahref="http://forums.matronics.com
/">http://forums.matronics.com=0Ahref="http://www.matronics.com/contribut
=======
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Z-19 Function |
At 10:25 PM 8/17/2014, you wrote:
>Here is the link to the downloadable instruction manual.
><http://flyefii.com/customer_projects/EFII_Ignition_Instruction_sheet_rev9-13.pdf>http://flyefii.com/customer_projects/EFII_Ignition_Instruction_sheet_rev9-13.pdf
This seems to cover ignition . . . is there another
manual for the fuel injection?
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Justin Jones <jmjones2000(at)mindspring.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Z-19 Function |
Also see the following manual.
http://flyefii.com/customer_projects/EFII_Installation_Manual_rev9-13.pdf
On Aug 17, 2014, at 12:07 PM, Robert L. Nuckolls, III
wrote:
>
> At 03:02 PM 8/17/2014, you wrote:
>> The system requires that both ECUs and both IGN coils are powered all
the time . . .
>
> Is there a down-loadable installation manual
> on this system?
>
>
>
> Bob . . .
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Z-19 Function |
| From: | Ryan Brown <ribrdb(at)gmail.com> |
http://www.flyefii.com/customer_projects/EFII_Installation_Manual_rev9-13.pdf
On Aug 17, 2014 10:48 PM, "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <
nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> wrote:
> At 10:25 PM 8/17/2014, you wrote:
>
> Here is the link to the downloadable instruction manual.
> http://flyefii.com/customer_projects/EFII_Ignition_Instruction_sheet_rev9-13.pdf
>
>
> This seems to cover ignition . . . is there another
> manual for the fuel injection?
>
>
> Bob . . .
>
> *
>
>
> *
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Justin Jones <jmjones2000(at)mindspring.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Z-19 Function |
sorry=85 try this one
http://flyefii.com/customer_projects/EFII_Installation_Manual_rev9-13.pdf
On Aug 17, 2014, at 9:40 PM, Robert L. Nuckolls, III
wrote:
> At 10:25 PM 8/17/2014, you wrote:
>> Here is the link to the downloadable instruction manual.
http://flyefii.com/customer_projects/EFII_Ignition_Instruction_sheet_rev9-
13.pdf
>
> This seems to cover ignition . . . is there another
> manual for the fuel injection?
>
>
>
>
> Bob . . .
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Z-19 Function |
| From: | Justin Jones <jmjones2000(at)mindspring.com> |
Thanks fit the input Jeff. I appreciate it. I like the way redundancy in the
system you drew.
You are correct that a single 10A breaker for both coils is a single point o
f failure and I don't like it. If a 4-diode rectifier were used with an inpu
t from both battery buses, it would solve the issue. Then a single breaker w
ould be powering it them from 2 different power sources.
On Aug 17, 2014, at 20:06, Jeff Luckey wrote:
> Justin,
>
> ... I have also learned that a single 10A breaker feeds both coils. I wo
uld think the 4-diode rectifier with power from the engine battery bus and t
he main battery bus would solve the single-point of failure issue with a sin
gle power source...
>
> Without looking a schematic it is difficult to get a clear picture of what
you are describing but a single breaker for both coils? Is that not the de
finition of a single point of failure?
>
>
> ... I feel that with a dual battery system and a way to isolate the batte
ries from each other during flight, a higher level of safety is achieved.
>
> Agree.
>
>
> ... The pilot would simply isolate the batteries and shut off all items t
hat are drawing a load from that battery bus. ....
>
> The drawing that I posted yesterday does the isolation you are talking abo
ut but it does so automatically without any interruption of current flow and
requires no pilot interaction.
>
>
> The challenge is to engineer a reliable and redundant 12V system that will
allow for safe and reliable operation regardless of individual component, c
omplete bus, or even power source failure.
>
> This wheel has been invented many times over. Between Bob N's Z drawing(s
) and the one I posted, you should be able accomplish your goals.
>
>
> -Jeff
>
>
> On Sunday, August 17, 2014 8:37 PM, Justin Jones wrote:
>
>
> Here is the link to the downloadable instruction manual. http://flyefii.co
m/customer_projects/EFII_Ignition_Instruction_sheet_rev9-13.pdf
>
> There is a Dual ECU addendum at the end of the instructions that deal with
the installation of the dual ECUs. Through numerous emails that I have exc
hanged with Robert, I have learned that there the entire system (both ECUs a
nd IGN coils) draws 2.4 amps. I have also learned that a single 10A breaker
feeds both coils. I would think the 4-diode rectifier with power from the e
ngine battery bus and the main battery bus would solve the single-point of f
ailure issue with a single power source. The system requires 5 breakers. 2-
5A breakers for the ECUs, 1- 10A breaker for the IGN Coils, and 2- 10A brea
kers for the fuel pumps (one each).
>
> The reason for installing the electrically dependent system is for the per
formance gains and the flexibility of using MOGAS. The system draws very li
ttle current, and WHEN the alternator fails (and it will at some point), the
pilot will be notified (low voltage and low amperage warnings). At this po
int the pilot must shed the loads to protect the remaining battery power. T
he EFII system will run as low as 6 volts. I feel that with a dual battery s
ystem and a way to isolate the batteries from each other during flight, a hi
gher level of safety is achieved. The pilot would simply isolate the batter
ies and shut off all items that are drawing a load from that battery bus. W
hen and if the primary battery=99s voltage gets too low, the pilot sim
ply switches to the other battery and lands as soon as POSSIBLE.
>
> The challenge is to engineer a reliable and redundant 12V system that will
allow for safe and reliable operation regardless of individual component, c
omplete bus, or even power source failure.
>
> Any thoughts and tips are much appreciated. I have some experience in 12VD
C systems but am by no means an engineer.
>
> Thanks again for the help!
>
> Justin
>
>
> On Aug 17, 2014, at 12:02 PM, Robert L. Nuckolls, III <nuckolls.bob@aeroel
ectric.com> wrote:
>
>> The system requires that both ECUs and both IGN coils are powered all the
time . . .
>>
>> Okay, suppose one of these four items doesn't get power
>> while the other three do . . . what happens?
>>
>> Suppose half of the system ECU and IGN get a momentary
>> power interruption, what happens?
>>
>> Suppose there's complete interruption of power to all
>> engine support which is 'fixed' in a few seconds,
>> what happens?
>>
>> The legacy design philosophy we've applied to all
>> systems intended for use in unforgiving environments
>> is the failure mode effects analysis. FMEA looks at
>> every component of the system and asks:
>>
>> How can this part fail?
>> If it does fail, how will I become aware of it?
>> If not immediately noticed or annunciated by
>> warning system, is it pre-flight detectable?
>> If it does fail, how is probable outcome of
>> the flight affected?
>> If it is necessary for comfortable continuation
>> of flight, what are my alternatives?
>>
>> Here's my personal notions that go to the topic
>> of system reliability
>>
>> Nuckolls' first law of airplane systems design sez: "Things break"
>>
>> The second: "Systems shall be designed so that when things break, no imme
diate hazard is created."
>>
>> The third: "Failure tolerant design dictates that items needed for
>> comfortable termination of flight are backed up with Plan-B alternatives.
"
>>
>> The forth: "Upgrading the quality, reliability, longevity, or
>> capability of a part shall be because you're tired of replacing it
>> or want some new operating feature, not because it damned near
>> got you killed."
>>
>> Before you march off to craft a never fails power
>> source(s) . . . it seems prudent to ASSUME there
>> WILL be failures . . . and craft a system that is
>> comfortably tolerant of such failures.
>>
>> Your query to the List cited an imperative for everything
>> that supports engine operations to be powered at all
>> times . . . if this is strictly true, then are you
>> sure that you want to install it on your airplane?
>>
>>
>>
>> Bob . . .
>>
>>
>> href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List">http://www.
matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List
>> href="http://forums.matronics.com/">http://forums.matronics.com
>> href="http://www.matronics.com/contribution">http://www.matronics.com/c
ontribution
>>
>
> -->
>
>
==========================
=========
==========================
=========
==========================
=========
==========================
=========
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Justin Jones <jmjones2000(at)mindspring.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Z-19 Function |
I guess I should have said that 2 single breakers would be powering the
coils from 2 different power sources.
On Aug 18, 2014, at 2:19 AM, Justin Jones
wrote:
> Thanks fit the input Jeff. I appreciate it. I like the way redundancy
in the system you drew.
>
> You are correct that a single 10A breaker for both coils is a single
point of failure and I don't like it. If a 4-diode rectifier were used
with an input from both battery buses, it would solve the issue. Then a
single breaker would be powering it them from 2 different power sources.
>
>
>
> On Aug 17, 2014, at 20:06, Jeff Luckey wrote:
>
>> Justin,
>>
>> ... I have also learned that a single 10A breaker feeds both coils.
I would think the 4-diode rectifier with power from the engine battery
bus and the main battery bus would solve the single-point of failure
issue with a single power source...
>>
>> Without looking a schematic it is difficult to get a clear picture of
what you are describing but a single breaker for both coils? Is that
not the definition of a single point of failure?
>>
>>
>> ... I feel that with a dual battery system and a way to isolate the
batteries from each other during flight, a higher level of safety is
achieved.
>>
>> Agree.
>>
>>
>> ... The pilot would simply isolate the batteries and shut off all
items that are drawing a load from that battery bus. ....
>>
>> The drawing that I posted yesterday does the isolation you are
talking about but it does so automatically without any interruption of
current flow and requires no pilot interaction.
>>
>>
>> The challenge is to engineer a reliable and redundant 12V system that
will allow for safe and reliable operation regardless of individual
component, complete bus, or even power source failure.
>>
>> This wheel has been invented many times over. Between Bob N's Z
drawing(s) and the one I posted, you should be able accomplish your
goals.
>>
>>
>> -Jeff
>>
>>
>> On Sunday, August 17, 2014 8:37 PM, Justin Jones
wrote:
>>
>>
>> Here is the link to the downloadable instruction manual.
http://flyefii.com/customer_projects/EFII_Ignition_Instruction_sheet_rev9-
13.pdf
>>
>> There is a Dual ECU addendum at the end of the instructions that deal
with the installation of the dual ECUs. Through numerous emails that I
have exchanged with Robert, I have learned that there the entire system
(both ECUs and IGN coils) draws 2.4 amps. I have also learned that a
single 10A breaker feeds both coils. I would think the 4-diode
rectifier with power from the engine battery bus and the main battery
bus would solve the single-point of failure issue with a single power
source. The system requires 5 breakers. 2- 5A breakers for the ECUs, 1-
10A breaker for the IGN Coils, and 2- 10A breakers for the fuel pumps
(one each).
>>
>> The reason for installing the electrically dependent system is for
the performance gains and the flexibility of using MOGAS. The system
draws very little current, and WHEN the alternator fails (and it will at
some point), the pilot will be notified (low voltage and low amperage
warnings). At this point the pilot must shed the loads to protect the
remaining battery power. The EFII system will run as low as 6 volts. I
feel that with a dual battery system and a way to isolate the batteries
from each other during flight, a higher level of safety is achieved.
The pilot would simply isolate the batteries and shut off all items that
are drawing a load from that battery bus. When and if the primary
battery=92s voltage gets too low, the pilot simply switches to the other
battery and lands as soon as POSSIBLE.
>>
>> The challenge is to engineer a reliable and redundant 12V system that
will allow for safe and reliable operation regardless of individual
component, complete bus, or even power source failure.
>>
>> Any thoughts and tips are much appreciated. I have some experience in
12VDC systems but am by no means an engineer.
>>
>> Thanks again for the help!
>>
>> Justin
>>
>>
>> On Aug 17, 2014, at 12:02 PM, Robert L. Nuckolls, III
wrote:
>>
>>> The system requires that both ECUs and both IGN coils are powered
all the time . . .
>>>
>>> Okay, suppose one of these four items doesn't get power
>>> while the other three do . . . what happens?
>>>
>>> Suppose half of the system ECU and IGN get a momentary
>>> power interruption, what happens?
>>>
>>> Suppose there's complete interruption of power to all
>>> engine support which is 'fixed' in a few seconds,
>>> what happens?
>>>
>>> The legacy design philosophy we've applied to all
>>> systems intended for use in unforgiving environments
>>> is the failure mode effects analysis. FMEA looks at
>>> every component of the system and asks:
>>>
>>> How can this part fail?
>>> If it does fail, how will I become aware of it?
>>> If not immediately noticed or annunciated by
>>> warning system, is it pre-flight detectable?
>>> If it does fail, how is probable outcome of
>>> the flight affected?
>>> If it is necessary for comfortable continuation
>>> of flight, what are my alternatives?
>>>
>>> Here's my personal notions that go to the topic
>>> of system reliability
>>>
>>> Nuckolls' first law of airplane systems design sez: "Things break"
>>>
>>> The second: "Systems shall be designed so that when things break, no
immediate hazard is created."
>>>
>>> The third: "Failure tolerant design dictates that items needed for
>>> comfortable termination of flight are backed up with Plan-B
alternatives."
>>>
>>> The forth: "Upgrading the quality, reliability, longevity, or
>>> capability of a part shall be because you're tired of replacing it
>>> or want some new operating feature, not because it damned near
>>> got you killed."
>>>
>>> Before you march off to craft a never fails power
>>> source(s) . . . it seems prudent to ASSUME there
>>> WILL be failures . . . and craft a system that is
>>> comfortably tolerant of such failures.
>>>
>>> Your query to the List cited an imperative for everything
>>> that supports engine operations to be powered at all
>>> times . . . if this is strictly true, then are you
>>> sure that you want to install it on your airplane?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Bob . . .
>>>
>>>
>>>
href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List">http://www.m
atronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List
>>> href="http://forums.matronics.com/">http://forums.matronics.com
>>>
href="http://www.matronics.com/contribution">http://www.matronics.com/co
ntribution
>>>
>>
>> -->
>>
>>
>> ========================
>> courier
new,courier">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List
>> ========================
>> cs.com
>> ========================
>> matronics.com/contribution
>> ========================
>>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Z-19 Function |
At 12:53 AM 8/18/2014, you wrote:
><http://www.flyefii.com/customer_projects/EFII_Installation_Manual_rev9-13.pdf>http://www.flyefii.com/customer_projects/EFII_Installation_Manual_rev9-13.pdf
Hmmmm . . . These systems probably perform as advertised . . .
but the supplier has not served their customer well in
terms of system integration data. In particular, their treatment
of electrical systems architecture and failure modes is
sketchy to non-existent. The word 'fail' appears three
times . . . not in the context of a system integrator's
work instruction or pilot's operating manual . . . but of
a marketing brochure.
I went back into the series of Justin's postings . . . the first
one showed up in February of this year. It seems that by the
time he first came to the List, drawings were made, parts bought,
holes drilled and a lot of decisions already under the bridge
were being 'fine tuned'.
I am not pleased to note that this project is probably way
too complex for reasons not well defined. If the supplier
of this system has offered nothing more than the documents
cited, then he is . . . well. Suffice it to say that
if I walked into some airframe OEM attempting to sell this
hardware on no better data . . . I wouldn't get past the
purchasing agents.
Just because our airplanes are relatively unregulated and
'experimental' does not relieve any supplier of a duty
to reduce costs and risk. This is especially true when the product is
being offered to a non-professional marketplace.
I have often opined here on the List that every electrical
system . . . ESPECIALLY one with the potential for complexity
as this one . . . should start with the bus-by-bus load analysis.
This exercise starts the thinking processes that guide hardware
sizing and architecture decisions that go to the elegant (read
frugal) design.
I've been struggling with a task for a client to refine
requirements documents on a system that has already been
built. It DOES function as advertised . . . but its schematic
has the appearance of a bucket full of parts stirred
vigorously with a paint mixer until desired functionality was
achieved.
The problem I'm wrestling with is whether or not I want
to continue to pursue the task for the client. Once the
documentation is completed, do I want to sign the
author's signature line? Doing so would add my own
credential to an activity which (in my never humble
opinion) does not serve the end-user well for cost of
ownership and mitigation of risk.
Justin's project presents a similar conundrum. I'm recalling
a conversation with a builder about 20 years ago who said,
"I shielded all the wires and installed filters here, there,
and a few over there . . . what else do I need?"
I asked, "Gee, do you have a noise problem?"
"Oh no . . . I haven't flown the airplane yet."
Justin has not been well served by his suppliers
and is struggling with issues that should have
been put to bed before he made his decision to
purchase the system.
It's not clear to what advice we can offer that
would markedly refine a system that's already
built.
Justin,
One thing I gleaned from the data package:
With the exception of fuel injectors, the two systems
are entirely redundant. Should one of the systems
become unusable for any reason, including loss of
power, then the other system can be pressed into
service with no significant loss of engine performance.
The manufacturer's citation of breaker sizes tells
us NOTHING about this system's energy needs. You
would do well to approach them with questions
that go to ENERGY that moves through each breaker
and under what conditions.
I apologize for pushing this off on you . . . but
these guys need to understand the problems THEIR
customers are wrestling with. I could write and ask
for the same data . . . but I would not be surprised
if they don't really know the answers. This study
needs to start with a customer . . . and you're
the only one I know.
If inquiring minds seek to be helpful, then
it's something we need to know. If their answers
seem less than confident, suggest that they contact
me . . . or better yet, join the AeroElectric-List.
There is no better opportunity for teaching
responsible consumerism than to carry out our
conversations with the supplier in open forum.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Ken Ryan <keninalaska(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Z-19 Function |
Justin,
Have you considered using Robert's Bus Manager? It allows for two
batteries, isolated for charging. Either or both batteries can be used for
starting, and there is great redundancy for power to the essential bus.
Also, it will monitor fuel pressure and automatically switch to the
auxiliary pump if pressure is lost.
Ken
On Sun, Aug 17, 2014 at 7:25 PM, Justin Jones
wrote:
> Here is the link to the downloadable instruction manual.
> http://flyefii.com/customer_projects/EFII_Ignition_Instruction_sheet_rev9
-13.pdf
>
> There is a Dual ECU addendum at the end of the instructions that deal wit
h
> the installation of the dual ECUs. Through numerous emails that I have
> exchanged with Robert, I have learned that there the entire system (both
> ECUs and IGN coils) draws 2.4 amps. I have also learned that a single 10
A
> breaker feeds both coils. I would think the 4-diode rectifier with power
> from the engine battery bus and the main battery bus would solve the
> single-point of failure issue with a single power source. The system
> requires 5 breakers. 2- 5A breakers for the ECUs, 1- 10A breaker for the
> IGN Coils, and 2- 10A breakers for the fuel pumps (one each).
>
> The reason for installing the electrically dependent system is for the
> performance gains and the flexibility of using MOGAS. The system draws
> very little current, and WHEN the alternator fails (and it will at some
> point), the pilot will be notified (low voltage and low amperage warnings
).
> At this point the pilot must shed the loads to protect the remaining
> battery power. The EFII system will run as low as 6 volts. I feel that
> with a dual battery system and a way to isolate the batteries from each
> other during flight, a higher level of safety is achieved. The pilot wou
ld
> simply isolate the batteries and shut off all items that are drawing a lo
ad
> from that battery bus. When and if the primary battery=99s voltage
gets too
> low, the pilot simply switches to the other battery and lands as soon as
> POSSIBLE.
>
> The challenge is to engineer a reliable and redundant 12V system that wil
l
> allow for safe and reliable operation regardless of individual component,
> complete bus, or even power source failure.
>
> Any thoughts and tips are much appreciated. I have some experience in
> 12VDC systems but am by no means an engineer.
>
> Thanks again for the help!
>
> Justin
>
>
> On Aug 17, 2014, at 12:02 PM, Robert L. Nuckolls, III <
> nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> wrote:
>
> The system requires that both ECUs and both IGN coils are powered all th
e
> time . . .
>
> Okay, suppose one of these four items doesn't get power
> while the other three do . . . what happens?
>
> Suppose half of the system ECU and IGN get a momentary
> power interruption, what happens?
>
> Suppose there's complete interruption of power to all
> engine support which is 'fixed' in a few seconds,
> what happens?
>
> The legacy design philosophy we've applied to all
> systems intended for use in unforgiving environments
> is the failure mode effects analysis. FMEA looks at
> every component of the system and asks:
>
>
> *How can this part fail? *
> *If it does fail, how will I become aware of it? **If not immediately
> noticed or annunciated by *
> *warning system, is it pre-flight detectable? **If it does fail, how is
> probable outcome of *
> *the flight affected? **If it is necessary for comfortable continuation *
>
> *of flight, what are my alternatives?* Here's my personal notions that
> go to the topic
> of system reliability
>
> *Nuckolls' first law of airplane systems design sez:* "Things break" *
The
> second:* "Systems shall be designed so that when things break, no
> immediate hazard is created." *The third:* "Failure tolerant design
> dictates that items needed for comfortable termination of flight are
> backed up with Plan-B alternatives." *The forth:* "Upgrading the
> quality, reliability, longevity, or capability of a part shall be because
> you're tired of replacing it or want some new operating feature, not
> because it damned near got you killed."
>
> Before you march off to craft a never fails power
> source(s) . . . it seems prudent to ASSUME there
> WILL be failures . . . and craft a system that is
> comfortably tolerant of such failures.
>
> Your query to the List cited an imperative for everything
> that supports engine operations to be powered at all
> times . . . if this is strictly true, then are you
> sure that you want to install it on your airplane?
>
>
> Bob . . .
>
> *
>
> href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List ">http://www.matronics.com/Naviga
tor?AeroElectric-List <http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List
>
> href="http://forums.matronics.com/ ">http
://forums.matronics.com <http://forums.matronics.com>
> href="http://www.matronics.com/contribution ">http://www.matronics.com/contribution
>
> *
>
>
> *
>
===========
www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List>
===========
===========
om/contribution>
===========
>
> *
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Justin Jones <jmjones2000(at)mindspring.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Z-19 Function |
Bob,
I appreciate your help and opinion with this matter. I will approach
Robert about this and find out the specifics of the electrical demands
of his system. I have heard great things about his customer service and
the folks using his system in their running aircraft have nothing but
great things to say about it and him. He is a very knowledgable A&P and
has deep knowledge of his system.
Thank you again.
Justin
On Aug 18, 2014, at 5:59 AM, Robert L. Nuckolls, III
wrote:
> At 12:53 AM 8/18/2014, you wrote:
>
>>
http://www.flyefii.com/customer_projects/EFII_Installation_Manual_rev9-13.
pdf
>
> Hmmmm . . . These systems probably perform as advertised . . .
> but the supplier has not served their customer well in
> terms of system integration data. In particular, their treatment
> of electrical systems architecture and failure modes is
> sketchy to non-existent. The word 'fail' appears three
> times . . . not in the context of a system integrator's
> work instruction or pilot's operating manual . . . but of
> a marketing brochure.
>
> I went back into the series of Justin's postings . . . the first
> one showed up in February of this year. It seems that by the
> time he first came to the List, drawings were made, parts bought,
> holes drilled and a lot of decisions already under the bridge
> were being 'fine tuned'.
>
> I am not pleased to note that this project is probably way
> too complex for reasons not well defined. If the supplier
> of this system has offered nothing more than the documents
> cited, then he is . . . well. Suffice it to say that
> if I walked into some airframe OEM attempting to sell this
> hardware on no better data . . . I wouldn't get past the
> purchasing agents.
>
> Just because our airplanes are relatively unregulated and
> 'experimental' does not relieve any supplier of a duty
> to reduce costs and risk. This is especially true when the product
is
> being offered to a non-professional marketplace.
>
> I have often opined here on the List that every electrical
> system . . . ESPECIALLY one with the potential for complexity
> as this one . . . should start with the bus-by-bus load analysis.
> This exercise starts the thinking processes that guide hardware
> sizing and architecture decisions that go to the elegant (read
> frugal) design.
>
> I've been struggling with a task for a client to refine
> requirements documents on a system that has already been
> built. It DOES function as advertised . . . but its schematic
> has the appearance of a bucket full of parts stirred
> vigorously with a paint mixer until desired functionality was
> achieved.
>
> The problem I'm wrestling with is whether or not I want
> to continue to pursue the task for the client. Once the
> documentation is completed, do I want to sign the
> author's signature line? Doing so would add my own
> credential to an activity which (in my never humble
> opinion) does not serve the end-user well for cost of
> ownership and mitigation of risk.
>
> Justin's project presents a similar conundrum. I'm recalling
> a conversation with a builder about 20 years ago who said,
> "I shielded all the wires and installed filters here, there,
> and a few over there . . . what else do I need?"
>
> I asked, "Gee, do you have a noise problem?"
>
> "Oh no . . . I haven't flown the airplane yet."
>
> Justin has not been well served by his suppliers
> and is struggling with issues that should have
> been put to bed before he made his decision to
> purchase the system.
>
> It's not clear to what advice we can offer that
> would markedly refine a system that's already
> built.
>
> Justin,
>
> One thing I gleaned from the data package:
> With the exception of fuel injectors, the two systems
> are entirely redundant. Should one of the systems
> become unusable for any reason, including loss of
> power, then the other system can be pressed into
> service with no significant loss of engine performance.
>
> The manufacturer's citation of breaker sizes tells
> us NOTHING about this system's energy needs. You
> would do well to approach them with questions
> that go to ENERGY that moves through each breaker
> and under what conditions.
>
> I apologize for pushing this off on you . . . but
> these guys need to understand the problems THEIR
> customers are wrestling with. I could write and ask
> for the same data . . . but I would not be surprised
> if they don't really know the answers. This study
> needs to start with a customer . . . and you're
> the only one I know.
>
> If inquiring minds seek to be helpful, then
> it's something we need to know. If their answers
> seem less than confident, suggest that they contact
> me . . . or better yet, join the AeroElectric-List.
> There is no better opportunity for teaching
> responsible consumerism than to carry out our
> conversations with the supplier in open forum.
>
> Bob . . .
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Justin Jones <jmjones2000(at)mindspring.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Z-19 Function |
Ken,
I have considered using it. I am left wondering if his system has the
same functions of Bob=92s Z-19 diagram, and his other diagrams for
electrically dependent engines. If it does (and it seems to) it seems
that it would be an added cost for no good reason.
Here is the link to the Bus Manager Installation instructions.
http://flyefii.com/bus_manager/Bus_Manager_Installation_Instructions.pdf
Maybe Bob can weigh in on the Bus Manager?
Thanks
Justin
On Aug 18, 2014, at 9:09 AM, Ken Ryan wrote:
> Justin,
>
> Have you considered using Robert's Bus Manager? It allows for two
batteries, isolated for charging. Either or both batteries can be used
for starting, and there is great redundancy for power to the essential
bus. Also, it will monitor fuel pressure and automatically switch to the
auxiliary pump if pressure is lost.
>
> Ken
>
>
> On Sun, Aug 17, 2014 at 7:25 PM, Justin Jones
wrote:
> Here is the link to the downloadable instruction manual.
http://flyefii.com/customer_projects/EFII_Ignition_Instruction_sheet_rev9-
13.pdf
>
> There is a Dual ECU addendum at the end of the instructions that deal
with the installation of the dual ECUs. Through numerous emails that I
have exchanged with Robert, I have learned that there the entire system
(both ECUs and IGN coils) draws 2.4 amps. I have also learned that a
single 10A breaker feeds both coils. I would think the 4-diode
rectifier with power from the engine battery bus and the main battery
bus would solve the single-point of failure issue with a single power
source. The system requires 5 breakers. 2- 5A breakers for the ECUs, 1-
10A breaker for the IGN Coils, and 2- 10A breakers for the fuel pumps
(one each).
>
> The reason for installing the electrically dependent system is for the
performance gains and the flexibility of using MOGAS. The system draws
very little current, and WHEN the alternator fails (and it will at some
point), the pilot will be notified (low voltage and low amperage
warnings). At this point the pilot must shed the loads to protect the
remaining battery power. The EFII system will run as low as 6 volts. I
feel that with a dual battery system and a way to isolate the batteries
from each other during flight, a higher level of safety is achieved.
The pilot would simply isolate the batteries and shut off all items that
are drawing a load from that battery bus. When and if the primary
battery=92s voltage gets too low, the pilot simply switches to the other
battery and lands as soon as POSSIBLE.
>
> The challenge is to engineer a reliable and redundant 12V system that
will allow for safe and reliable operation regardless of individual
component, complete bus, or even power source failure.
>
> Any thoughts and tips are much appreciated. I have some experience in
12VDC systems but am by no means an engineer.
>
> Thanks again for the help!
>
> Justin
>
>
> On Aug 17, 2014, at 12:02 PM, Robert L. Nuckolls, III
wrote:
>
>> The system requires that both ECUs and both IGN coils are powered all
the time . . .
>>
>> Okay, suppose one of these four items doesn't get power
>> while the other three do . . . what happens?
>>
>> Suppose half of the system ECU and IGN get a momentary
>> power interruption, what happens?
>>
>> Suppose there's complete interruption of power to all
>> engine support which is 'fixed' in a few seconds,
>> what happens?
>>
>> The legacy design philosophy we've applied to all
>> systems intended for use in unforgiving environments
>> is the failure mode effects analysis. FMEA looks at
>> every component of the system and asks:
>>
>> How can this part fail?
>> If it does fail, how will I become aware of it?
>> If not immediately noticed or annunciated by
>> warning system, is it pre-flight detectable?
>> If it does fail, how is probable outcome of
>> the flight affected?
>> If it is necessary for comfortable continuation
>> of flight, what are my alternatives?
>>
>> Here's my personal notions that go to the topic
>> of system reliability
>>
>> Nuckolls' first law of airplane systems design sez: "Things break"
>>
>> The second: "Systems shall be designed so that when things break, no
immediate hazard is created."
>>
>> The third: "Failure tolerant design dictates that items needed for
>> comfortable termination of flight are backed up with Plan-B
alternatives."
>>
>> The forth: "Upgrading the quality, reliability, longevity, or
>> capability of a part shall be because you're tired of replacing it
>> or want some new operating feature, not because it damned near
>> got you killed."
>>
>> Before you march off to craft a never fails power
>> source(s) . . . it seems prudent to ASSUME there
>> WILL be failures . . . and craft a system that is
>> comfortably tolerant of such failures.
>>
>> Your query to the List cited an imperative for everything
>> that supports engine operations to be powered at all
>> times . . . if this is strictly true, then are you
>> sure that you want to install it on your airplane?
>>
>>
>>
>> Bob . . .
>>
>>
>>
>>
href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List">http://www.m
atronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List
>> href="http://forums.matronics.com/">http://forums.matronics.com
>>
href="http://www.matronics.com/contribution">http://www.matronics.com/co
ntribution
>>
>
>
>
> ist"
target="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List
> tp://forums.matronics.com
> _blank">http://www.matronics.com/contribution
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Jeff Luckey <jluckey(at)pacbell.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Z-19 Function |
Justin,=0A=0ASomeone mentioned the Bus Manager product. I am not privy to i
ts design but that same functionality is provided in the system design that
I posted, except for the fuel pump management.=0A=0A-Jeff=0A=0A=0A=0AOn Mo
nday, August 18, 2014 10:56 AM, Justin Jones w
rote:=0A =0A=0A=0ABob,=0A=0AI appreciate your help and opinion with this ma
tter. -I will approach Robert about this and find out the specifics of th
e electrical demands of his system. -I have heard great things about his
customer service and the folks using his system in their running aircraft h
ave nothing but great things to say about it and him. -He is a very knowl
edgable A&P and has deep knowledge of his system.=0A=0AThank you again.=0A
=0AJustin-=0A=0A=0A=0AOn Aug 18, 2014, at 5:59 AM, Robert L. Nuckolls, II
I wrote:=0A=0AAt 12:53 AM 8/18/2014, you wr
ote:=0A>=0A>=0A>http://www.flyefii.com/customer_projects/EFII_Installation_
Manual_rev9-13.pdf =0A>-- Hmmmm . . . These systems probably perform as
advertised . .=0A.=0A>-- but the supplier has not served their custome
r well in=0A>-- terms of system integration data. In particular, their
=0Atreatment=0A>-- of electrical systems architecture and failure modes
is=0A>-- sketchy to non-existent. The word 'fail' appears three=0A>-
- times . . . not in the context of a system integrator's=0A>-- work
instruction or pilot's operating manual . . . but=0Aof=0A>-- a marketin
g brochure. =0A>=0A>-- I went back into the series of Justin's postings
. . . the=0Afirst=0A>-- one showed up in February of this year. It see
ms that by=0Athe=0A>-- time he first came to the List, drawings were ma
de, parts=0Abought,=0A>-- holes drilled and a lot of decisions already
under the=0Abridge=0A>-- were being 'fine tuned'.=0A>=0A>-- I am no
t pleased to note that this project is probably=0Away=0A>-- too complex
for reasons not well defined. If the=0Asupplier=0A>-- of this system h
as offered nothing more than the=0Adocuments=0A>-- cited, then he is .
. . well. Suffice it to say that=0A>-- if I walked into some airframe O
EM attempting to sell=0Athis=0A>-- hardware on no better data . . . I w
ouldn't get past=0Athe=0A>-- purchasing agents.=0A>=0A>-- Just beca
use our airplanes are relatively unregulated=0Aand=0A>-- 'experimental'
does not relieve any supplier of a duty=0A>-- to reduce costs and risk
. This is especially true when the=0Aproduct is=0A>-- being offered to
a non-professional marketplace.=0A>=0A>-- I have often opined here on t
he List that every=0Aelectrical=0A>-- system . . . ESPECIALLY one with
the potential for=0Acomplexity=0A>-- as this one . . . should start wit
h the bus-by-bus load=0Aanalysis.=0A>-- This exercise starts the thinki
ng processes that guide=0Ahardware=0A>-- sizing and architecture decisi
ons that go to the elegant=0A(read=0A>-- frugal) design.=0A>=0A>--
I've been struggling with a task for a client to refine=0A>-- requireme
nts documents on a system that has already=0Abeen=0A>-- built. It DOES
function as advertised . . . but its=0Aschematic=0A>-- has the appearan
ce of a bucket full of parts stirred=0A>-- vigorously with a paint mixe
r until desired functionality=0Awas=0A>-- achieved.=0A>=0A>-- The p
roblem I'm wrestling with is whether or not I want=0A>-- to continue to
pursue the task for the client. Once the=0A>-- documentation is comple
ted, do I want to sign the=0A>-- author's signature line? Doing so woul
d add my own=0A>-- credential to an activity which (in my never humble
=0A>-- opinion) does not serve the end-user well for cost of=0A>--
ownership and mitigation of risk.=0A>=0A>-- Justin's project presents a
similar conundrum. I'm=0Arecalling=0A>-- a conversation with a builder
about 20 years ago who=0Asaid,=0A>-- "I shielded all the wires and ins
talled filters here,=0Athere,=0A>-- and a few over there . . . what els
e do I=0Aneed?"=0A>=0A>-- I asked, "Gee, do you have a noise=0Aproblem?
"=0A>=0A>-- "Oh no . . . I haven't flown the airplane=0Ayet."=0A>=0A>
-- Justin has not been well served by his suppliers=0A>-- and is st
ruggling with issues that should have=0A>-- been put to bed before he m
ade his decision to=0A>-- purchase the system.=0A>=0A>-- It's not c
lear to what advice we can offer that=0A>-- would markedly refine a sys
tem that's already=0A>-- built.=0A>=0A>-- Justin, =0A>=0A>-- On
e thing I gleaned from the data package: =0A>-- With the exception of f
uel injectors, the two systems=0A>-- are entirely redundant. Should one
of the systems=0A>-- become unusable for any reason, including loss of
=0A>-- power, then the other system can be pressed into=0A>-- servi
ce with no significant loss of engine=0Aperformance.=0A>=0A>-- The manu
facturer's citation of breaker sizes tells=0A>-- us NOTHING about this
system's energy needs. You=0A>-- would do well to approach them with qu
estions=0A>-- that go to ENERGY that moves through each breaker=0A>-
- and under what conditions.=0A>=0A>-- I apologize for pushing this o
ff on you . . . but=0A>-- these guys need to understand the problems TH
EIR=0A>-- customers are wrestling with. I could write and ask=0A>--
for the same data . . . but I would not be surprised=0A>-- if they don
't really know the answers. This study=0A>-- needs to start with a cust
omer . . . and you're=0A>-- the only one I know.=0A>=0A>-- If inqui
ring minds seek to be helpful, then=0A>-- it's something we need to kno
w. If their answers=0A>-- seem less than confident, suggest that they c
ontact=0A>-- me . . . or better yet, join the AeroElectric-List.=0A>-
- There is no better opportunity for teaching =0A>-- responsible cons
umerism than to carry out our=0A>-- conversations with the supplier in
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
=3D
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Z-19 Function |
At 01:49 PM 8/18/2014, you wrote:
>Justin,
>
>Someone mentioned the Bus Manager product. I am not privy to its
>design but that same functionality is provided in the system design
>that I posted, except for the fuel pump management.
>
>-Jeff
This might well be marching off in the wrong direction.
Given what I understand about the engine accessories
now, it's not clear that this installation's optimum
configuration would not be well served with Z-13/8 or
at worst, Z-12 with a 20A s/b alternator and one
battery.
Z-19 was tailored to engines that could not conveniently
drive two alternators.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Real life lessons in wire ratings . . . |
Last weekend, Dr. Dee and I spent Friday/Saturday
supporting our son's shaved ice and cotton candy
business during "Old Settlers Days" in Mulvane, KS.
Temperature in upper 90s. Shaved ice trailer with
lights, rooftop a/c, freezer and shaved ice machine
running on ac mains through 100', 12AWG extension
cord not unlike that pictured below. Total current
draw on the order of 13 amps.
Emacs!
Approximately 70' of cord was spooled out leaving about
30' still coiled on the reel. After 3 or 4 hours operation,
a vendor on the row behind us asked if that 'smoke and
bad smell' was something to be concerned about.
I swapped out the smoking cord for a spare.
I un-spooled the rest of the cord and discovered that
when not allowed the benefits of cooling air, the wrapped
up coils got pretty hot. The cord that was spooled out
was warmer than ambient but not markedly so. Voltage
at plug end under load was 124 volts . . . inside trailer
it was 117 volts for a round trip drop of about 7 volts.
Nonetheless, insulation on the poorly cooled wires
inside the yellow jacket fused together. In some places
the yellow jacket was breached and/or fused to adjacent
turns.
This cord reel is designed to encourage rolling out only
that cordage which is needed . . . but if you're going
to load it to near max ratings, then it's a good idea
to un-spool the entire length.
A profound demonstration of how temp rise on
a wire is exacerbated by constriction of free air cooling.
I cut off the damaged 30', installed a new plug and
left the full in-service length of cord laid out on
the ground for the rest of the event. Voltage drop
went down to just over 5 volts on the shortened cord.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Dynon D-180 & flickering LEDs |
| From: | "user9253" <fransew(at)gmail.com> |
I have been corresponding with a RV-12 owner in TX. His Dynon D-180 has a problem with LEDs that flicker when they should be on steady. The D-180 supplies negative PWM voltage to LEDs which are external to the D-180. Download the D-180 Installation Manual http://www.dynonavionics.com/downloads/Install_Guides/FlightDEK-D180_Installation_Guide_Rev_H.pdf
and read about "External EMS Warning Light" on page 4-10. The aircraft owner did
some experiments. Here are the results:
With the engine off and the D-180 powered by the aircraft battery, the LEDs are
on steady. With the engine running, the LEDs flicker. With the engine still
running, if the avionics switch is shut off, the D-180 reverts to its internal
backup battery and the LEDs illuminate steadily. Engine still running and the
avionics switch is turned back on, the LEDs flicker again. This experiment
was repeated and the results are consistent. From these experiments I conclude
that the D-180 puts out a steady PWM voltage when operating on battery power
(whether aircraft battery or internal backup battery). And when operating off
the alternator, the D-180 puts out an intermittent PWM voltage which causes
LED flicker.
With the engine running, the D-180 indicates a system voltage of 13.7 which is
normal for RV-12s. All E-LSA RV-12s have a 22,000 microfarad capacitor connected
to the output of the Rotax rectifier/regualtor. If that capacitor is bad,
could that cause the D-180 to output an unsteady PWM voltage to the the LEDs?
Or should the D-180 be able to function even if the aircraft electrical power
is dirty and not pure DC?
Thanks, Joe
--------
Joe Gores
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=428713#428713
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Dynon D-180 & flickering LEDs |
At 09:51 PM 8/18/2014, you wrote:
I have been corresponding with a RV-12 owner in TX. His Dynon D-180
has a problem with LEDs that flicker when they should be on
steady. The D-180 supplies negative PWM voltage to LEDs which are
external to the D-180. Download the D-180 Installation Manual
http://www.dynonavionics.com/downloads/Install_Guides/FlightDEK-D180_Installation_Guide_Rev_H.pdf
and read about "External EMS Warning Light" on page 4-10. The
aircraft owner did some experiments. Here are the results:
With the engine off and the D-180 powered by the aircraft battery,
the LEDs are on steady. With the engine running, the LEDs
flicker. With the engine still running, if the avionics switch is
shut off, the D-180 reverts to its internal backup battery and the
LEDs illuminate steadily. Engine still running and the avionics
switch is turned back on, the LEDs flicker again. This experiment
was repeated and the results are consistent. From these experiments
I conclude that the D-180 puts out a steady PWM voltage when
operating on battery power (whether aircraft battery or internal
backup battery). And when operating off the alternator, the D-180
puts out an intermittent PWM voltage which causes LED flicker.
Do I presume correctly that he has gone through the set up screen for
managing the output of this pin?
To configure EMS DB37 Pin 29 as an external warning light, enter the
EMS menu by pressing any button beneath an EMS main page. Press
MORE > SETUP > GLOBAL. Press DOWN. to select ALARM CONFIG and press
SEL. LGT BHVR: ACK SOLID configures the external alarm light to
remain on (solid) when the alarm condition is acknowledged. LGT BHVR:
ACK CLEAR configures the external alarm light to go off when the
alarm condition is acknowledged.
The word 'flicker' implies a visible, random modulation
of the light output. If this output is being deliberately
PWM for the purpose of controlling apparent intensity, the
PWM frequency will be too high for the eye to perceive anything
like a 'flicker' . . . it seems unlikely that the difficulty
is a function of any normal behaviors designed into the
D-180.
With the engine running, the D-180 indicates a system voltage of 13.7
which is normal for RV-12s. All E-LSA RV-12s have a 22,000
microfarad capacitor connected to the output of the Rotax
rectifier/regualtor. If that capacitor is bad, could that cause the
D-180 to output an unsteady PWM voltage to the the LEDs? Or should
the D-180 be able to function even if the aircraft electrical power
is dirty and not pure DC?
If you put a 'scope on the bus of any airplane with
the alternator running you will find that it's anything
but "pure DC". Mil-Std-704/DO-160 design and qualification
recommendations advise system integrators to consider this in
the design of bus-powered products. Dynon is no
less aware of this than anyone else . . . and based on
my conversations with them, perhaps more so.
The legacy 22,000 uF capacitor installation on PM alternators
is of limited utility for smoothing the output from
PM alternator rectifier/regulators. Peek at the bus with
a 'scope and do a capacitor-connected/disconnected comparison
for confirmation. A casual observation with a 'scope will
not produce much confidence that the capacitor is doing
anything useful in the time domain.
See: http://tinyurl.com/n5yd3vw
Some day I may get the chance to put a spectrum analyzer
on the bus and get some details for benefits in the
frequency domain . . . but I don't expect to see
anything that would alter the way we do system integration
under 704/160 design goals.
I suggest that he experiment with an incandescent lamp
wired to this output and powered from a couple of lantern
batteries or line operated bench supply. Then hook the
lamp to the bus for power to see if behavior changes.
He could also consider talking to the folks who designed
and built the system. They're very amiable folks (at least
they were the last time I talked with them perhaps 4 years
ago). They're going to know more about their system than
anyone you're going to find on this List . . . or in-the-wild.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | PM alternator capacitors . . . |
The legacy 22,000 uF capacitor installation on PM alternators
is of limited utility for smoothing the output from
PM alternator rectifier/regulators. Peek at the bus with
a 'scope and do a capacitor-connected/disconnected comparison
for confirmation. A casual observation with a 'scope will
not produce much confidence that the capacitor is doing
anything useful in the time domain.
See: http://tinyurl.com/n5yd3vw
=======================
I was asked about the significance of the data cited
above . . . and I beg your indulgence . . . it's
not immediately obvious.
I've re-posted the data package and encircled
the pertinent data points: RMS and peak-to-peak
voltage numbers cited at the edge of the 'scope
screen.
These Pk-Pk values speak to the greatest voltage excursions
detected in the displayed plot . . . you can have some
pretty high numbers here if the wave form shows even
the shortest of 'spikes' . . . pk-to-pk numbers are
not terribly significant in these plots. RMS speaks
to the ENERGY in the noise.
Note that for ALL conditions measured, there are
no gross variations in measured noise configurations
of capacitor size and whether or not a battery is
on line. All measured values were well under those
we are told to expect on the legacy 704/160 realm
of DC power systems.
Publication of this data is not intended to
say that there is no value for including a
capacitor . . . but the published narratives
don't speak to any rationale other than noise
mitigation. It may be that some clever designer
perceived an improvement in performance for
something other than noise. If so, I'm unaware of it.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Z-19 Function |
At 12:36 PM 8/18/2014, you wrote:
>Bob,
>
>I appreciate your help and opinion with this matter. I will
>approach Robert about this and find out the specifics of the
>electrical demands of his system. I have heard great things about
>his customer service and the folks using his system in their running
>aircraft have nothing but great things to say about it and him. He
>is a very knowledgable A&P and has deep knowledge of his system.
>
>Thank you again.
>
>Justin
Is there a real wiring diagram for this system? The manual
speaks to the need for 4 breakers in a dual ECU system
but I find only references to ECU power connections in
the harness picture. Do I have all the documentation
for this system?
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Jay Hyde" <jay(at)horriblehyde.com> |
| Subject: | Real life lessons in wire ratings . . . |
And don't even think of operating a welding machine on a coiled up extension
line.. J
Different story: Volt drop when pulling high current seriously deteriorates
performance; on a construction site that I was working on our sub
contracting welding team strung out 100+m (around 300') of 2.5mm2 cable
(roughly 13 AWG) and tried to weld (using a single phase hand carried
machine) on that. They kept tripping the supply transformer and annoying
everyone connected to it- through a number of faults that the protection
devices were observing; exactly what I don't know as I was busy with
something else and couldn't investigate, but from the timing clearly they
were the ones doing it. 'For some reason' they couldn't get the weld
quality they needed, and the power kept tripping. J
>From what I could reason the huge volt drop across the cable, created by the
long length and the small cross sectional area (and hence greater impedance)
caused the welder to draw more current; cable heats up, creating more
resistance, more volt drop, more current draw- more current; cable heats
up, creating more resistance, more volt drop, more current draw and so it
goes on.
Long wires require careful attention..
Johannesburg Jay
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Robert L.
Nuckolls, III
Sent: 19 August 2014 04:43 AM
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Real life lessons in wire ratings . . .
Last weekend, Dr. Dee and I spent Friday/Saturday
supporting our son's shaved ice and cotton candy
business during "Old Settlers Days" in Mulvane, KS.
Temperature in upper 90s. Shaved ice trailer with
lights, rooftop a/c, freezer and shaved ice machine
running on ac mains through 100', 12AWG extension
cord not unlike that pictured below. Total current
draw on the order of 13 amps.
Emacs!
Approximately 70' of cord was spooled out leaving about
30' still coiled on the reel. After 3 or 4 hours operation,
a vendor on the row behind us asked if that 'smoke and
bad smell' was something to be concerned about.
I swapped out the smoking cord for a spare.
I un-spooled the rest of the cord and discovered that
when not allowed the benefits of cooling air, the wrapped
up coils got pretty hot. The cord that was spooled out
was warmer than ambient but not markedly so. Voltage
at plug end under load was 124 volts . . . inside trailer
it was 117 volts for a round trip drop of about 7 volts.
Nonetheless, insulation on the poorly cooled wires
inside the yellow jacket fused together. In some places
the yellow jacket was breached and/or fused to adjacent
turns.
This cord reel is designed to encourage rolling out only
that cordage which is needed . . . but if you're going
to load it to near max ratings, then it's a good idea
to un-spool the entire length.
A profound demonstration of how temp rise on
a wire is exacerbated by constriction of free air cooling.
I cut off the damaged 30', installed a new plug and
left the full in-service length of cord laid out on
the ground for the rest of the event. Voltage drop
went down to just over 5 volts on the shortened cord.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Jay Hyde" <jay(at)horriblehyde.com> |
| Subject: | Real life lessons in wire ratings . . . |
And don't even think of operating a welding machine on a coiled up extension
line.. J
Different story: Volt drop when pulling high current seriously deteriorates
performance; on a construction site that I was working on our sub
contracting welding team strung out 100+m (around 300') of 2.5mm2 cable
(roughly 13 AWG) and tried to weld (using a single phase hand carried
machine) on that. They kept tripping the supply transformer and annoying
everyone connected to it- through a number of faults that the protection
devices were observing; exactly what I don't know as I was busy with
something else and couldn't investigate, but from the timing clearly they
were the ones doing it. 'For some reason' they couldn't get the weld
quality they needed, and the power kept tripping. J
>From what I could reason the huge volt drop across the cable, created by the
long length and the small cross sectional area (and hence greater impedance)
caused the welder to draw more current; cable heats up, creating more
resistance, more volt drop, more current draw- more current; cable heats
up, creating more resistance, more volt drop, more current draw and so it
goes on.
Long wires require careful attention..
Johannesburg Jay
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Robert L.
Nuckolls, III
Sent: 19 August 2014 04:43 AM
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Real life lessons in wire ratings . . .
Last weekend, Dr. Dee and I spent Friday/Saturday
supporting our son's shaved ice and cotton candy
business during "Old Settlers Days" in Mulvane, KS.
Temperature in upper 90s. Shaved ice trailer with
lights, rooftop a/c, freezer and shaved ice machine
running on ac mains through 100', 12AWG extension
cord not unlike that pictured below. Total current
draw on the order of 13 amps.
Emacs!
Approximately 70' of cord was spooled out leaving about
30' still coiled on the reel. After 3 or 4 hours operation,
a vendor on the row behind us asked if that 'smoke and
bad smell' was something to be concerned about.
I swapped out the smoking cord for a spare.
I un-spooled the rest of the cord and discovered that
when not allowed the benefits of cooling air, the wrapped
up coils got pretty hot. The cord that was spooled out
was warmer than ambient but not markedly so. Voltage
at plug end under load was 124 volts . . . inside trailer
it was 117 volts for a round trip drop of about 7 volts.
Nonetheless, insulation on the poorly cooled wires
inside the yellow jacket fused together. In some places
the yellow jacket was breached and/or fused to adjacent
turns.
This cord reel is designed to encourage rolling out only
that cordage which is needed . . . but if you're going
to load it to near max ratings, then it's a good idea
to un-spool the entire length.
A profound demonstration of how temp rise on
a wire is exacerbated by constriction of free air cooling.
I cut off the damaged 30', installed a new plug and
left the full in-service length of cord laid out on
the ground for the rest of the event. Voltage drop
went down to just over 5 volts on the shortened cord.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | rayj <raymondj(at)frontiernet.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Real life lessons in wire ratings . . . |
Was the insulation on the individual conductors compromised? Was there
any indication that there was the threat of an actual short occurring or
was it just a matter of the outer jacket melting?
Who was the manufacturer and/or what brand name was the cord sold under?
Raymond Julian
Kettle River, MN
The things we admire in men, kindness and generosity, openness, honesty,
understanding and feeling are the concomitants of failure in our system.
And those traits we detest, sharpness, greed, acquisitiveness, meanness,
egotism and self-interest are the traits of success. And while men
admire the quality of the first they love the produce of the second.
-John Steinbeck, novelist, Nobel laureate (1902-1968)
On 08/18/2014 09:43 PM, Robert L. Nuckolls, III wrote:
> Last weekend, Dr. Dee and I spent Friday/Saturday
> supporting our son's shaved ice and cotton candy
> business during "Old Settlers Days" in Mulvane, KS.
>
> Temperature in upper 90s. Shaved ice trailer with
> lights, rooftop a/c, freezer and shaved ice machine
> running on ac mains through 100', 12AWG extension
> cord not unlike that pictured below. Total current
> draw on the order of 13 amps.
>
> Emacs!
> Approximately 70' of cord was spooled out leaving about
> 30' still coiled on the reel. After 3 or 4 hours operation,
> a vendor on the row behind us asked if that 'smoke and
> bad smell' was something to be concerned about.
>
> I swapped out the smoking cord for a spare.
>
> I un-spooled the rest of the cord and discovered that
> when not allowed the benefits of cooling air, the wrapped
> up coils got pretty hot. The cord that was spooled out
> was warmer than ambient but not markedly so. Voltage
> at plug end under load was 124 volts . . . inside trailer
> it was 117 volts for a round trip drop of about 7 volts.
>
> Nonetheless, insulation on the poorly cooled wires
> inside the yellow jacket fused together. In some places
> the yellow jacket was breached and/or fused to adjacent
> turns.
>
> This cord reel is designed to encourage rolling out only
> that cordage which is needed . . . but if you're going
> to load it to near max ratings, then it's a good idea
> to un-spool the entire length.
>
> A profound demonstration of how temp rise on
> a wire is exacerbated by constriction of free air cooling.
> I cut off the damaged 30', installed a new plug and
> left the full in-service length of cord laid out on
> the ground for the rest of the event. Voltage drop
> went down to just over 5 volts on the shortened cord.
>
> Bob . . .
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Justin Jones <jmjones2000(at)mindspring.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Z-19 Function |
Bob,
I just sent the request for the diagram to Robert. I will forward it
along as soon as it comes in.
Thanks
Justin
On Aug 19, 2014, at 11:16 AM, Robert L. Nuckolls, III
wrote:
> At 12:36 PM 8/18/2014, you wrote:
>> Bob,
>>
>> I appreciate your help and opinion with this matter. I will approach
Robert about this and find out the specifics of the electrical demands
of his system. I have heard great things about his customer service and
the folks using his system in their running aircraft have nothing but
great things to say about it and him. He is a very knowledgable A&P and
has deep knowledge of his system.
>>
>> Thank you again.
>>
>> Justin
>
> Is there a real wiring diagram for this system? The manual
> speaks to the need for 4 breakers in a dual ECU system
> but I find only references to ECU power connections in
> the harness picture. Do I have all the documentation
> for this system?
>
>
> Bob . . .
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Z-19 Function |
At 04:21 PM 8/19/2014, you wrote:
>Bob,
>
>I just sent the request for the diagram to Robert. I will forward
>it along as soon as it comes in.
So I take it that you were expected to install this
system with no wiring diagram?
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Real life lessons in wire ratings . . . |
At 02:58 PM 8/19/2014, you wrote:
>
>Was the insulation on the individual conductors compromised? Was
>there any indication that there was the threat of an actual short
>occurring or was it just a matter of the outer jacket melting?
No, all levels of insulation was being deformed.
Temperatures were high enough to cause visible
smoke. No short before it was unplugged.
>Who was the manufacturer and/or what brand name was the cord sold under?
It's not a NEMA graded cordage but no reason to
believe it's not adequate to the ratings common to
the wire (12AWG). The portions that were laying
out on the ground were 'happy' . . . only those
turns deprived of opan-air cooling got into
trouble. Wire bundles in airplane will do the same
thing.
Emacs!
Here's a piece of 22759, 10AWG in a bundle
'protected' by silicone impregnated fiberglas
transiting a hot environment. Got hot enough
for the Tefzel wrap to separate at edge bond.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Z-19 Function |
| From: | Justin Jones <jmjones2000(at)mindspring.com> |
I have just the installation instructions at this time. Not sure if I have ever
seen a wiring diagram for it.
Justin
On Aug 19, 2014, at 4:08 PM, Robert L. Nuckolls, III
wrote:
>
> At 04:21 PM 8/19/2014, you wrote:
>> Bob,
>>
>> I just sent the request for the diagram to Robert. I will forward it along
as soon as it comes in.
>
> So I take it that you were expected to install this
> system with no wiring diagram?
>
>
>
> Bob . . .
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Z-19 Function |
At 07:29 PM 8/19/2014, you wrote:
>
>
>
>I have just the installation instructions at this time. Not sure if
>I have ever seen a wiring diagram for it.
Okay, let's back up. Describe your proposed engine/electrical
system. I think you mentioned an IO-360. You started this
thread with a query about Z-19 . . . which is not normally
suggested for a Lycoming. Do you plan one alternator or two?
If you were talking Z-19, then I deduce you're planning
on two batteries. You don't have detailed system integration
data on the engine electronics so it's also true that we
don't have energy demands data either.
How much electrical hardware have you installed already?
What holes have you drilled to mount switches?
Pending receipt of real electrical requirements for this
system, I'm leaning toward a single battery, two alternator
installation Z-13/8. Simpler, more reliable, lighter and
much lower cost of ownership.
After we see what the numbers are, let's work to understand
why Z-13/8 would NOT meet your needs for the elegant
solution.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Dynon D-180 & flickering LEDs |
| From: | "user9253" <fransew(at)gmail.com> |
> Do I presume correctly that he has gone through the set up screen for managing
the output of this pin?
Yes, but even if set up incorrectly, I would not expect differing behavior depending
on power source to the D-180.
Bob, I gather from your response that it is highly unlikely that a faulty 22,000
microfarad capacitor is causing the flickering LEDs. You also said that it
is unlikely that the difficulty is a function of any normal behaviors designed
into the D-180. The question that only Dynon can answer is, is there a D-180
failure mode that can cause the dimmer output to flicker?
The problem with me trying to help someone halfway across the country is that
I can not actually see the symptoms. And any tests that I suggest might not
be fully understood or the results correctly interpreted.
It can be very frustrating for me and for an aircraft owner to not be able to
solve their electrical problem. But when I am able to walk someone through troubleshooting
and they solve the problem, it is very rewarding to me.
Joe
--------
Joe Gores
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=428875#428875
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Dynon D-180 & flickering LEDs |
At 09:34 AM 8/20/2014, you wrote:
>
>
> > Do I presume correctly that he has gone through the set up screen
> for managing the output of this pin?
>
>Yes, but even if set up incorrectly, I would not expect differing
>behavior depending on power source to the D-180.
wasn't sure if there was a mode where the light was
expected to flash . . . as opposed to 'flicker' . . .
> Bob, I gather from your response that it is highly unlikely that
> a faulty 22,000 microfarad capacitor is causing the flickering
> LEDs. You also said that it is unlikely that the difficulty is a
> function of any normal behaviors designed into the D-180. The
> question that only Dynon can answer is, is there a D-180 failure
> mode that can cause the dimmer output to flicker?
agreed. see if the problem goes away with the alternator
off line . . .
> The problem with me trying to help someone halfway across the
> country is that I can not actually see the symptoms. And any tests
> that I suggest might not be fully understood or the results
> correctly interpreted.
> It can be very frustrating for me and for an aircraft owner to
> not be able to solve their electrical problem. But when I am able
> to walk someone through troubleshooting and they solve the problem,
> it is very rewarding to me.
understand . . . been working in similar venues for
25 years.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: PM alternator capacitors . . . |
| From: | "j. davis" <jwd3ca(at)gmail.com> |
Interesting. I see you say "*Publication of this data is not intended to
say that there is no value for including a capacitor . *So, in laymen's
terms, does this mean that you will amend your wiring diagrams that include
a 22,000 uF capicitor, such as Z20L? Can/should we remove installed caps
from our systems? Does/can that large cap have *adverse* effects? Thanks,
Bob, as always.
On 19 August 2014 10:53, Robert L. Nuckolls, III <
nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> wrote:
>
>
> * The legacy 22,000 uF capacitor installation on PM alternators is of
> limited utility for smoothing the output from PM alternator
> rectifier/regulators. Peek at the bus with a 'scope and do a
> capacitor-connected/disconnected comparison for confirmation. A casual
> observation with a 'scope will not produce much confidence that the
> capacitor is doing anything useful in the time domain. See:
> http://tinyurl.com/n5yd3vw
> ======================== I was asked about the significance of the data
> cited above . . . and I beg your indulgence . . . it's not immediately
> obvious. I've re-posted the data package and encircled the pertinent data
> points: RMS and peak-to-peak voltage numbers cited at the edge of the
> 'scope screen. These Pk-Pk values speak to the greatest voltage excursions
> detected in the displayed plot . . . you can have some pretty high numbers
> here if the wave form shows even the shortest of 'spikes' . . . pk-to-pk
> numbers are not terribly significant in these plots. RMS speaks to the
> ENERGY in the noise. Note that for ALL conditions measured, there are no
> gross variations in measured noise configurations of capacitor size and
> whether or not a battery is on line. All measured values were well under
> those we are told to expect on the legacy 704/160 realm of DC power
> systems. Publication of this data is not intended to say that there is no
> value for including a capacitor . . . but the published narratives don't
> speak to any rationale other than noise mitigation. It may be that some
> clever designer perceived an improvement in performance for something other
> than noise. If so, I'm unaware of it. Bob . . . *
>
> *
>
>
> *
>
>
--
Regards, J.
-----------------------------
J. Davis,
email: jwd3ca at gmail dot com
*NIX consulting, Medical Imaging research programming
- Zenith STOL CH750 C-FJNJ: Jab 3300, Whilrwind GA prop, AeroCarb
- Sonex #325 (ex)C-FJNJ, Jab 3300a, Prince P-Tip, Aerocarb
- former C-IGGY CH701 owner/builder
- see these and more at http://cleco.ca
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Z-19 Function |
| From: | Justin Jones <jmjones2000(at)mindspring.com> |
It is a Lyc IO-360. I had initially planned on a single alternator but I am open
to putting 2 on the plane. Is the only option one on the front of the engine
and one on the vacuum pad?
I have installed none of the hardware and just the rocker switches for ldg light,
bcn, nav lights and a split master/alternator switch.
I am waiting on word from Robert Paisley with the schematics. He seems a bit reluctant
to give actual schematics. Maybe because it is proprietary info. Not sure.
I do know that both ecus draw 2.4 amps total at high rpm. I still need the
coil and fuel pump numbers.
It sounds like the dual alternator single battery system just may be the way to
go here.
Thanks for the help!
Justin
On Aug 20, 2014, at 5:19, "Robert L. Nuckolls, III"
wrote:
>
> At 07:29 PM 8/19/2014, you wrote:
>>
>>
>> I have just the installation instructions at this time. Not sure if I have
ever seen a wiring diagram for it.
>
> Okay, let's back up. Describe your proposed engine/electrical
> system. I think you mentioned an IO-360. You started this
> thread with a query about Z-19 . . . which is not normally
> suggested for a Lycoming. Do you plan one alternator or two?
> If you were talking Z-19, then I deduce you're planning
> on two batteries. You don't have detailed system integration
> data on the engine electronics so it's also true that we
> don't have energy demands data either.
>
> How much electrical hardware have you installed already?
> What holes have you drilled to mount switches?
>
> Pending receipt of real electrical requirements for this
> system, I'm leaning toward a single battery, two alternator
> installation Z-13/8. Simpler, more reliable, lighter and
> much lower cost of ownership.
>
> After we see what the numbers are, let's work to understand
> why Z-13/8 would NOT meet your needs for the elegant
> solution.
>
>
> Bob . . .
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Z-19 Function |
| From: | Charlie England <ceengland7(at)gmail.com> |
I haven't followed this discussion very closely, but...
Is Bob asking for actual schematics of the internals, or just complete
wiring diagrams? It's not too surprising that the mfgr is unwilling to
share the complete schematics of the devices; I doubt that you'd get them
from Garmin, King, etc, either.
Charlie
On Wed, Aug 20, 2014 at 3:25 PM, Justin Jones
wrote:
> jmjones2000(at)mindspring.com>
>
> It is a Lyc IO-360. I had initially planned on a single alternator but I
> am open to putting 2 on the plane. Is the only option one on the front of
> the engine and one on the vacuum pad?
>
> I have installed none of the hardware and just the rocker switches for ldg
> light, bcn, nav lights and a split master/alternator switch.
>
> I am waiting on word from Robert Paisley with the schematics. He seems a
> bit reluctant to give actual schematics. Maybe because it is proprietary
> info. Not sure. I do know that both ecus draw 2.4 amps total at high rpm. I
> still need the coil and fuel pump numbers.
>
> It sounds like the dual alternator single battery system just may be the
> way to go here.
>
>
> Thanks for the help!
>
> Justin
>
>
> On Aug 20, 2014, at 5:19, "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <
> nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> wrote:
>
> nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com>
> >
> > At 07:29 PM 8/19/2014, you wrote:
> jmjones2000(at)mindspring.com>
> >>
> >>
> >> I have just the installation instructions at this time. Not sure if I
> have ever seen a wiring diagram for it.
> >
> > Okay, let's back up. Describe your proposed engine/electrical
> > system. I think you mentioned an IO-360. You started this
> > thread with a query about Z-19 . . . which is not normally
> > suggested for a Lycoming. Do you plan one alternator or two?
> > If you were talking Z-19, then I deduce you're planning
> > on two batteries. You don't have detailed system integration
> > data on the engine electronics so it's also true that we
> > don't have energy demands data either.
> >
> > How much electrical hardware have you installed already?
> > What holes have you drilled to mount switches?
> >
> > Pending receipt of real electrical requirements for this
> > system, I'm leaning toward a single battery, two alternator
> > installation Z-13/8. Simpler, more reliable, lighter and
> > much lower cost of ownership.
> >
> > After we see what the numbers are, let's work to understand
> > why Z-13/8 would NOT meet your needs for the elegant
> > solution.
> >
> >
> > Bob . . .
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Ken Ryan <keninalaska(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Z-19 Function |
I also doubt that Garmin, King, etc. would provide a complete airplane
wiring diagram.
On Wed, Aug 20, 2014 at 2:31 PM, Charlie England
wrote:
> I haven't followed this discussion very closely, but...
> Is Bob asking for actual schematics of the internals, or just complete
> wiring diagrams? It's not too surprising that the mfgr is unwilling to
> share the complete schematics of the devices; I doubt that you'd get them
> from Garmin, King, etc, either.
>
> Charlie
>
>
> On Wed, Aug 20, 2014 at 3:25 PM, Justin Jones
> wrote:
>
>> jmjones2000(at)mindspring.com>
>>
>> It is a Lyc IO-360. I had initially planned on a single alternator but I
>> am open to putting 2 on the plane. Is the only option one on the front of
>> the engine and one on the vacuum pad?
>>
>> I have installed none of the hardware and just the rocker switches for
>> ldg light, bcn, nav lights and a split master/alternator switch.
>>
>> I am waiting on word from Robert Paisley with the schematics. He seems a
>> bit reluctant to give actual schematics. Maybe because it is proprietary
>> info. Not sure. I do know that both ecus draw 2.4 amps total at high rpm. I
>> still need the coil and fuel pump numbers.
>>
>> It sounds like the dual alternator single battery system just may be the
>> way to go here.
>>
>>
>> Thanks for the help!
>>
>> Justin
>>
>>
>> On Aug 20, 2014, at 5:19, "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <
>> nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> wrote:
>>
>> nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com>
>> >
>> > At 07:29 PM 8/19/2014, you wrote:
>> jmjones2000(at)mindspring.com>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> I have just the installation instructions at this time. Not sure if I
>> have ever seen a wiring diagram for it.
>> >
>> > Okay, let's back up. Describe your proposed engine/electrical
>> > system. I think you mentioned an IO-360. You started this
>> > thread with a query about Z-19 . . . which is not normally
>> > suggested for a Lycoming. Do you plan one alternator or two?
>> > If you were talking Z-19, then I deduce you're planning
>> > on two batteries. You don't have detailed system integration
>> > data on the engine electronics so it's also true that we
>> > don't have energy demands data either.
>> >
>> > How much electrical hardware have you installed already?
>> > What holes have you drilled to mount switches?
>> >
>> > Pending receipt of real electrical requirements for this
>> > system, I'm leaning toward a single battery, two alternator
>> > installation Z-13/8. Simpler, more reliable, lighter and
>> > much lower cost of ownership.
>> >
>> > After we see what the numbers are, let's work to understand
>> > why Z-13/8 would NOT meet your needs for the elegant
>> > solution.
>> >
>> >
>> > Bob . . .
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>>
>>
>> ==========
>> -
>> Electric-List" target="_blank">
>> http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List
>> ==========
>> FORUMS -
>> _blank">http://forums.matronics.com
>> ==========
>> b Site -
>> -Matt Dralle, List Admin.
>> target="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/contribution
>> ==========
>>
>>
>>
>>
> *
>
>
> *
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Dynon D-180 & flickering LEDs |
| From: | "user9253" <fransew(at)gmail.com> |
> wasn't sure if there was a mode where the light was
> expected to flash . . . as opposed to 'flicker' . . .
Yes, when an input to the D-180 is out of limits, the D-180 flashes an on-screen
warning and also flashes the external LEDs connected to the PWM dimmer pin.
However, I asked the RV-12 owner if the LEDs were flashing an alarm or just flickering.
He said flickering.
Joe
--------
Joe Gores
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=428919#428919
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Z-19 Function |
At 03:25 PM 8/20/2014, you wrote:
>
>
>It is a Lyc IO-360. I had initially planned on a single alternator
>but I am open to putting 2 on the plane. Is the only option one on
>the front of the engine and one on the vacuum pad?
That's the usual configuration. Most airplane
engine accessory cases are fitted with AND20000
vacuum pump pads . . . that get covered when
a vacuum system is not installed.
This is the easiest place to install a second
alternator. At the moment, the SD-8 (3 pound,
8A) or SD-20 (6-pound, 20A) are the options.
We would LIKE to use the SD-8 if it makes
sense.
>I have installed none of the hardware and just the rocker switches
>for ldg light, bcn, nav lights and a split master/alternator switch.
>I am waiting on word from Robert Paisley with the schematics. He
>seems a bit reluctant to give actual schematics. Maybe because it is
>proprietary info. Not sure. I do know that both ecus draw 2.4 amps
>total at high rpm. I still need the coil and fuel pump numbers.
Okay, what we need from him is system integration
data. There are x-number of power input leads to
the system. How many must be powered up at any one
time for the engine to run and how much current is
drawn by each input?
>It sounds like the dual alternator single battery system just may be
>the way to go here.
Absolutely . . . in fact, it's QUITE practical to
consider one battery and one alternator . . .
ALL of those decisions are predicated on knowing
minimum ENERGY required of the components
of the electrically dependent engine combined
with ENERGY needed to operated minimal panel
equipment for what ever YOU decide is your
battery-only endurance target.
This is why I've hammered on the notion that doing
a load analysis for the proposed system is the
#1 task in choosing an architecture and sizing
components.
There's a good reason why we do this in certified
airplanes . . . a reason that is no less valid
in an experimental airplane.
Sounds like this is a capable system that exploits
a lot of lessons learned from the automotive
experience with ECFI . . . but no matter how
GOOD his equipment is, he has a DUTY to tell
the customer everything needed to craft the
elegant electrical system and write the logical
pilot's operating instructions for both NORMAL
and ABNORMAL operations.
Don't cut any more holes for switches until
we have GOOD data for deciding what those
switches are and from whence they get power.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Z-19 Function |
At 05:48 PM 8/20/2014, you wrote:
>I also doubt that Garmin, King, etc. would
>provide a complete airplane wiring diagram.
No, they don't . . . in fact, they should NOT. Garmin tried it
once and it got them a lot of grief . . .
But all the big guys deliver hardware to the OEM air-framers
the data we're asking for from EFII is no more than Garmin
or King would have to offer before they even walked in
the door.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Dynon D-180 & flickering LEDs |
At 07:18 PM 8/20/2014, you wrote:
>
>
> > wasn't sure if there was a mode where the light was
> > expected to flash . . . as opposed to 'flicker' . . .
>
>Yes, when an input to the D-180 is out of limits, the D-180 flashes
>an on-screen warning and also flashes the external LEDs connected to
>the PWM dimmer pin. However, I asked the RV-12 owner if the LEDs
>were flashing an alarm or just flickering. He said flickering.
Okay, make sure it's not the fixture or power
supplied to the fixture. Do the experiment with
just a light bulb and 12v battery to see that
the D-180 performs as advertised with those
to variables controlled.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Z-19 Function |
| From: | Andy <crabandy(at)yahoo.com> |
I too have Robert's EFII's dual electronic ignition (which has been great so far!)
on my RV7. I didn't start out with this mindset, but with an electrically
dependent ignition system and electrically dependent EFIS systems the only architecture
that made sense was Bob's Z13/8. I simply hooked 1 ECU and coil to the
EBUS and the other ECU and Coil to the Batt Bus.
I believe Bob challenges you to find a better designed system than the examples
in the aeroelectric connection, I'm a novice and didn't even come close. I did
try to justify a small backup battery system, than a dual battery system but
in the end the end Z13/8 gave way more redundancy, utility, checks and balances,
and bang for the buck than the others. Think through every failure scenario
of the various electrical systems, in addition think through the preflight checks
(how do you know that second battery will power your essential electronics
for 30 minutes when you need it?) of the backup systems and maintenance. The
choice will be easy.
I couldn't be happier with the idiot proof redundancy of the electrical architecture
Bob gave us in Z13/8.
Sent from my iPhone
> On Aug 20, 2014, at 3:25 PM, Justin Jones wrote:
>
>
> It is a Lyc IO-360. I had initially planned on a single alternator but I am open
to putting 2 on the plane. Is the only option one on the front of the engine
and one on the vacuum pad?
>
> I have installed none of the hardware and just the rocker switches for ldg light,
bcn, nav lights and a split master/alternator switch.
>
> I am waiting on word from Robert Paisley with the schematics. He seems a bit
reluctant to give actual schematics. Maybe because it is proprietary info. Not
sure. I do know that both ecus draw 2.4 amps total at high rpm. I still need
the coil and fuel pump numbers.
>
> It sounds like the dual alternator single battery system just may be the way
to go here.
>
>
> Thanks for the help!
>
> Justin
>
>
>> On Aug 20, 2014, at 5:19, "Robert L. Nuckolls, III"
wrote:
>>
>>
>> At 07:29 PM 8/19/2014, you wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> I have just the installation instructions at this time. Not sure if I have
ever seen a wiring diagram for it.
>>
>> Okay, let's back up. Describe your proposed engine/electrical
>> system. I think you mentioned an IO-360. You started this
>> thread with a query about Z-19 . . . which is not normally
>> suggested for a Lycoming. Do you plan one alternator or two?
>> If you were talking Z-19, then I deduce you're planning
>> on two batteries. You don't have detailed system integration
>> data on the engine electronics so it's also true that we
>> don't have energy demands data either.
>>
>> How much electrical hardware have you installed already?
>> What holes have you drilled to mount switches?
>>
>> Pending receipt of real electrical requirements for this
>> system, I'm leaning toward a single battery, two alternator
>> installation Z-13/8. Simpler, more reliable, lighter and
>> much lower cost of ownership.
>>
>> After we see what the numbers are, let's work to understand
>> why Z-13/8 would NOT meet your needs for the elegant
>> solution.
>>
>>
>> Bob . . .
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Z-19 Function |
At 08:23 PM 8/20/2014, you wrote:
>
>I too have Robert's EFII's dual electronic ignition (which has been
>great so far!) on my RV7.
Were you offered any more documentation than the
down-loadable 'installation manuals' we've been
praying over?
> I didn't start out with this mindset, but with an electrically
> dependent ignition system and electrically dependent EFIS systems
> the only architecture that made sense was Bob's Z13/8. I simply
> hooked 1 ECU and coil to the EBUS and the other ECU and Coil to the Batt Bus.
Yup . . . that works.
I'd probably put 1/2 the equipment on the
battery bus and the other half on the main bus.
During alternator-out operations, you load-shed
half of the engine support . . .which is readily
available by simply turning the master switch back
on. The only time this would be necessary is if
you suffered DUAL failures of pretty good hardware
in any single tank full of fuel . . . exceedingly
unlikely.
>I believe Bob challenges you to find a better designed system than
>the examples in the aeroelectric connection . . .
Sure. The Z-figures didn't start finding their way
into the book until about Rev 4 or so. They marched
up to Z-10 getting refined as we went. Somewhere
along the line, I dumped Z-1 thru Z-10 in favor of
a total replacement that began with Z-11. I wanted
to set the older iterations aside. As new figures
are added, I'll fill in the numbers below Z-11.
But you're right. Unlike our brothers flying the
TC Iron, we're free to EVOLVE architectures in
the quest for the elegant solution and TAILOR
architectures to the airplane/mission.
>I couldn't be happier with the idiot proof redundancy of the
>electrical architecture Bob gave us in Z13/8.
You guys (or at least your predecessors) on
the List played major roles in the development
of the Z-figures. It's called, "Spontaneous
order in the free market exchange of value."
Works good every time it's tried. With few exceptions,
I believe Z-13/8 offers system reliability
that equals or exceeds that offered to many
pilots of TC twins . . . but at a tiny fraction
of the cost and complexity.
What we've accomplished here is something for
which the OBAM aviation community can be proud.
Proven recipes for success driven NOT not by
the nightmares of bureaucratic worriers but
by the quest for an elegant solution. Andy's
endorsement is a validation of that idea.
Thank you sir!
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Z-19 Function |
| From: | Andy <crabandy(at)yahoo.com> |
> Were you offered any more documentation than the
> down-loadable 'installation manuals' we've been
> praying over?
Robert's customer service concerning the ignition system has been more than excellent,
I believe the schematics you guys are after are those concerning his "bus
manager." I don't know much about it other than what the website states, I
found Bob's Z13/8 fit my aircraft better.
Hardly load shedding with a full EFIS system/GPS/mapping/engine moniter and electronic
ignition system burning way less than 8 amps from the SD8 as long as there
is gas in the tanks....If it comes to that...
> Thank you sir!
>
>
> Bob . . .
No Sir, THANK YOU!
Andy
Sent from my iPhone
> On Aug 20, 2014, at 10:29 PM, "Robert L. Nuckolls, III"
wrote:
>
>
> At 08:23 PM 8/20/2014, you wrote:
>>
>> I too have Robert's EFII's dual electronic ignition (which has been great so
far!) on my RV7.
>
> Were you offered any more documentation than the
> down-loadable 'installation manuals' we've been
> praying over?
>
>
>> I didn't start out with this mindset, but with an electrically dependent ignition
system and electrically dependent EFIS systems the only architecture that
made sense was Bob's Z13/8. I simply hooked 1 ECU and coil to the EBUS and the
other ECU and Coil to the Batt Bus.
>
> Yup . . . that works.
>
> Were you offered any more documentation than the
> down-loadable 'installation manuals' we've been
> praying over? failures of pretty good hardware
> in any single tank full of fuel . . . exceedingly
> unlikely.
>
>> I believe Bob challenges you to find a better designed system than the examples
in the aeroelectric connection . . .
>
> Sure. The Z-figures didn't start finding their way
> into the book until about Rev 4 or so. They marched
> up to Z-10 getting refined as we went. Somewhere
> along the line, I dumped Z-1 thru Z-10 in favor of
> a total replacement that began with Z-11. I wanted
> to set the older iterations aside. As new figures
> are added, I'll fill in the numbers below Z-11.
>
> But you're right. Unlike our brothers flying the
> TC Iron, we're free to EVOLVE architectures in
> the quest for the elegant solution and TAILOR
> architectures to the airplane/mission.
>
>> I couldn't be happier with the idiot proof redundancy of the electrical architecture
Bob gave us in Z13/8.
>
> You guys (or at least your predecessors) on
> the List played major roles in the development
> of the Z-figures. It's called, "Spontaneous
> order in the free market exchange of value."
> Works good every time it's tried. With few exceptions,
> I believe Z-13/8 offers system reliability
> that equals or exceeds that offered to many
> pilots of TC twins . . . but at a tiny fraction
> of the cost and complexity.
>
> What we've accomplished here is something for
> which the OBAM aviation community can be proud.
> Proven recipes for success driven NOT not by
> the nightmares of bureaucratic worriers but
> by the quest for an elegant solution. Andy's
> endorsement is a validation of that idea.
> Thank you sir!
>
>
> Bob . . .
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Ed meyer" <ed.meyer(at)outlook.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Z-19 Function |
I have been following this discussion with great interest since I am
strongly considering using the EFII system on my project. I had also
pretty much zeroed in on the Z13/8 electrical system. The one thing that
the EFII Bus Manager has that I think would be desirable is the
automatic fuel pump switching if the primary pump fails. I imagine that
function would not be too difficult to add to Z13/8 with some sort of a
pressure switch but I am not smart enough to know what switch and the
most =98elegant=99 way to wire it.
Ed
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Z-19 Function |
At 11:17 PM 8/20/2014, you wrote:
>
>Hardly load shedding with a full EFIS system/GPS/mapping/engine
>moniter and electronic ignition system burning way less than 8 amps
>from the SD8 as long as there is gas in the tanks....If it comes to that...
Very good. 20 years ago the idea of running
a full-up panel, electronic ignition and
fuel injection on a 110 watt energy budget
would probably have produced snickers from
the peanut gallery . . . but guess what?
You're there.
Z-13/8 offers a 3-layered architecture
that will (1) run everything plus the kitchen
sink if the main alternator is up, (2) run
everything you'd like to have on the SD-8 if the
big guy takes a vacation and with proper
battery sizing and maintenance (3) run
everything NECESSARY to terminate the flight
comfortably battery only . . . not under emergency
conditions that dictate the lights will go
out in 30 minutes.
This happy situation did not arise from the
directed efforts of any one activity . . . in
fact, the musings and experiments here on
the List contributed little to the advancement
of our art. The List is an aggregator of
ideas . . . a kind of kitchen where chefs
sifting through an ever changing supermarket
of ingredients searching out the most pleasing
recipe for success. Those ingredients come from
EVERYWHERE . . .
The earliest efforts of Lightspeed and Unison
ignition products might today seem amusing to
individuals who do not know their history
their stories . . . products that were birthed by
individuals with an idea and willingness to
take a risk . . . one bombed . . . the other
has matured greatly. Complexity has gone down,
robustness is up, energy is down, cost of
ownership is down, weight is down. Along
comes EFII . . . with perhaps the next generation
of product evolution with still better numbers
particularly in the arena of ENERGY.
The rate of evolution for good recipes is retarded
first by the distance over which the ingredients
are dispersed and then by suppression of
opportunity for experimentation in the development
of new recipes. Check out the biography of
a pencil by Leonard Read
http://tinyurl.com/me3q3hj
This fun little story speaks to the MILLIONS of
individuals, few of whom know each other, who
contribute to the crafting of a simple pencil.
It's this same spontaneous organization of millions
of experimenters and suppliers offering their own
ingredients to our 'kitchens' where we strive to produce
the best-we-know-how-to-do in airplanes.
Bob . . .
The universe runs on PHYSICS. All of mankind's
endeavors in any venue distills to but two
studies: properties of materials and management
of energy.
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | KX165 transmit light stuck |
| From: | "Radioflyer" <skyeyecorp(at)airpost.net> |
I've been troubleshooting my intercom system and radio operation and eventually
found one of the mic jacks had tangs that were bent and touching. After unbending
the tangs, the intercom system worked, but the radio seems to be stuck on
transmit. I pulled the radio out of the plane, isolated from all associated
devices, powered it up and the "T" light is constantly on.
So, it's a radio problem. The radio is actually putting out a weak signal, but
no voice. However, if I activate the PTT switch, it will transmit clearly. Nevertheless,
can't receive because the T stays on. Could the shorted mic input have
caused this fault? Can anyone give some advise on how to remedy, besides going
straight to the avionics shop?
--Jose
Ps-I've pulled the manuals Bob N. No clues, yet.
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=429003#429003
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Z-19 Function |
At 10:13 AM 8/21/2014, you wrote:
I have been following this discussion with great
interest since I am strongly considering using
the EFII system on my project. I had also pretty
much zeroed in on the Z13/8 electrical system.
The one thing that the EFII Bus Manager has that
I think would be desirable is the automatic fuel
pump switching if the primary pump fails. I
imagine that function would not be too difficult
to add to Z13/8 with some sort of a pressure
switch but I am not smart enough to know what
switch and the most =98elegant=99 way to wire it.
Ed
Why automatic? Describe the flight configuration
under which such a system would benefit you as
a pilot.
Just about every airplane I've flown has two fuel
pumps. For the most part, BOTH are ON for take-off
and approach to landing. Above some altitude that
offers plenty of time for recognition and response
to failure of the main pump, the secondary pump
is turned OFF and held in reserve.
99.9% of all failures of an engine to produce
power is caused by fuel starvation. The engine generally
doesn't stop cold. From the first time you sense
a change in engine operation until the time that
the secondary pump switch can be thrown is a few
seconds at most.
There have been dozens of designs offered for
automatic switching of backup hardware in aviation
over the years. Some worked pretty good. The vast
majority would not be asked to do their task even
once over the lifetime of the airplane.
Yet all such systems adds to weight, cost and
complexity . . . with reliability ramifications
of their own.
My cursory examination of the EFII installation
suggest that two switches for two pumps. One from
the battery bus, the other from the main bus.
This offers reliability with simplicity that will
not get 'better' with any form of automation.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: KX165 transmit light stuck |
At 11:10 AM 8/21/2014, you wrote:
I've been troubleshooting my intercom system and radio operation and
eventually found one of the mic jacks had tangs that were bent and
touching. After unbending the tangs, the intercom system worked, but
the radio seems to be stuck on transmit. I pulled the radio out of
the plane, isolated from all associated devices, powered it up and
the "T" light is constantly on.
So, it's a radio problem. The radio is actually putting out a weak
signal, but no voice. However, if I activate the PTT switch, it will
transmit clearly. Nevertheless, can't receive because the T stays on.
Could the shorted mic input have caused this fault? Can anyone give
some advise on how to remedy, besides going straight to the avionics shop?
--Jose
Ps-I've pulled the manuals Bob N. No clues, yet.
Doesn't sound good. In the service manual, Figure 6-8
sheet 5 of 11 we find this excerpt of the PTT input
circuit . . .
Emacs!
It seems likely that your difficulty lies in or somewhere close
to either side of this bit of circuitry.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Z-19 Function |
| From: | Justin Jones <jmjones2000(at)mindspring.com> |
Bob,
I just heard back from Robert about the EFII power demands on the 12v system. Here
is what he said.
The ECUs draw only about .1 amps ea.
The ignition coils draw about 2.3 amps ea at high rpm, but they have much higher
peak currents, hence the 10A breaker. The peak currents occur for only a few
milliseconds.
The fuel pump draws a little under 5A (one pump running).
Does this help?
Thank you!
Justin
On Aug 20, 2014, at 19:29, "Robert L. Nuckolls, III"
wrote:
>
> At 08:23 PM 8/20/2014, you wrote:
>>
>> I too have Robert's EFII's dual electronic ignition (which has been great so
far!) on my RV7.
>
> Were you offered any more documentation than the
> down-loadable 'installation manuals' we've been
> praying over?
>
>
>> I didn't start out with this mindset, but with an electrically dependent ignition
system and electrically dependent EFIS systems the only architecture that
made sense was Bob's Z13/8. I simply hooked 1 ECU and coil to the EBUS and the
other ECU and Coil to the Batt Bus.
>
> Yup . . . that works.
>
> I'd probably put 1/2 the equipment on the
> battery bus and the other half on the main bus.
> During alternator-out operations, you load-shed
> half of the engine support . . .which is readily
> available by simply turning the master switch back
> on. The only time this would be necessary is if
> you suffered DUAL failures of pretty good hardware
> in any single tank full of fuel . . . exceedingly
> unlikely.
>
>> I believe Bob challenges you to find a better designed system than the examples
in the aeroelectric connection . . .
>
> Sure. The Z-figures didn't start finding their way
> into the book until about Rev 4 or so. They marched
> up to Z-10 getting refined as we went. Somewhere
> along the line, I dumped Z-1 thru Z-10 in favor of
> a total replacement that began with Z-11. I wanted
> to set the older iterations aside. As new figures
> are added, I'll fill in the numbers below Z-11.
>
> But you're right. Unlike our brothers flying the
> TC Iron, we're free to EVOLVE architectures in
> the quest for the elegant solution and TAILOR
> architectures to the airplane/mission.
>
>> I couldn't be happier with the idiot proof redundancy of the electrical architecture
Bob gave us in Z13/8.
>
> You guys (or at least your predecessors) on
> the List played major roles in the development
> of the Z-figures. It's called, "Spontaneous
> order in the free market exchange of value."
> Works good every time it's tried. With few exceptions,
> I believe Z-13/8 offers system reliability
> that equals or exceeds that offered to many
> pilots of TC twins . . . but at a tiny fraction
> of the cost and complexity.
>
> What we've accomplished here is something for
> which the OBAM aviation community can be proud.
> Proven recipes for success driven NOT not by
> the nightmares of bureaucratic worriers but
> by the quest for an elegant solution. Andy's
> endorsement is a validation of that idea.
> Thank you sir!
>
>
> Bob . . .
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Z-19 Function |
At 01:28 PM 8/21/2014, you wrote:
>
>
>Bob,
>
>I just heard back from Robert about the EFII power demands on the
>12v system. Here is what he said.
>
>The ECUs draw only about .1 amps ea.
>The ignition coils draw about 2.3 amps ea at high rpm, but they have
>much higher peak currents, hence the 10A breaker. The peak currents
>occur for only a few milliseconds.
>The fuel pump draws a little under 5A (one pump running).
>
>Does this help?
Very close. Is he sending you a ship's wiring
diagram for a dual ECU system?
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Z-19 Function |
| From: | Justin Jones <jmjones2000(at)mindspring.com> |
That's all he sent me. The pictures in the installation diagram list all of the
connections made to the efii system and these numbers show the amount of current
the system draws. He does suggest using his "bus manager" which has a diagram
on how to hook it up to a ship's system.
On Aug 21, 2014, at 12:13, "Robert L. Nuckolls, III"
wrote:
>
> At 01:28 PM 8/21/2014, you wrote:
>>
>> Bob,
>>
>> I just heard back from Robert about the EFII power demands on the 12v system.
Here is what he said.
>>
>> The ECUs draw only about .1 amps ea.
>> The ignition coils draw about 2.3 amps ea at high rpm, but they have much higher
peak currents, hence the 10A breaker. The peak currents occur for only a
few milliseconds.
>> The fuel pump draws a little under 5A (one pump running).
>>
>> Does this help?
>
> Very close. Is he sending you a ship's wiring
> diagram for a dual ECU system?
>
>
>
> Bob . . .
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: KX165 transmit light stuck |
| From: | "Radioflyer" <skyeyecorp(at)airpost.net> |
Hmmm. I was about to look more deeply into the circuitry when frustration truly
hit (the radio). Hit it with a bigger hammer, as they say. Well thinking there
might be a relay somewhere in the unit, I gave it a sharp tap and the the T
went away! Now, I can receive. The T does come back on only when the mic is keyed,
as it should. Have to still test for actual voice transmission, but so far
all looks good. Funny, though that the mic key circuit has no relays, though.
--Jose
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=429036#429036
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: KX165 transmit light stuck |
At 05:26 PM 8/21/2014, you wrote:
>
>Hmmm. I was about to look more deeply into the circuitry when
>frustration truly hit (the radio). Hit it with a bigger hammer, as
>they say. Well thinking there might be a relay somewhere in the
>unit, I gave it a sharp tap and the the T went away! Now, I can
>receive. The T does come back on only when the mic is keyed, as it
>should. Have to still test for actual voice transmission, but so far
>all looks good. Funny, though that the mic key circuit has no relays, though.
>--Jose
Yup, that went all solid state a few years back.
It's a whole new ball game . . .
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Peter Pengilly <peter(at)sportingaero.com> |
| Subject: | USB Charging Port |
Interesting 4 port charger, but quite expensive (110 = about $180)
http://www.charge4.co.uk/
Peter
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Ed meyer" <ed.meyer(at)outlook.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Z-19 Function |
>Why automatic? Describe the flight configuration under which such a
>system would benefit you as a pilot.
I have had an in flight fuel starvation event that was not resolved
until after a no power landing which was successful. I know from that
experience that a fog of confusion came over me and after replaying the
event in my mind, I could not recall the point that the aux fuel pump
was turned on. I had been through the drill many times to simulate an
engine out emergency but I know for me when it actually happened, I did
not perform as well as I could/should have. An automatic switching to
the aux fuel pump could potentially take care of a problem without me
having to remember to do it in the event of the fog. Of course I would
want some indication of the switch occurring.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Sacha" <uuccio(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | intercom noise (was radio noise) |
When my (Rotax 912) engine goes over 3800 RPM it breaks the squelch on the
radio, the radio goes in RX mode and I hear a bunch of white noise, which
for all intents and purposes makes receiving transmissions very difficult.
I have been through several iterations of this problem (see previous posts,
involving a noisy Autopilot on the 130Mhz which is our local frequency) but
yesterday I realized that if I turn the intercom off the problem disappears
(the radio doesn't go into RX mode).
So it appears that there is some kind of noise source which makes its way
into the Intercom (it's a GMA 240). What steps can I take to get rid of
this problem? I have already shielded the magneto wires.
sacha
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Ken Ryan <keninalaska(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Z-19 Function |
With FlyEFII's Bus Manager/Relay system when a loss of pressure is detected
(because of a voltage drop from the pressure sensor) the main pump is
switched off and the auxiliary pump is switched on, along with their
corresponding indicator lights.
I would be interested in Robert Nuckoll's evaluation of this system with
regards to reliability of keeping the fuel pumps pumping. PDF attached.
On Fri, Aug 22, 2014 at 6:15 AM, Ed meyer wrote:
> >Why automatic? Describe the flight configuration under which such a
> >system would benefit you as a pilot.
>
> I have had an in flight fuel starvation event that was not resolved until
> after a no power landing which was successful. I know from that experience
> that a fog of confusion came over me and after replaying the event in my
> mind, I could not recall the point that the aux fuel pump was turned on. I
> had been through the drill many times to simulate an engine out emergency
> but I know for me when it actually happened, I did not perform as well as I
> could/should have. An automatic switching to the aux fuel pump could
> potentially take care of a problem without me having to remember to do it
> in the event of the fog. Of course I would want some indication of the
> switch occurring.
>
>
> *
>
>
> *
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Sacha" <uuccio(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | intercom noise (was radio noise) |
When I say "white noise" I mean interference noise that seems related to
engine RPM.
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Sacha
Sent: Friday, 22 August, 2014 18:38
Subject: AeroElectric-List: intercom noise (was radio noise)
When my (Rotax 912) engine goes over 3800 RPM it breaks the squelch on the
radio, the radio goes in RX mode and I hear a bunch of white noise, which
for all intents and purposes makes receiving transmissions very difficult.
I have been through several iterations of this problem (see previous posts,
involving a noisy Autopilot on the 130Mhz which is our local frequency) but
yesterday I realized that if I turn the intercom off the problem disappears
(the radio doesn't go into RX mode).
So it appears that there is some kind of noise source which makes its way
into the Intercom (it's a GMA 240). What steps can I take to get rid of
this problem? I have already shielded the magneto wires.
sacha
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | David Saylor <saylor.dave(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: intercom noise (was radio noise) |
I'm not associated with any avionics manufacturer, but I know from
experience with several Garmin audio panels that they just don't reject
noise as well as PS Eng audio panels. In several cases, changing to a PS
got rid of whines, buzzes, static, etc. that extra shielding and ground
loop witch hunts just didn't fix. What you're hearing may just not be
resolvable with a Garmin. I really like a lot of their other products, but
the audio panels aren't as good.
--Dave
On Fri, Aug 22, 2014 at 9:37 AM, Sacha wrote:
>
> When my (Rotax 912) engine goes over 3800 RPM it breaks the squelch on the
> radio, the radio goes in RX mode and I hear a bunch of white noise, which
> for all intents and purposes makes receiving transmissions very difficult.
> I have been through several iterations of this problem (see previous posts,
> involving a noisy Autopilot on the 130Mhz which is our local frequency) but
> yesterday I realized that if I turn the intercom off the problem disappears
> (the radio doesn't go into RX mode).
>
> So it appears that there is some kind of noise source which makes its way
> into the Intercom (it's a GMA 240). What steps can I take to get rid of
> this problem? I have already shielded the magneto wires.
>
> sacha
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: USB Charging Port |
| From: | Justin Jones <jmjones2000(at)mindspring.com> |
Why not just put in a 12v socket and purchase a plug in car charger from a retailer?
On Aug 22, 2014, at 4:55, Peter Pengilly wrote:
>
> Interesting 4 port charger, but quite expensive (110 = about $180)
>
> http://www.charge4.co.uk/
>
> Peter
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Peter Pengilly <peter(at)sportingaero.com> |
| Subject: | Re: USB Charging Port |
Because some are very noisy, and some don't charge ipads.
There was some interest in such a device here a few weeks/months ago.
On 22/08/2014 22:12, Justin Jones wrote:
>
> Why not just put in a 12v socket and purchase a plug in car charger from a retailer?
>
>
>
> On Aug 22, 2014, at 4:55, Peter Pengilly wrote:
>
>>
>> Interesting 4 port charger, but quite expensive (110 = about $180)
>>
>> http://www.charge4.co.uk/
>>
>> Peter
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: USB Charging Port |
| From: | Justin Jones <jmjones2000(at)mindspring.com> |
I have a griffin charger that will charge my iPad and my phone simultaneousl
y.
Hasn't caused any noise in any certified aircraft that I have flown.
See attached pic.
On Aug 22, 2014, at 14:31, Peter Pengilly wrote:
o.com>
>
> Because some are very noisy, and some don't charge ipads.
> There was some interest in such a device here a few weeks/months ago.
>
>
> On 22/08/2014 22:12, Justin Jones wrote:
ring.com>
>>
>> Why not just put in a 12v socket and purchase a plug in car charger from a
retailer?
>>
>>
>> On Aug 22, 2014, at 4:55, Peter Pengilly wrote:
>>
ero.com>
>>>
>>> Interesting 4 port charger, but quite expensive (=C2=A3110 = about $18
0)
>>>
>>> http://www.charge4.co.uk/
>>>
>>> Peter
>
>
==========================
=========
==========================
=========
==========================
=========
==========================
=========
>
>
>