AeroElectric-Archive.digest.vol-mq
December 24, 2014 - January 27, 2015
The SD-8 and it's belt driven cousins were the
outcome of Bill's response to Burt . . . and it
put B&C on the fledgling OBAM aircraft industry's
map.
We worked with several combinations of wire size
and turns on a 'stock' garden tractor alternator
to optimize performance at pedestrian vacuum-pump
pad speeds. That was about 1982-84 and I've not had
any hands-on with that system since . . . therefore
not familiar with interim changes or the current
design philosophy. I'll find out.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | jan <jan(at)CLAVER.DEMON.CO.UK> |
| Subject: | N811HB analysis files |
Bob Bower,
The .WMV files are interesting video files - suggest you download and play
them ...
Jan
_____
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Bower,
Bob
Sent: 23 December 2014 01:54
Subject: AeroElectric-List: N811HB analysis files
Bob N. - In a recent post you referred us to
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Reference_Docs/Accidents/N811HB_Feb2008_LA-IVp/
<http://www.aeroelectric.com/Reference_Docs/Accidents/N811HB_Feb2008_LA-IVp/
> for study.
Many of the files in this folder are .wmv files, i.e. video files. Should
these files be PDF files? Thanks.
Bob Bower
RV-6A builder
<http://www.buildersbooks.com>
<http://www.matronics.com/contribution>
<http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List>
http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40"
xmlns:ns0="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml">
Bob
Bower,
The .WMV files are interesting
video files
– suggest you download and play them
…
Jan
From:
owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Bower, Bob
Sent: 23 December 2014
01:54
To:
AeroElectric-List(at)matronics.com
Subject:
AeroElectric-List: N811HB
analysis files
Bob N. – In a recent post you referred us to
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Reference_Docs/Accidents/N811HB
_Feb2008_LA-IVp/
for study.
Many of the files in this folder are .wmv files, i.e. video files.
Should these
files be PDF files? Thanks.
Bob Bower
RV-6A builder
www.aeroelectric.com
www.buildersbooks.com
www.homebuilthelp.com
www.mypilotstore.com
www.mrrace.com
http://www.matronics.com/
contribution
http://www
.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List
http://forums.matronics.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Marine deep cycle battery charging question |
| From: | Dave <rig(at)q.com> |
Hello listers,
I have four 12volt RV/Marine deep cycle batteries that I need to trickle charge
over the winter. Can I just connect them in parallel and use a trickle charger
?
After reading the aero connection and considering when they are installed they
are in parallel and being charged by the alternator. I would think I could trickle
charge them this way. But sometimes I miss the subtleties of electrons
Thanks
Dave
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Matt Dralle <dralle(at)matronics.com> |
| Subject: | 2014 List of Contributors |
Dear Listers,
The 2014 Matronics Email List and Forum Fund Raiser officially ended a couple of
weeks ago and it's time that I published this year's List of Contributors.
It is the people on this list that directly make these Email Lists and Forums
possible! Their generous Contributions keep the servers and Internet connection
up and running!
You can still show your support this year and pick up a great gift at the same
time. The Contribution Web Site is fast, easy, and secure:
http://www.matronics.com/contribution
Or, by dropping a personal check in the mail to:
Matt Dralle / Matronics
581 Jeannie Way
Livermore CA 94550
I also want to thank Andy, Bob, Corbin, George, and Jon for their generous support
through the supply of many great gifts this year!! These guys have some excellent
products and I encourage you to visit their respective web sites:
Andy Gold - The Builder's Bookstore - http://www.buildersbooks.com
Bob Nucklolls - AeroElectric - http://www.aeroelectric.com
Corbin Glowacki - My Pilot Store - http://www.mypilotstore.com
George Race - Race Consulting - http://www.mrrace.com
Jon Croke - HomebuiltHELP - http://www.homebuilthelp.com
And finally, I'm proud to present The 2014 Fund Raiser List of Contributors:
http://www.matronics.com/loc/2014.html
Thank you again to everyone that made a Contribution this year!!
Matt Dralle
Matronics Email List & Forum Administrator
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | C&K <yellowduckduo(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Marine deep cycle battery charging question |
Hi Dave
I would parallel them but I'd make sure that the voltage levels off
around 13.8 volts over the first few weeks.
Most maintainers will do that. Older trickle chargers often go too high
for continuous charging and optimum battery life.
Bob has posted lots of data on the ideal voltage over the years and
might have a better value than 13.8.
Ken
On 24/12/2014 7:47 PM, Dave wrote:
>
> Hello listers,
>
> I have four 12volt RV/Marine deep cycle batteries that I need to trickle charge
over the winter. Can I just connect them in parallel and use a trickle charger
?
>
> After reading the aero connection and considering when they are installed they
are in parallel and being charged by the alternator. I would think I could
trickle charge them this way. But sometimes I miss the subtleties of electrons
>
> Thanks
>
> Dave
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Bill Bradburry" <bbradburry(at)verizon.net> |
| Subject: | Holiday Greetings! |
Merry Christmas and Happy Chanukah to all on the list!
Bill B
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | <jimkale(at)roadrunner.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Marine deep cycle battery charging question |
Constant trickle charging without a float charger is not wise. I suggest a BATTERY
MINDER they have a 1.5 amp model for about 50 bucks, I believe it may be
connected to batteries in parallel. However it will only maintain them. Such
a small charger will not recharge them if they are in a discharged state.
It will not over charge and also gives it a shot of high frequency energy once
each 5 seconds or so; which will keep lead sulfate from forming on the plates.
Sulfate is what eventually kills most lead acid batteries. The 1.5 amp model
is ideal for long term storage without harming a lead acid battery.
Jim
---- C&K wrote:
>
> Hi Dave
> I would parallel them but I'd make sure that the voltage levels off
> around 13.8 volts over the first few weeks.
> Most maintainers will do that. Older trickle chargers often go too high
> for continuous charging and optimum battery life.
> Bob has posted lots of data on the ideal voltage over the years and
> might have a better value than 13.8.
> Ken
>
> On 24/12/2014 7:47 PM, Dave wrote:
> >
> > Hello listers,
> >
> > I have four 12volt RV/Marine deep cycle batteries that I need to trickle charge
over the winter. Can I just connect them in parallel and use a trickle charger
?
> >
> > After reading the aero connection and considering when they are installed they
are in parallel and being charged by the alternator. I would think I could
trickle charge them this way. But sometimes I miss the subtleties of electrons
> >
> > Thanks
> >
> > Dave
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Marine deep cycle battery charging question |
At 18:47 2014-12-24, you wrote:
>
>Hello listers,
>
>I have four 12volt RV/Marine deep cycle batteries that I need to
>trickle charge over the winter. Can I just connect them in parallel
>and use a trickle charger ?
'Trickle charge' is an archaic term that accuratly describes
it's philosophy. Put the battery in a tiny but perpetual charge
mode . . . where 'trickle' used be a rate around 1 amp for honk'n
truck and car WET cells. Such treatment on a modern RG battery
is detrimental.
The ideal charge and maintenance profile for a rechargeable
battery looks like this . . .
http://aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Curves/Charger_Performance/Ide
Charge at some reasonable current until the 'absorption' voltage
appropriate to the chmistry is reached and hold there for some
top-off time. Note that the recharge current during absorption
charging is constantly declining as the battery tops off. When
current falls to less than 5% of initial absorption rate, then
drop the charging voltage to just above the normal, open circuit
voltage for the battery.
Absorption voltage for SVLA is on the order of 15.0 volts, OC voltage
is just under 13.0 volts. So to keep the battery's internal leakage
from discharing the battery, SUPPORT it at just above delivery
voltage . . . hence the only think leakage can do is load the
charger to a few mililamps and the charter is incapable of damaging
the battery.
That de-sulfation thingy as a prophy7lactic or recovery process for
SVLA batteries has been hyped for decades I have yet to see a
double-blind study that demonstrates is efficacy. See.
http://batteryuniversity.com/learn/article/sulfation_and_how_to_prevent_it
I've had as many as a half dozen batteries of various sizes
attached to a single Battery Minder (circa before 'de-sulfating'
fads bubbled up). These were my laboratory portable power batteries
some of which held as-new capacity for as long as a decade.
The Shumacher 1562, 1.5A chartger/maintainer is an excellent
product in this class of device and sells for about $20 at
Wal-Mart. Having the de-sulfation feature doesn't hurt but
it dosen't help either. Don't pay extra for it.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Earl <earl_schroeder(at)juno.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Marine deep cycle battery charging question |
Bob is sticking to this story..
=46rom Earl, Retired fm GE, Sport Pilot now
> On Dec 26, 2014, at 8:45 PM, Robert L. Nuckolls, III <nuckolls.bob@aeroele
ctric.com> wrote:
>
> At 18:47 2014-12-24, you wrote:
>>
>> Hello listers,
>>
>> I have four 12volt RV/Marine deep cycle batteries that I need to trickle c
harge over the winter. Can I just connect them in parallel and use a trickl
e charger ?
>
>
> 'Trickle charge' is an archaic term that accuratly describes
> it's philosophy. Put the battery in a tiny but perpetual charge
> mode . . . where 'trickle' used be a rate around 1 amp for honk'n
> truck and car WET cells. Such treatment on a modern RG battery
> is detrimental.
>
> The ideal charge and maintenance profile for a rechargeable
> battery looks like this . . .
>
>
>
> Charge at some reasonable current until the 'absorption' voltage
> appropriate to the chmistry is reached and hold there for some
> top-off time. Note that the recharge current during absorption
> charging is constantly declining as the battery tops off. When
> current falls to less than 5% of initial absorption rate, then
> drop the charging voltage to just above the normal, open circuit
> voltage for the battery.
>
> Absorption voltage for SVLA is on the order of 15.0 volts, OC voltage
> is just under 13.0 volts. So to keep the battery's internal leakage
> from discharing the battery, SUPPORT it at just above delivery
> voltage . . . hence the only think leakage can do is load the
> charger to a few mililamps and the charter is incapable of damaging
> the battery.
>
> That de-sulfation thingy as a prophy7lactic or recovery process for
> SVLA batteries has been hyped for decades I have yet to see a
> double-blind study that demonstrates is efficacy. See.
>
> http://batteryuniversity.com/learn/article/sulfation_and_how_to_prevent_it
>
> I've had as many as a half dozen batteries of various sizes
> attached to a single Battery Minder (circa before 'de-sulfating'
> fads bubbled up). These were my laboratory portable power batteries
> some of which held as-new capacity for as long as a decade.
>
> The Shumacher 1562, 1.5A chartger/maintainer is an excellent
> product in this class of device and sells for about $20 at
> Wal-Mart. Having the de-sulfation feature doesn't hurt but
> it dosen't help either. Don't pay extra for it.
>
>
> Bob . . .
>
>
>
==========================
=========
==========================
=========
==========================
=========
==========================
=========
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Marine deep cycle battery charging question |
| From: | Dave <rig(at)q.com> |
I have the Shumacher 1562 charger. Can I just hook them up in parallel?
Thanks
Dave
> On Dec 26, 2014, at 7:59 PM, Earl wrote:
>
> Bob is sticking to this story..
>
> =46rom Earl, Retired fm GE, Sport Pilot now
>
>
>
>
>
>
>> On Dec 26, 2014, at 8:45 PM, Robert L. Nuckolls, III <nuckolls.bob@aeroel
ectric.com> wrote:
>>
>> At 18:47 2014-12-24, you wrote:
>>>
>>> Hello listers,
>>>
>>> I have four 12volt RV/Marine deep cycle batteries that I need to trickle
charge over the winter. Can I just connect them in parallel and use a tric
kle charger ?
>>
>>
>> 'Trickle charge' is an archaic term that accuratly describes
>> it's philosophy. Put the battery in a tiny but perpetual charge
>> mode . . . where 'trickle' used be a rate around 1 amp for honk'n
>> truck and car WET cells. Such treatment on a modern RG battery
>> is detrimental.
>>
>> The ideal charge and maintenance profile for a rechargeable
>> battery looks like this . . .
>>
>>
>>
>> Charge at some reasonable current until the 'absorption' voltage
>> appropriate to the chmistry is reached and hold there for some
>> top-off time. Note that the recharge current during absorption
>> charging is constantly declining as the battery tops off. When
>> current falls to less than 5% of initial absorption rate, then
>> drop the charging voltage to just above the normal, open circuit
>> voltage for the battery.
>>
>> Absorption voltage for SVLA is on the order of 15.0 volts, OC voltage
>> is just under 13.0 volts. So to keep the battery's internal leakage
>> from discharing the battery, SUPPORT it at just above delivery
>> voltage . . . hence the only think leakage can do is load the
>> charger to a few mililamps and the charter is incapable of damaging
>> the battery.
>>
>> That de-sulfation thingy as a prophy7lactic or recovery process for
>> SVLA batteries has been hyped for decades I have yet to see a
>> double-blind study that demonstrates is efficacy. See.
>>
>> http://batteryuniversity.com/learn/article/sulfation_and_how_to_prevent_i
t
>>
>> I've had as many as a half dozen batteries of various sizes
>> attached to a single Battery Minder (circa before 'de-sulfating'
>> fads bubbled up). These were my laboratory portable power batteries
>> some of which held as-new capacity for as long as a decade.
>>
>> The Shumacher 1562, 1.5A chartger/maintainer is an excellent
>> product in this class of device and sells for about $20 at
>> Wal-Mart. Having the de-sulfation feature doesn't hurt but
>> it dosen't help either. Don't pay extra for it.
>>
>>
>> Bob . . .
>>
>>
>>
>> =========================
=========
>> ctric.com
>> >www.buildersbooks.com
>> uilthelp.com
>> otstore.com
>>
>> matronics.com/contribution
>> =========================
=========
>> st">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List
>> =========================
=========
>> cs.com
>> =========================
=========
>>
>
>
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: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Marine deep cycle battery charging question |
At 20:59 2014-12-26, you wrote:
>Bob is sticking to this story..
>
> From Earl, Retired fm GE, Sport Pilot now
Yes . . . until I read or see demonstrable
arguments to the contrary.
Battery sulfation is the result of standing
in a less than fully charged state for long periods of
time. The garden variety use of batteries in
cars and airplanes seldom discharges a battery
by more than a few percent . . . whereupon the
battery is recharged as soon as the engine
starts. The vehicle is stored with a topped-off
battery.
Then there is the question of just how effectively
one can break up big chunks of lead-sulfate
crystals with electrical stimulus from outside
the cell. Then, assuming the external stimulus
DOES reduce crystal size, just what kine of stimulus?
Researching the patents, DIY articles and the
marketing hype associated with a number of
de-sulfation chargers, I find no common thread
of technology or philosophy supported with
any manner of laboratory analysis as to whether
they even work as claimed.
It follows then than all you need for long
term storage support is to 'maintain' the open
circuit terminal voltage at some level just
above the voltage delivered by the chemistry
thus relieving chemistry from having to supply
tiny leakage currents, which in an RG battery
are a small fraction of those in wet batteries.
A 1950's wet battery would self-discharge in
90 to 120 days if not 'trickled' . . . the
RG battery will loose perhaps a few percent
per month and still crank your engine next
spring.
Self discharge is a function of battery temperature
and dissolved oxygen in the electrolyte. The sealed
battery's free oxygen is tiny compared to the wet
cell open to atmosphere. Further, storing the battery
in a cooler location will reduce the magnitude
of self-discharge leakage.
I'm discovering a similar conundrum in the study
of lithium batteries in airplanes. Question:
what is the value/necessity for a cell balancing
charger if we never give the charger a chance
to do what it does best . . . recharge and balance
a deeply discharged battery?
It's one thing to claim a benefit from some
device or process . . . quite another to
demonstrate that benefit in the operational
environment that is a light aircraft.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: How does the Ducatti rectifier/regulator work? |
| From: | "merlinspitfire" <electronic.powertuning(at)yahoo.com> |
Merry Christmas to all of you !
What is the maximum frequency of the output voltage generator ?
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=436309#436309
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: How does the Ducatti rectifier/regulator |
work?
At 09:15 2014-12-27, you wrote:
>
>
>Merry Christmas to all of you !
>What is the maximum frequency of the output voltage generator ?
Good question! I've never had occasion to 'scope
the 912/914 internal alternator's electrical
'innards'. The SD-8 at 4KRPM is about 500 Hz.
But without actually measuring the frequency
on a running engine, you'll have to count the
magnets on the flywheel. Each pair of magnets
would produce one a.c. cycle as they pass an
stator pole piece. So 8 magnets would give
you 4 cycles per rev, 6000 rpm is 100 rev/sec
so the output would be 400 Hz at 6000 rpm.
Scale from there. That's the WAG, your own
discoveries may vary . . .
Let us know what you find out!
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Marine deep cycle battery charging question |
| From: | Dave <rig(at)q.com> |
Thank you.
Dave
> On Dec 27, 2014, at 7:44 AM, "Robert L. Nuckolls, III"
wrote:
>
>
> At 20:59 2014-12-26, you wrote:
>> Bob is sticking to this story..
>>
>> From Earl, Retired fm GE, Sport Pilot now
>
> Yes . . . until I read or see demonstrable
> arguments to the contrary.
>
> Battery sulfation is the result of standing
> in a less than fully charged state for long periods of
> time. The garden variety use of batteries in
> cars and airplanes seldom discharges a battery
> by more than a few percent . . . whereupon the
> battery is recharged as soon as the engine
> starts. The vehicle is stored with a topped-off
> battery.
>
> Then there is the question of just how effectively
> one can break up big chunks of lead-sulfate
> crystals with electrical stimulus from outside
> the cell. Then, assuming the external stimulus
> DOES reduce crystal size, just what kine of stimulus?
> Researching the patents, DIY articles and the
> marketing hype associated with a number of
> de-sulfation chargers, I find no common thread
> of technology or philosophy supported with
> any manner of laboratory analysis as to whether
> they even work as claimed.
>
> It follows then than all you need for long
> term storage support is to 'maintain' the open
> circuit terminal voltage at some level just
> above the voltage delivered by the chemistry
> thus relieving chemistry from having to supply
> tiny leakage currents, which in an RG battery
> are a small fraction of those in wet batteries.
>
> A 1950's wet battery would self-discharge in
> 90 to 120 days if not 'trickled' . . . the
> RG battery will loose perhaps a few percent
> per month and still crank your engine next
> spring.
>
> Self discharge is a function of battery temperature
> and dissolved oxygen in the electrolyte. The sealed
> battery's free oxygen is tiny compared to the wet
> cell open to atmosphere. Further, storing the battery
> in a cooler location will reduce the magnitude
> of self-discharge leakage.
>
> I'm discovering a similar conundrum in the study
> of lithium batteries in airplanes. Question:
> what is the value/necessity for a cell balancing
> charger if we never give the charger a chance
> to do what it does best . . . recharge and balance
> a deeply discharged battery?
>
> It's one thing to claim a benefit from some
> device or process . . . quite another to
> demonstrate that benefit in the operational
> environment that is a light aircraft.
>
>
> Bob . . .
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: How does the Ducatti rectifier/regulator work? |
| From: | "merlinspitfire" <electronic.powertuning(at)yahoo.com> |
Thank You .So not exceed 600Hz frequency
No one checked with an oscilloscope ?
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=436315#436315
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Marine deep cycle battery charging question |
At 08:38 2014-12-27, you wrote:
>I have the Shumacher 1562 charger. Can I just hook them up in parallel?
You bet . . . for maintenance . . . hook batteries
up one at a time for charging. But once each battery
is in the 'maintenance' mode, then hook them all
in parallel to store them. Keep in mind that maintenance
current is measured in a terms of a couple milliamps
per battery.
The paralleling wire need not be made from welding cable,
22awg works fine.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: How does the Ducatti rectifier/regulator |
work?
At 10:55 2014-12-27, you wrote:
>
>
>Thank You .So not exceed 600Hz frequency
>No one checked with an oscilloscope ?
Where does the 600Hz number come from?
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Marine deep cycle battery charging question |
| From: | Dave <rig(at)q.com> |
Thanks. Perfect That's info I was looking for.
Dave
> On Dec 27, 2014, at 10:30 AM, "Robert L. Nuckolls, III"
wrote:
>
>
> At 08:38 2014-12-27, you wrote:
>> I have the Shumacher 1562 charger. Can I just hook them up in parallel?
>
> You bet . . . for maintenance . . . hook batteries
> up one at a time for charging. But once each battery
> is in the 'maintenance' mode, then hook them all
> in parallel to store them. Keep in mind that maintenance
> current is measured in a terms of a couple milliamps
> per battery.
>
> The paralleling wire need not be made from welding cable,
> 22awg works fine.
>
>
>
> Bob . . .
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: How does the Ducatti rectifier/regulator |
work?
| From: | GTH <gilles.thesee(at)free.fr> |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________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: How does the Ducatti rectifier/regulator work? |
| From: | "merlinspitfire" <electronic.powertuning(at)yahoo.com> |
We considered a maximum value for the choice of components in case I want to design
a regulator
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=436336#436336
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: How does the Ducatti rectifier/regulator work? |
| From: | "user9253" <fransew(at)gmail.com> |
Using Bob's formula and Gilles webpage info
http://www.aero-hesbaye.be/circuit_elec.htm
5 pair of magnets x 6000 RPM / 60 seconds = 500 Hz maximum
BTW, Gilles' webpage is interesting. It is written in German. Google Chrome translated
it. But much is lost in translation, making some of it difficult to
understand. During the short circuit test, the Rotax dynamo put out 21 amps
without overheating.
The 22,000 microfarad capacitor improves the output waveform, but is it required
by avionics? (Not that I intend to remove mine.)
Joe
--------
Joe Gores
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=436360#436360
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Ken Ryan <keninalaska(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: How does the Ducatti rectifier/regulator work? |
Joe, this comes from the 914 Installation Manual:
"(A capacitor) is necessary to protect the correct function of regulator
and to flatten voltage. The regulator is not designed to store any
electrical charge. If for any reason the battery or bus system is
disconnected from the regulator while the engine is running (i.e. the
master switch is shut off) the capacitor will safely absorb and dissipate
the electrical charge produced by the generator. Otherwise the regulator
would be damaged."
On Sun, Dec 28, 2014 at 8:02 AM, user9253 wrote:
>
> Using Bob's formula and Gilles webpage info
> http://www.aero-hesbaye.be/circuit_elec.htm
> 5 pair of magnets x 6000 RPM / 60 seconds = 500 Hz maximum
> BTW, Gilles' webpage is interesting. It is written in German. Google
> Chrome translated it. But much is lost in translation, making some of it
> difficult to understand. During the short circuit test, the Rotax dynamo
> put out 21 amps without overheating.
> The 22,000 microfarad capacitor improves the output waveform, but is it
> required by avionics? (Not that I intend to remove mine.)
> Joe
>
> --------
> Joe Gores
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=436360#436360
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Bob McCallum <robert.mccallum2(at)sympatico.ca> |
| Subject: | Re: How does the Ducatti rectifier/regulator work? |
Joe;
Don't mean to be contradictory or create any controversy, but Gilles webpage
is in French not German. The dot fr is for France not Germany. If Google was
asked to translate from German that's perhaps how some clarity was lost in
the translation.
Bob McC
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-
> server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of user9253
> Sent: Sunday, December 28, 2014 12:02 PM
> To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
> Subject: AeroElectric-List: Re: How does the Ducatti rectifier/regulator
work?
>
>
> Using Bob's formula and Gilles webpage info
> http://www.aero-hesbaye.be/circuit_elec.htm
> 5 pair of magnets x 6000 RPM / 60 seconds = 500 Hz maximum
> BTW, Gilles' webpage is interesting. It is written in German. Google
Chrome translated
> it. But much is lost in translation, making some of it difficult to
understand. During the
> short circuit test, the Rotax dynamo put out 21 amps without overheating.
>
> The 22,000 microfarad capacitor improves the output waveform, but is it
required by
> avionics? (Not that I intend to remove mine.)
> Joe
>
> --------
> Joe Gores
>
>
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=436360#436360
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> _-
> =====================================================
> =====
> _-
> =====================================================
> =====
> _-
> =====================================================
> =====
> _-
> =====================================================
> =====
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: How does the Ducatti rectifier/regulator work? |
| From: | "user9253" <fransew(at)GMAIL.COM> |
> Don't mean to be contradictory or create any controversy, but Gilles webpage
is in French not German. The dot fr is for France not Germany.
You are correct Bob McC. Whatever language it is, it is Greek to me. :D
Joe
--------
Joe Gores
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=436367#436367
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | GTH <gilles.thesee(at)free.fr> |
| Subject: | Re: How does the Ducatti rectifier/regulator work? |
Le 28/12/2014 21:13, user9253 a crit :
>
>
>> Don't mean to be contradictory or create any controversy, but Gilles webpage
is in French not German. The dot fr is for France not Germany.
> You are correct Bob McC. Whatever language it is, it is Greek to me. :D
>
Bob, Joe and all,
Windows 8 doesn't seem to like my old backups, but I may be able to
retrieve most of the original article and spreadsheets we crafted at the
time with Jerome.
In French only, I'm afraid.
Translating the whole article in English would be a major undertaking,
but feel free to ask if you need some clarification as to the meaning of
any term or paragraph.
Season's Greetings
Gilles
http://contrails.free.fr
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | jan <jan(at)CLAVER.DEMON.CO.UK> |
| Subject: | Re: How does the Ducatti rectifier/regulat or |
work?
Just trying to add some more 'geographical info'
The link is to a Belgians web site .be is Belgium ... Half of the country
speak French and the other half speak Dutch (Flemish) .. :-)
I note that the Regulator ... they have listed on the circuit has Germany
written on it .. and the diagram ... Not surprising as Rotax is from
Austria .. and they speak German in Austria ...
I know .. very confusing !!
Happy xmas and a good new year !! :-)
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Bob
McCallum
Sent: 28 December 2014 18:00
Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Re: How does the Ducatti rectifier/regulator
work?
Joe;
Don't mean to be contradictory or create any controversy, but Gilles webpage
is in French not German. The dot fr is for France not Germany. If Google was
asked to translate from German that's perhaps how some clarity was lost in
the translation.
Bob McC
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-
> server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of user9253
> Sent: Sunday, December 28, 2014 12:02 PM
> To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
> Subject: AeroElectric-List: Re: How does the Ducatti rectifier/regulator
work?
>
>
> Using Bob's formula and Gilles webpage info
> http://www.aero-hesbaye.be/circuit_elec.htm
> 5 pair of magnets x 6000 RPM / 60 seconds = 500 Hz maximum
> BTW, Gilles' webpage is interesting. It is written in German. Google
Chrome translated
> it. But much is lost in translation, making some of it difficult to
understand. During the
> short circuit test, the Rotax dynamo put out 21 amps without overheating.
>
> The 22,000 microfarad capacitor improves the output waveform, but is it
required by
> avionics? (Not that I intend to remove mine.)
> Joe
>
> --------
> Joe Gores
>
>
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=436360#436360
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> _-
> =====================================================
> =====
> _-
> =====================================================
> =====
> _-
> =====================================================
> =====
> _-
> =====================================================
> =====
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | GTH <gilles.thesee(at)free.fr> |
| Subject: | Re: How does the Ducatti rectifier/regulat or |
work?
Le 29/12/2014 12:24, jan a crit :
>
> Just trying to add some more 'geographical info'
>
> The link is to a Belgians web site .be is Belgium ... Half of the country
> speak French and the other half speak Dutch (Flemish) .. :-)
Jan and all,
Great on the geographical info !
Some clarification about the Belgian website : the original article was
published with our permission on the French homebuilt website
foxpapa.com, but it disappeared due to some update mixup.
Long story short, in the mean time the Belgian website had, well,
"borrowed" the entire page (plus some pages from my own website) without
us being informed, and so is now the sole Internet source for our article.
Maybe I'll republish the article with the original pictures on Contrails
! some day.
Best regards,
Gilles
http://contrails.free.fr
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Charlie England <ceengland7(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: How does the Ducatti rectifier/regulator work? |
On 12/29/2014 4:07 AM, GTH wrote:
>
> Le 28/12/2014 21:13, user9253 a crit :
>>
>>
>>> Don't mean to be contradictory or create any controversy, but Gilles
>>> webpage is in French not German. The dot fr is for France not Germany.
>> You are correct Bob McC. Whatever language it is, it is Greek to
>> me. :D
>>
> Bob, Joe and all,
>
> Windows 8 doesn't seem to like my old backups, but I may be able to
> retrieve most of the original article and spreadsheets we crafted at
> the time with Jerome.
> In French only, I'm afraid.
> Translating the whole article in English would be a major undertaking,
> but feel free to ask if you need some clarification as to the meaning
> of any term or paragraph.
>
> Season's Greetings
> Gilles
>
> http://contrails.free.fr
>
If the link above is to your article, by opening it with Google you can
get a rough translation to English. Won't be perfect, but should be good
enough to understand what's going on in the article.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: How does the Ducatti rectifier/regulator |
work?
At 11:02 2014-12-28, you wrote:
>
>Using Bob's formula and Gilles webpage info
>http://www.aero-hesbaye.be/circuit_elec.htm
>5 pair of magnets x 6000 RPM / 60 seconds = 500 Hz maximum
>BTW, Gilles' webpage is interesting. It is written in
>German. Google Chrome translated it. But much is lost in
>translation, making some of it difficult to understand. During the
>short circuit test, the Rotax dynamo put out 21 amps without overheating.
> The 22,000 microfarad capacitor improves the output waveform, but
> is it required by avionics? (Not that I intend to remove mine.)
>Joe
I'd forgotten about the work that Gilles and friends
had accomplished on the Rotax 912/914 alternator system.
The text of the article cites 200Hz @ 2400 rpm which
confirms your extrapolation above.
Experiments I conducted some years ago on the SD-8
and companion R/R failed to demonstrate much value
for having the capacitor in place.
I'll be doing some work on PM alternators and next
generation rectifier/regulators over the next few
months. I'll take a look at the value for including
the large capacitor beyond the need to operate the
system sans battery.
"Back-in-the-day" . . . a rule of thumb for brute-
force (single cap) filters was 1000uF/Amp of load
downstream of a 60Hz rectifier. Effectiveness of
filtering would be about 5x better at the operating
frequency of the Rotax pm alternator. It seems likely
that the capacitor was originally included to offer
smoother output given the really trashy performance
of phase-switched SCR's as regulators.
We'll see . . .
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: How does the Ducatti rectifier/regulator work? |
| From: | "Eric M. Jones" <emjones(at)charter.net> |
I hesitate to inject my questions about the schematic of the Ducati dynamo regulator.
But what is that little unlabeled zener diode feeding the base of the BF493S?
And why does this look like an alternator regulator instead of a DC dynamo regulator?
What am I missing?
--------
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=436448#436448
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Jan de Jong <jan_de_jong(at)casema.nl> |
| Subject: | Re: How does the Ducatti rectifier/regulator work? |
Hi Eric,
The schematic was a best effort in 2008 by someone who called himself
Arrow on a German forum.
By disassembling a Ducati regulator.
I'm sure there are errors (beyond the battery symbol).
He identified the mechanical connection of the diode pills as the weak
point.
Workaround external diodes.
Unhappy with Rotax.
Forum pages have long gone.
Gilles had a similar effort on his website once (similar but different).
Buyer beware.
Cheers,
Jan de Jong.
On 12/31/2014 4:39 PM, Eric M. Jones wrote:
>
> I hesitate to inject my questions about the schematic of the Ducati dynamo regulator.
But what is that little unlabeled zener diode feeding the base of the
BF493S?
>
> And why does this look like an alternator regulator instead of a DC dynamo regulator?
What am I missing?
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Field of grounds with local bat ground |
| From: | "floridawing" <lb757(at)hotmail.com> |
Hello, I have a HR2. The battery is mounted in the back with a local ground. The
engine is grounded to the engine mount with a strap through a engine mount bolt.
There is a field of grounds mounted to the firewall. The field of grounds
is only receiving its ground through the firewall and no other straps. All my
avionics are grounded to this. My question is is the firewall a good enough ground
for all the avionics? Thank you.
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=436461#436461
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Field of grounds with local bat ground |
I have a similar config, except I grounded the engine directly to the firewall
using the brake reservoir bolt. No problems.
I was reluctant to ground to the engine mount due to the remote possibility of
increased corrosion of the highly stressed engine mount bolts.
Vern
===
> On Dec 31, 2014, at 11:52 AM, floridawing wrote:
>
>
> Hello, I have a HR2. The battery is mounted in the back with a local ground.
The engine is grounded to the engine mount with a strap through a engine mount
bolt. There is a field of grounds mounted to the firewall. The field of grounds
is only receiving its ground through the firewall and no other straps. All
my avionics are grounded to this. My question is is the firewall a good enough
ground for all the avionics? Thank you.
>
>
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=436461#436461
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Charlie England <ceengland7(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Field of grounds with local bat ground |
Plus the fact that steel is a relatively poor conductor, and running
current through it creates at least a mediocre magnet (fun for
compasses, etc).
Charlie
On 1/1/2015 10:52 AM, Vern Little wrote:
>
> I have a similar config, except I grounded the engine directly to the firewall
using the brake reservoir bolt. No problems.
>
> I was reluctant to ground to the engine mount due to the remote possibility of
increased corrosion of the highly stressed engine mount bolts.
>
> Vern
>
> ===
>
>> On Dec 31, 2014, at 11:52 AM, floridawing wrote:
>>
>>
>> Hello, I have a HR2. The battery is mounted in the back with a local ground.
The engine is grounded to the engine mount with a strap through a engine mount
bolt. There is a field of grounds mounted to the firewall. The field of grounds
is only receiving its ground through the firewall and no other straps. All
my avionics are grounded to this. My question is is the firewall a good enough
ground for all the avionics? Thank you.
>>
>>
>>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | D L Josephson <dlj04(at)josephson.com> |
| Subject: | Re: AeroElectric-List Digest: 3 Msgs - 12/31/14 |
On 12/31/14 11:59 PM, AeroElectric-List Digest Server wrote:
> Subject: AeroElectric-List: Re: How does the Ducatti rectifier/regulator work?
> From: "Eric M. Jones" <emjones(at)charter.net>
>
>
> I hesitate to inject my questions about the schematic of the Ducati dynamo regulator.
> But what is that little unlabeled zener diode feeding the base of the BF493S?
>
> And why does this look like an alternator regulator instead of a DC dynamo regulator?
> What am I missing?
It looks like an alternator regulator because that's what it is. The
output from the stator coils is single phase AC.
There are many attempts online at drawing out the schematic of the
existing unit (it helps to search with the correct spelling of Ducati)
but I think the most complete one is in Gilles Thesee's
http://contrails.free.fr/elec_ducati_en.php. There is another website in
Belgium that has some of Gilles' earlier work, with some SPICE
simulations of the waveforms at
http://www.aero-hesbaye.be/circuit_elec.htm. Google Translate does a
good enough job if you don't have any French.
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Field of grounds with local bat ground |
| From: | "floridawing" <lb757(at)hotmail.com> |
Thank you Vern and Charlie. Would I be better off adding a second ground strap
to the engine and running it up to the field of grounds on the firewall or should
I only use the one strap I have but remove the end attached to the engine
mount and attach it instead to the field of grounds on the firewall? Thank you!
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=436503#436503
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | <jimkale(at)roadrunner.com> |
| Subject: | Field of grounds with local bat ground |
Grounds can be tricky on composite or wood airplanes. It is easy to get
different parts of the airplane with grounds not being well bonded to each
other. In that case, grounds can have different voltages on them and you
get what is commonly referred to as GROUND LOOPS. All sorts of funny things
happen to electrical equipment which don't want to operate like they should.
It is extremely difficult to trace the problems. Be very careful to have
all ground points bonded to each other very well with redundant paths if
possible. On metal airplanes, grounds are less difficult, but any metal
corrosion can cause the same problems.
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Charlie
England
Sent: Thursday, January 01, 2015 11:56 AM
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Field of grounds with local bat ground
-->
Plus the fact that steel is a relatively poor conductor, and running current
through it creates at least a mediocre magnet (fun for compasses, etc).
Charlie
On 1/1/2015 10:52 AM, Vern Little wrote:
> --> <voltar@vx-aviation.com>
>
> I have a similar config, except I grounded the engine directly to the
firewall using the brake reservoir bolt. No problems.
>
> I was reluctant to ground to the engine mount due to the remote
possibility of increased corrosion of the highly stressed engine mount
bolts.
>
> Vern
>
> ===
>
>> On Dec 31, 2014, at 11:52 AM, floridawing wrote:
>>
>> -->
>>
>> Hello, I have a HR2. The battery is mounted in the back with a local
ground. The engine is grounded to the engine mount with a strap through a
engine mount bolt. There is a field of grounds mounted to the firewall. The
field of grounds is only receiving its ground through the firewall and no
other straps. All my avionics are grounded to this. My question is is the
firewall a good enough ground for all the avionics? Thank you.
>>
>>
>>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Tim Andres <tim2542(at)sbcglobal.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Field of grounds with local bat ground |
I would add be careful adding additional grounds between the engine case and battery.
Any electrical equipment installed on the engine should be grounded to
the engine. If you run separate grounds for other equipment and the main engine
ground is compromised then your Pmag or whatever will begin to carry the starter
and alternator loads. Unless it's sized for that load....smoke.
Tim
> On Jan 1, 2015, at 5:01 PM,
wrote:
>
>
> Grounds can be tricky on composite or wood airplanes. It is easy to get
> different parts of the airplane with grounds not being well bonded to each
> other. In that case, grounds can have different voltages on them and you
> get what is commonly referred to as GROUND LOOPS. All sorts of funny things
> happen to electrical equipment which don't want to operate like they should.
> It is extremely difficult to trace the problems. Be very careful to have
> all ground points bonded to each other very well with redundant paths if
> possible. On metal airplanes, grounds are less difficult, but any metal
> corrosion can cause the same problems.
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Charlie
> England
> Sent: Thursday, January 01, 2015 11:56 AM
> To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
> Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Field of grounds with local bat ground
>
> -->
>
> Plus the fact that steel is a relatively poor conductor, and running current
> through it creates at least a mediocre magnet (fun for compasses, etc).
>
> Charlie
>
>> On 1/1/2015 10:52 AM, Vern Little wrote:
>> --> <voltar@vx-aviation.com>
>>
>> I have a similar config, except I grounded the engine directly to the
> firewall using the brake reservoir bolt. No problems.
>>
>> I was reluctant to ground to the engine mount due to the remote
> possibility of increased corrosion of the highly stressed engine mount
> bolts.
>>
>> Vern
>>
>> ===
>>
>>> On Dec 31, 2014, at 11:52 AM, floridawing wrote:
>>>
>>> -->
>>>
>>> Hello, I have a HR2. The battery is mounted in the back with a local
> ground. The engine is grounded to the engine mount with a strap through a
> engine mount bolt. There is a field of grounds mounted to the firewall. The
> field of grounds is only receiving its ground through the firewall and no
> other straps. All my avionics are grounded to this. My question is is the
> firewall a good enough ground for all the avionics? Thank you.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Field of grounds with local bat ground |
| From: | "floridawing" <lb757(at)hotmail.com> |
Thank you everyone for the information!
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=436522#436522
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: How does the Ducatti rectifier/regulator |
work?
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Re: How does the Ducatti rectifier/regulator work?
From: "Eric M. Jones" <emjones(at)charter.net>
I hesitate to inject my questions about the schematic of the Ducati
dynamo regulator. But what is that little unlabeled zener diode
feeding the base of the BF493S?
And why does this look like an alternator regulator instead of a DC
dynamo regulator? What am I missing?
--------
Eric M. Jones
www.PerihelionDesign.com
113 Brentwood Drive
Southbridge, MA 01550
(508) 764-2072
emjones(at)charter.net
It has a lot in common with a wound-field regulator.
See attached for an exemplar wound field regulator
from 'back in the day' . . .
The zener in the Ducati schematic is the regulation
voltage reference serving the same purpose as D12
in the attached schematic. Noodle through the same
rise-fall/on-off effects in the Ducati schematic
and you will see that perturbations in bus voltage
as sensed by the Ducati regulator causes a
programmed triggering of the SCRs in the gated,
bridge rectifier with the effect of throttling
Dynamo energy about the regulator's set-point
voltage.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | C&K <yellowduckduo(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | Rotax PM regulator |
There are a couple of interesting quotes from Hawker (on the
www.aero-hesbaye site) saying their Battery life is shortened by
charging ripple. The link below seems to validate the statement.
http://www.cdtechno.com/pdf/ref/41_2131_0212.pdf
Makes me curious whether a large capacitor in the PM charging circuit
might increase battery life a bit.
Ken
"The power being transmitted per burst, voltage ripples are more
important. This can affect all powered systems and instruments but it is
the battery that will suffer the most. To avoid premature aging, Hawker
advocates RMS voltage ripple of less than 1% (battery not connected) ..."
On 01/01/2015 3:38 PM, D L Josephson wrote:
>
>
> It looks like an alternator regulator because that's what it is. The
> output from the stator coils is single phase AC.
>
> There are many attempts online at drawing out the schematic of the
> existing unit (it helps to search with the correct spelling of Ducati)
> but I think the most complete one is in Gilles Thesee's
> http://contrails.free.fr/elec_ducati_en.php. There is another website
> in Belgium that has some of Gilles' earlier work, with some SPICE
> simulations of the waveforms at
> http://www.aero-hesbaye.be/circuit_elec.htm. Google Translate does a
> good enough job if you don't have any French.
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Field of grounds with local bat ground |
At 19:01 2015-01-01, you wrote:
>
>Grounds can be tricky on composite or wood airplanes. It is easy to get
>different parts of the airplane with grounds not being well bonded to each
>other. In that case, grounds can have different voltages on them and you
>get what is commonly referred to as GROUND LOOPS. All sorts of funny things
>happen to electrical equipment which don't want to operate like they should.
>It is extremely difficult to trace the problems. Be very careful to have
>all ground points bonded to each other very well with redundant paths if
>possible. On metal airplanes, grounds are less difficult, but any metal
>corrosion can cause the same problems.
Actually, DC POWER grounding in composite airplanes is stone simple.
See chapter 15 of the 'Connection.
BONDING for purposes of achieving grounds at radio frequencies
and issues of LIGHTNING protection are another matter entirely
. . . usually ignored in OBAM aircraft as physically, economically
and operationally impractical. Adding the necessary and useful
ground plane under comm and xponder antennas is generally
all that's required . . . also stone simple . . . see
chapter 13 . . .
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Field of grounds with local bat ground |
At 15:01 2015-01-01, you wrote:
>
>Thank you Vern and Charlie. Would I be better off adding a second
>ground strap to the engine and running it up to the field of grounds
>on the firewall or should I only use the one strap I have but remove
>the end attached to the engine mount and attach it instead to the
>field of grounds on the firewall? Thank you!
Avoid burdening engine mount structure with
electrical system duties. Single engine ground
to your fire wall mounted 'forest of grounds'
is recommended.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Jim Kale" <jimkale(at)roadrunner.com> |
| Subject: | Field of grounds with local bat ground |
It is only STONE SIMPLE if one knows where to get the information, can
understand and apply the information. Thank you for the reference.
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Robert L.
Nuckolls, III
Sent: Friday, January 2, 2015 5:49 PM
Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Field of grounds with local bat ground
-->
At 19:01 2015-01-01, you wrote:
>
>Grounds can be tricky on composite or wood airplanes. It is easy to
>get different parts of the airplane with grounds not being well bonded
>to each other. In that case, grounds can have different voltages on
>them and you get what is commonly referred to as GROUND LOOPS. All
>sorts of funny things happen to electrical equipment which don't want to
operate like they should.
>It is extremely difficult to trace the problems. Be very careful to
>have all ground points bonded to each other very well with redundant
>paths if possible. On metal airplanes, grounds are less difficult, but
>any metal corrosion can cause the same problems.
Actually, DC POWER grounding in composite airplanes is stone simple.
See chapter 15 of the 'Connection.
BONDING for purposes of achieving grounds at radio frequencies
and issues of LIGHTNING protection are another matter entirely
. . . usually ignored in OBAM aircraft as physically, economically
and operationally impractical. Adding the necessary and useful
ground plane under comm and xponder antennas is generally
all that's required . . . also stone simple . . . see
chapter 13 . . .
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Field of grounds with local bat ground |
| From: | "floridawing" <lb757(at)hotmail.com> |
Hi Bob, thank you. I will relocate the ground on my Rocket from the engine mount
to the firewall with a field of grounds. The battery is still mounted in the
back for W&B with a local ground.
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=436556#436556
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Field of grounds with local bat ground |
At 23:05 2015-01-02, you wrote:
>
>Hi Bob, thank you. I will relocate the ground on my Rocket from the
>engine mount to the firewall with a field of grounds. The battery is
>still mounted in the back for W&B with a local ground.
Sounds like a plan . . .
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Rotax PM regulator |
>"The power being transmitted per burst, voltage ripples are more
>important. This can affect all powered systems and instruments but
>it is the battery that will suffer the most. To avoid premature
>aging, Hawker advocates RMS voltage ripple of less than 1% (battery
>not connected) ..."
I've reviewed several papers on the topic of
charger ripple. While technically accurate
I'm not seeing much significance with respect
to how we use the SLVA battery.
Here are two exemplar documents . . .
http://tinyurl.com/pprktbt
http://tinyurl.com/lkfrwzy
It's clear that these papers speak to
SLVA batteries as standby power where they
are 'floated' on a charger set for the
system operating voltage. I.e.
well above the open circuit voltage for
the cells. It's also clear that the
effects of poorly filtered charger output
are continuous and potentially deleterious
to battery performance when the stresses are
being impressed 24/7/365 by a 'charger'
that is also the ac mains power source
for the system.
Batteries on storage in the OBAM aviation
community should be "maintained" in a
fully charged state just above open
circuit voltage for the battery. The
maintainer is not an power source for
anything beyond simple offset of leakage
currents in the battery.
The conditions more nearly approximating those
explored in these papers are present during
normal operations where the engine drive
power sources are both CHARGERS and ENERGY
suppliers to the ship's systems. The duty
cycle for ripple stresses is exceedingly
low. A few hours per week for a total of
perhaps 100/year. A tiny fraction of that
imposed by un-interruptible power systems
in terrestrial, ac mains powered applications.
I'm skeptical of the notion that adding capacitance
across the output of the Ducati-style PM rectifier/
regulator will produce any observable improvement
in battery life. I'm acquiring test equipment
to quantify and qualify the performance
of PM R/R and will have some better ripple/
noise numbers to offer on the topic later his year.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Jim Kale" <jimkale(at)roadrunner.com> |
| Subject: | Rotax PM regulator |
I have also studied batteries for many years, although, I am not a battery
engineer. I too feel that ripple current has no effect on battery life.
It could affect avionics a lot though. On simple systems, the battery is
often used as the only device to reduce ripple current, and it does a fair
job at that. I have never seen any sign of short battery life, where ripple
current is high.
Jim
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Robert L.
Nuckolls, III
Sent: Saturday, January 3, 2015 7:22 AM
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Rotax PM regulator
-->
>"The power being transmitted per burst, voltage ripples are more
>important. This can affect all powered systems and instruments but it
>is the battery that will suffer the most. To avoid premature aging,
>Hawker advocates RMS voltage ripple of less than 1% (battery not
>connected) ..."
I've reviewed several papers on the topic of
charger ripple. While technically accurate
I'm not seeing much significance with respect
to how we use the SLVA battery.
Here are two exemplar documents . . .
http://tinyurl.com/pprktbt
http://tinyurl.com/lkfrwzy
It's clear that these papers speak to
SLVA batteries as standby power where they
are 'floated' on a charger set for the
system operating voltage. I.e.
well above the open circuit voltage for
the cells. It's also clear that the
effects of poorly filtered charger output
are continuous and potentially deleterious
to battery performance when the stresses are
being impressed 24/7/365 by a 'charger'
that is also the ac mains power source
for the system.
Batteries on storage in the OBAM aviation
community should be "maintained" in a
fully charged state just above open
circuit voltage for the battery. The
maintainer is not an power source for
anything beyond simple offset of leakage
currents in the battery.
The conditions more nearly approximating those
explored in these papers are present during
normal operations where the engine drive
power sources are both CHARGERS and ENERGY
suppliers to the ship's systems. The duty
cycle for ripple stresses is exceedingly
low. A few hours per week for a total of
perhaps 100/year. A tiny fraction of that
imposed by un-interruptible power systems
in terrestrial, ac mains powered applications.
I'm skeptical of the notion that adding capacitance
across the output of the Ducati-style PM rectifier/
regulator will produce any observable improvement
in battery life. I'm acquiring test equipment
to quantify and qualify the performance
of PM R/R and will have some better ripple/
noise numbers to offer on the topic later his year.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | C&K <yellowduckduo(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Rotax PM regulator |
The references to "with the battery disconnected" threw me as then any
charging source with a diode in it will "ideally" prevent any discharge
at the low point of the ripple.
I believe I have a decent grasp of charging voltage constraints and
system voltage ripple but never really thought much about battery
charging current ripple from AC chargers or my single phase PM alternator.
Seems I don't need to give it much more thought either :)
As I recall, common large capacitors alone do next to nothing for
smoothing ripple on AC chargers and presumably my relatively low
frequency single phase PM alternator anyway. Perhaps less true of modern
AC chargers that use high frequency transformers. And then there are
the desulphaters that intentionally add ripple (spikes actually)... ;)
thanks
Ken
On 03/01/2015 10:42 AM, Jim Kale wrote:
>
> I have also studied batteries for many years, although, I am not a battery
> engineer. I too feel that ripple current has no effect on battery life.
> It could affect avionics a lot though. On simple systems, the battery is
> often used as the only device to reduce ripple current, and it does a fair
> job at that. I have never seen any sign of short battery life, where ripple
> current is high.
> Jim
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Robert L.
> Nuckolls, III
> Sent: Saturday, January 3, 2015 7:22 AM
> To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
> Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Rotax PM regulator
>
> -->
>
>
>> "The power being transmitted per burst, voltage ripples are more
>> important. This can affect all powered systems and instruments but it
>> is the battery that will suffer the most. To avoid premature aging,
>> Hawker advocates RMS voltage ripple of less than 1% (battery not
>> connected) ..."
>
>
> I've reviewed several papers on the topic of
> charger ripple. While technically accurate
> I'm not seeing much significance with respect
> to how we use the SLVA battery.
>
> Here are two exemplar documents . . .
>
> http://tinyurl.com/pprktbt
>
> http://tinyurl.com/lkfrwzy
>
> It's clear that these papers speak to
> SLVA batteries as standby power where they
> are 'floated' on a charger set for the
> system operating voltage. I.e.
> well above the open circuit voltage for
> the cells. It's also clear that the
> effects of poorly filtered charger output
> are continuous and potentially deleterious
> to battery performance when the stresses are
> being impressed 24/7/365 by a 'charger'
> that is also the ac mains power source
> for the system.
>
> Batteries on storage in the OBAM aviation
> community should be "maintained" in a
> fully charged state just above open
> circuit voltage for the battery. The
> maintainer is not an power source for
> anything beyond simple offset of leakage
> currents in the battery.
>
> The conditions more nearly approximating those
> explored in these papers are present during
> normal operations where the engine drive
> power sources are both CHARGERS and ENERGY
> suppliers to the ship's systems. The duty
> cycle for ripple stresses is exceedingly
> low. A few hours per week for a total of
> perhaps 100/year. A tiny fraction of that
> imposed by un-interruptible power systems
> in terrestrial, ac mains powered applications.
>
> I'm skeptical of the notion that adding capacitance
> across the output of the Ducati-style PM rectifier/
> regulator will produce any observable improvement
> in battery life. I'm acquiring test equipment
> to quantify and qualify the performance
> of PM R/R and will have some better ripple/
> noise numbers to offer on the topic later his year.
>
>
> Bob . . .
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Rotax PM regulator |
At 09:42 2015-01-03, you wrote:
I have also studied batteries for many years, although, I am not a battery
engineer. I too feel that ripple current has no effect on battery life.
It could affect avionics a lot though. On simple systems, the battery is
often used as the only device to reduce ripple current, and it does a fair
job at that. I have never seen any sign of short battery life, where ripple
current is high.
One of the difficulties we face with making
such determinations is data . . . laboratory
data in particular. The ripple vs. service life
effects are going to be bounded by the single
digit percentages . . . in an operational
environment where the effects of other variables
are several times greater thus smothering any
ripple/life studies in 'noise'.
We used to teach that the battery was the ship's
best filter for small perturbations in bus
voltage . . . it was taught to me and I repeated
it faithfully until I began to study system
integration and design regulators.
Numbers refuting the 'best filter' assertions
were laying out on the table in profusion but
there was a predominant notion that batteries,
like capacitors, were these huge energy storage
devices with similar characteristics. But aside
from being able to store energy, similarities
end there . . .
An SVLA battery delivers energy at 12.5 and below.
It gets charged at 13.8 and above. In that gray
area between deliverance and acceptance of Joules,
the SVLA becomes 'soggy' as mitigator of
noise. Unlike the capacitor that presents a
relatively constant reactance at any voltage,
reactance of the battery rises sharply in the
gray area between charge and discharge voltages.
This means that batteries are not good 'filters'
of small (+/-5%) excursions in bus voltage. This
is why DO160 suggests that we expect and plan
to deal with certain noises on the DC bus. See:
http://tinyurl.com/pt36wsb
They tend to be a little better at the top
end of the gray area (at nominal bus voltage)
but in no instance does any salt-worthy
system integrator rely on battery presence
for anything but energy storage.
During the planned studies for this year,
I'll gather and publish data that supports
these notions . . .
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | rayj <raymondj(at)frontiernet.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Rotax PM regulator |
Kinda sounds like: Be given a fair trial, and then executed. :>)
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 01/03/2015 11:26 AM, Robert L. Nuckolls, III wrote:
-------------------SNIP--------------------------
>
> During the planned studies for this year,
> I'll gather and publish data that supports
> these notions . . .
>
>
> Bob . . .
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Rotax PM regulator |
>As I recall, common large capacitors alone do next to nothing for
>smoothing ripple on AC chargers and presumably my relatively low
>frequency single phase PM alternator anyway.
Even the smallest capacitor will do something . . . albeit
tiny. One way to put a sanity check on any recommended
capacitor is to consider the rate-of-change for voltage
across a capacitor based on current being drawn out of or
pumped into it.
A good estimation can be made by calculating
the drop between half-cycles of the full wave rectified
ac. Assume 200 Hz alternator. Assume capacitor gets
charged to 10V at top of each half-cycle. Let's say
we want the capacitor to hold the output at no less than
9.5 volts between half-cycle periods of 2.5mS.
1 Amp impressed on 1 Farad will change its voltage
by 1 Volt every Second or 2.5mV every 2.5mS. We're
trying to stay in a 500mV window so the CURRENT
can go up 200 times or 200A. To support 20A we can
cut it to 0.1F (100K uF).
This ball-parking exercise suggests that a 20A alternator
would have to be 'smoothed' with 100,000mF at 200Hz
operation to keep the ripple under 5% peak-to-peak. Of
course, a higher frequency of operation helps as does
a lower operating current. But that 0.1F capacitor
estimation illustrates your assertion nicely . . .
10 or 22KuF on a 20A Rotax alternator is not going
to be a robust 'smoother'.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: lithium facts |
| From: | "davevon" <davevon(at)bellsouth.net> |
Hi All,
Hope I'm not too late to join in on the discussion, I wish I would have seen this
sooner. Greg over at B&C pointed me in this direction.
I'm in process of redoing the complete electrical system in a Laser 230 aerobatic
airplane. The system had evolved into something that was very heavy, unsafe
and just plain wrong in so many ways...
To save weight I bought an Aerovoltz/Ballistic LiFePo4 EVO2-16 battery. I'm using
a B&C SD-8 with their external regulator and OV protection.
Researching charging voltages for the LiFePo4 chemistry I'm finding a large variation
in recommendations.
The EV (Electric Vehicle) guys claim 3.33v/cell is 100% charged and shouldn't be taken beyond that. http://www.diyelectriccar.com/forums/showthread.php/you-all-destroying-your-lifepo4-cells-65336.html
Then I've seen a couple of places saying 3.65v/cell is 100% charged with a max voltage of 4.2v. http://www.powerstream.com/LLLF.htm
The stock B&C system charges at 14.4v and the OV protection is set 16v. Ballistic
batteries is telling me to charge at 14.4v but don't go over or "bad things
will happen". I'm sure that the OV protection has to be set more than even
a .1v higher that the regulated voltage to prevent nuance trips.
I'm guessing that there's some variation between cell manufactures and their voltage
specs and add to that the battery manufactures/assemblers add their safety
margin which leads to a case like the Aerovoltz/Ballistic having no leeway
between the charging voltage and do not go over voltage...
So is there a definitive answer???
Thank you for your time,
Dave
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=436650#436650
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Rick Beebe <richard.beebe(at)yale.edu> |
| Subject: | Re: lithium facts |
On 01/05/2015 11:07 AM, davevon wrote:
>
>
> [...]
> Researching charging voltages for the LiFePo4 chemistry I'm finding a
> large variation in recommendations.
>
> The EV (Electric Vehicle) guys claim 3.33v/cell is 100% charged and
> shouldn't be taken beyond that.
>
> Then I've seen a couple of places saying 3.65v/cell is 100% charged
> with a max voltage of 4.2v.
I have an EV that I converted with LiFePo4 cells. While charging I
charge until the voltage hits 3.5v per cell (and I've heard that 3.65 is
the highest safe range but there's little added beyond 3.5v). I then
hold the voltage until the current drops to 0.05C.
After I stop charging the voltage will drop to somewhere around
3.2-3.3v. So maybe that's what the first voltage is about.
> The stock B&C system charges at 14.4v and the OV protection is set
> 16v. Ballistic batteries is telling me to charge at 14.4v but don't
> go over or "bad things will happen". I'm sure that the OV protection
> has to be set more than even a .1v higher that the regulated voltage
> to prevent nuance trips.
Since they're building batteries to replace lead-acid cells, its pretty
silly of them not to protect their batteries from "normal" lead-acid
voltages. If they have 4 cells, 14.4v is 3.6 per cell which should be
fine. The maximum of 4.2 x 4 = 16.8 so bad things shouldn't happen with
an occasional foray above 14.4 except perhaps shortening the life of the
battery.
> I'm guessing that there's some variation between cell manufactures
> and their voltage specs and add to that the battery
> manufactures/assemblers add their safety margin which leads to a case
> like the Aerovoltz/Ballistic having no leeway between the charging
> voltage and do not go over voltage...
>
> So is there a definitive answer???
I've found that there's quite a variation in knowledge about LiFePo4
cells among the people who are selling them and even among those
building them.
--Rick
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: lithium facts |
>>So is there a definitive answer???
>
>I've found that there's quite a variation in knowledge about LiFePo4
>cells among the people who are selling them and even among those building them.
Gee . . . what was your first clue?
I've been sifting the lithium pile of sand for about 4 months.
I'll be writing an article for KitPlanes on some of my findings.
In brief, I believe I am on solid ground with the following
assertions:
LiFePo4 IS the chemistry of choice
The MAX charge voltage for LiFePo4 is 4.2 volts per
cell.
Sift through the spec sheets for commercial offerings
of LiFePo4 and you'll find MOST cells "rated" at 3.7V
charge, 3.3V nominal delivery point.
Here are some exemplar performance curves one particular
cell
Emacs!
Note that charging at 4.2 volts nearly DOUBLES the cell's contained
energy. Stack 4 cells in series to perform in a 14v system and
you would have to charge the battery at 16.8 volts. A tad high for
many 14V bus operated devices . . . and perhaps out of reach for
many voltage regulators.
It's a little different ball game for consumer products that discharge
lithium cells with switchmode power supplies. You can order chargers
rated for EITHER 3.7 or 4.2 volts per cell. There are no caveats
offered for the use of these chargers with any of the COTS lithium
products . . .hence, no big risk . . . but a substantial difference
in cell performance.
3.7 x 4 is 14.8 volts . . . right in the ball park for plug-n-play
replacement of SLVA with Lithium. Yes, STORED energy is 1/2 but service
life gets a real boost . . . and risk for electrically induced damage
to the battery goes way down. The AeroVoltz 3x4 array I tested clocked
in at just over 7AH capacity when charged on a 14.5V bus.
Cells promoted in the wild are burdened with some outrageous
claims for capacity . . . John Q. Public has few tools or skills
to determine if his purchase was righteous or not . . . so the
flim-flammers
get away with it. MOST of the cells I've sampled off eBay were not
worth the postage to get them onto my workbench . . . however,
some are quite good.
Balancing chargers are another story . . . but the bottom line is
that the COTS offerings of lithium drop-ins for SVLA battery
boxes don't come with a lot of hazard to anything but your
pocketbook. As the lithium market matures, we may well be
speaking of 16 volt systems for future airplanes.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Overvoltage crowbar availability? |
| From: | Justin Jones <jmjones2000(at)mindspring.com> |
Bob,
Do you have any of these new ovp modules available?
Justin
> On Dec 13, 2014, at 19:12, Robert L. Nuckolls, III <nuckolls.bob@aeroelect
ric.com> wrote:
>
> At 20:43 2014-12-11, you wrote:
m>
>>
>> Greetings,
>>
>> It looks like B and C no longer carries the stand-alone overvoltage crowb
ar (at least I think that's where I bought the one in my LongEz).
>> I know Bob is trying to get out of the parts distribution business.
>> Does anyone else know of a source or should I just plan on building my ow
n. (and if you have the link handy to Bob's schematic that would be great b
ut don't search if you don't as I'm sure I can find it...).
>
> There is a replacement for the legacy crowbar modules
> in the works. Boards are laid out and software is
> nearly complete. Probably have some working hardware
> in the next two weeks. B&C can probably still sell you
> the older version as well.
>
> The new one is software based and much more immune
> to nuisance trips. It's also packaged to look more
> like an 'airplane part' than the legacy CBOVM
> modules.
>
>
>
>
> Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Sales pitch from Sinopoly Battery- did anyone else |
get this?
| From: | Jay Hyde <jay(at)horriblehyde.com> |
Hi there listers,
Did anyone else receive a sales message from this company? I recieved an
email from a Sinopoly Battery salesman where the text content states "Glad
to know you from Aero Electric forum".
Johannesburg Jay, now in Saudi Arabia...
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Sales pitch from Sinopoly Battery- did anyone else |
get this?
| From: | John Tipton <jmtipton(at)btopenworld.com> |
Yes:
Sent from my iPad
----x--O--x----
> On 6 Jan 2015, at 08:23 am, Jay Hyde wrote:
>
> Hi there listers,
>
> Did anyone else receive a sales message from this company? I recieved an e
mail from a Sinopoly Battery salesman where the text content states "Glad to
know you from Aero Electric forum".
>
> Johannesburg Jay, now in Saudi Arabia...
>
>
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: | Bob Verwey <bob.verwey(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Overvoltage crowbar availability? |
Great news, I am also on the list of OV module shoppers....
Best...
Bob Verwey
On 6 January 2015 at 05:01, Justin Jones wrote:
> Bob,
>
> Do you have any of these new ovp modules available?
>
> Justin
>
>
> On Dec 13, 2014, at 19:12, Robert L. Nuckolls, III <
> nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> wrote:
>
> At 20:43 2014-12-11, you wrote:
>
> >
>
> Greetings,
>
> It looks like B and C no longer carries the stand-alone overvoltage
> crowbar (at least I think that's where I bought the one in my LongEz).
> I know Bob is trying to get out of the parts distribution business.
> Does anyone else know of a source or should I just plan on building my
> own. (and if you have the link handy to Bob's schematic that would be
> great but don't search if you don't as I'm sure I can find it...).
>
>
> There is a replacement for the legacy crowbar modules
> in the works. Boards are laid out and software is
> nearly complete. Probably have some working hardware
> in the next two weeks. B&C can probably still sell you
> the older version as well.
>
> The new one is software based and much more immune
> to nuisance trips. It's also packaged to look more
> like an 'airplane part' than the legacy CBOVM
> modules.
>
>
>
>
> Bob . . .
>
> *
>
>
> *
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Overvoltage crowbar availability? |
At 05:14 2015-01-06, you wrote:
>Great news, I am also on the list of OV module shoppers....
>
>Best...
>
>Bob Verwey
Not of the legacy, blob-on-the-wires variety
but the boards are in for the next generation
proof-of-concept parts. We have a little
software to massage too but I should have
some assembled shortly.
B&C may have some of the legacy design available
if your need is urgent.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Sales pitch from Sinopoly Battery- did anyone |
else get this?
| From: | Robert Borger <rlborger(at)mac.com> |
Listers,
Yes, received it this morning.
Blue skies & tailwinds,
Bob Borger
Europa XS Tri, Rotax 914, Airmaster C/S Prop (75 hrs).
Little Toot Sport Biplane, Lycoming Thunderbolt AEIO-320 EXP
3705 Lynchburg Dr.
Corinth, TX 76208-5331
Cel: 817-992-1117
rlborger(at)mac.com
On Jan 6, 2015, at 2:23 AM, Jay Hyde wrote:
Hi there listers,
Did anyone else receive a sales message from this company? I recieved
an email from a Sinopoly Battery salesman where the text content states
"Glad to know you from Aero Electric forum".
Johannesburg Jay, now in Saudi Arabia...
<http://www.aeroelectric.com/>
<http://www.buildersbooks.com/>
<http://www.homebuilthelp.com/>
<http://www.mypilotstore.com/>
<http://www.matronics.com/contribution>
<http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: lithium facts |
| From: | "davevon" <davevon(at)bellsouth.net> |
Thanks to those who responded! I'm going to carry on with a plug-n-play setup.
Does anyone have more of a back story of what took place with this fire? I'm assuming
poor voltage regulation or a short? It took place a while back and there
hasn't been much discussion on it.
http://www.heavenboundaviation.com/documents/AerovoltzbatteryfirePDF.pdf
Thanks,
Dave
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=436684#436684
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: lithium facts |
| From: | Robert Borger <rlborger(at)mac.com> |
Dave,
Thats an interesting LiFePo story, because that chemistry is supposed to be fire
safe.
Maybe poor voltage regulation, but probably a short inside or outside the battery.
Ugly result that could have been a heck of a lot uglier if he hadnt put it on the
ground when he did.
Blue skies & tailwinds,
Bob Borger
Europa XS Tri, Rotax 914, Airmaster C/S Prop (75 hrs).
Little Toot Sport Biplane, Lycoming Thunderbolt AEIO-320 EXP
3705 Lynchburg Dr.
Corinth, TX 76208-5331
Cel: 817-992-1117
rlborger(at)mac.com
On Jan 6, 2015, at 10:21 AM, davevon wrote:
Thanks to those who responded! I'm going to carry on with a plug-n-play setup.
Does anyone have more of a back story of what took place with this fire? I'm assuming
poor voltage regulation or a short? It took place a while back and there
hasn't been much discussion on it.
http://www.heavenboundaviation.com/documents/AerovoltzbatteryfirePDF.pdf
Thanks,
Dave
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: lithium facts |
At 10:21 2015-01-06, you wrote:
>
>Thanks to those who responded! I'm going to carry on with a
>plug-n-play setup.
>
>Does anyone have more of a back story of what took place with this
>fire? I'm assuming poor voltage regulation or a short? It took
>place a while back and there hasn't been much discussion on it.
>
>http://www.heavenboundaviation.com/documents/AerovoltzbatteryfirePDF.pdf
Thanks for the heads-up on this . . . you guys offer a wider
spectrum of eyes-n-ears than I can muster on my own. I'll
see if I can find out more about this incident.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: lithium facts |
At 11:13 2015-01-06, you wrote:
>
>Dave,
>
>That's an interesting LiFePo story, because that chemistry is
>supposed to be fire safe.
>
>Maybe poor voltage regulation, but probably a short inside or
>outside the battery.
>
>Ugly result that could have been a heck of a lot uglier if he hadn't
>put it on the ground when he did.
Unfortunately, the carcass will probably not be
closely examined. The actual burning may have been
limited to plastic in the case but initiated by
a catastrophic fault within the battery.
Unless the 'event' involves a TC aircraft, personal
injury or serious loss of airframe, the NTSB won't have
much interest in spending $thousands$ to deduce root
cause . . . and AeroVoltz is probably not going to
pursue a microscopic examination either.
This happened a long time ago. I'll write AeroVoltz
to see what they have to contribute to understanding.
Given the smaller/lighter characteristics of the
LiPo batteries, it's probably not a serious weight
hit to consider stainless boxes with fire-resistant
linings or some such . . . it may be that some approach
similar to the True Blue Power packaging improves
the FMEA.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Rick Beebe <richard.beebe(at)yale.edu> |
| Subject: | Re: lithium facts |
Fire-safer but not fire safe. The older Lithium Cobalt will start to
break down--and perhaps enter thermal runaway--at around 160C. These are
the ones that gave lithium its bad rep. LiFoPo4 doesn't start to break
down until around 300C. That said I don't think these cells entered
thermal runaway. I suspect maybe one of the cells developed an internal
short and either it got hot or--because they were receiving too much
voltage without that one cell in play--the others did. Then the plastic
case melted and caught on fire. If the cells were actually on fire it's
not likely that him dribbling his water bottle on it would have put the
fire out.
So my question to AeroVoltz would be what the case is made of and are
they using the same plastic now?
--Rick
On 01/06/2015 12:13 PM, Robert Borger wrote:
>
>
> Dave,
>
> Thats an interesting LiFePo story, because that chemistry is
> supposed to be fire safe.
>
> Maybe poor voltage regulation, but probably a short inside or outside
> the battery.
>
> Ugly result that could have been a heck of a lot uglier if he hadnt
> put it on the ground when he did.
>
> Blue skies & tailwinds, Bob Borger Europa XS Tri, Rotax 914,
> Airmaster C/S Prop (75 hrs). Little Toot Sport Biplane, Lycoming
> Thunderbolt AEIO-320 EXP 3705 Lynchburg Dr. Corinth, TX 76208-5331
> Cel: 817-992-1117 rlborger(at)mac.com
>
>
> On Jan 6, 2015, at 10:21 AM, davevon wrote:
>
>
>
> Thanks to those who responded! I'm going to carry on with a
> plug-n-play setup.
>
> Does anyone have more of a back story of what took place with this
> fire? I'm assuming poor voltage regulation or a short? It took
> place a while back and there hasn't been much discussion on it.
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Jim Kale" <jimkale(at)roadrunner.com> |
| Subject: | Sales pitch from Sinopoly Battery- did anyone |
else get this?
I got one and ignored it.
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Robert
Borger
Sent: Tuesday, January 6, 2015 8:24 AM
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Sales pitch from Sinopoly Battery- did
anyone else get this?
Listers,
Yes, received it this morning.
Blue skies & tailwinds,
Bob Borger
Europa XS Tri, Rotax 914, Airmaster C/S Prop (75 hrs).
Little Toot Sport Biplane, Lycoming Thunderbolt AEIO-320 EXP
3705 Lynchburg Dr.
Corinth, TX 76208-5331
Cel: 817-992-1117
rlborger(at)mac.com
On Jan 6, 2015, at 2:23 AM, Jay Hyde > wrote:
Hi there listers,
Did anyone else receive a sales message from this company? I recieved an
email from a Sinopoly Battery salesman where the text content states "Glad
to know you from Aero Electric forum".
Johannesburg Jay, now in Saudi Arabia...
class="">www.aeroelectric.com <http://www.aeroelectric.com>
href="http://www.buildersbooks.com/" class="">www.buildersbooks.com
<http://www.buildersbooks.com>
class="">www.homebuilthelp.com <http://www.homebuilthelp.com>
class="">www.mypilotstore.com <http://www.mypilotstore.com>
class="">www.mrrace.com <http://www.mrrace.com>
class="">http://www.matronics.com/contribution
href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List"
class="">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List
class="">http://forums.matronics.com
<http://www.buildersbooks.com>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Mauri Morin" <maurv8(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Sales pitch from Sinopoly Battery- did anyone else |
get this?
I got it and hit " DELETE"
----- Original Message -----
From: Jay Hyde
To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Tuesday, January 06, 2015 1:23 AM
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Sales pitch from Sinopoly Battery- did
anyone else get this?
Hi there listers,
Did anyone else receive a sales message from this company? I recieved
an email from a Sinopoly Battery salesman where the text content states
"Glad to know you from Aero Electric forum".
Johannesburg Jay, now in Saudi Arabia...
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: lithium facts |
>So my question to AeroVoltz would be what the case is made of and
>are they using the same plastic now?
Agreed . . . good put . . .
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: lithium facts |
| From: | "davevon" <davevon(at)bellsouth.net> |
I think the Aerovoltz and Ballistic batteries may be the same with different covers
(different logo is all).
Ballistic:
http://www.ballisticparts.com/product_info.php?cPath=141&products_id=428
Aerovoltz:
http://www.aerovoltz.com/av16.html
Dave
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=436716#436716
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | So long and thanks |
| From: | James Kilford <james(at)etravel.org> |
I've sold my Jodel and have, for the moment, decided to leave the
AeroElectric list, so I wanted to drop everyone a quick line to say thanks:
I certainly couldn't have done the aircraft wiring without Bob, the
AeroElectric Connection, and the generous list members who give their time
so selflessly.
However, more than what I've learned about electrons and
"electro-whizzies", I've learned a whole heap about FMEA, research-based
conclusions, realistic specification, backup planning, and much more
besides. I'm especially grateful for that, because it will help me no end
in the future in work and home life.
So, thank you to everyone on the list. It's amazing that you've all been
so generous with your help.
Especially though, thanks to Bob. Your commitment to the cause is
extraordinary. Your open mind, patience, rational thinking, and kind
manner are inspiring. I'm going to try and be more like you.
Wishing you all reliable electro-whizzies and happy flying!
James Kilford
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: So long and thanks |
At 07:04 2015-01-07, you wrote:
I've sold my Jodel and have, for the moment,
decided to leave the AeroElectric list, so I
wanted to drop everyone a quick line to say
thanks: I certainly couldn't have done the
aircraft wiring without Bob, the AeroElectric
Connection, and the generous list members who give their time so selflessly.
However, more than what I've learned about
electrons and "electro-whizzies", I've learned a
whole heap about FMEA, research-based
conclusions, realistic specification, backup
planning, and much more besides. I'm especially
grateful for that, because it will help me no end
in the future in work and home life.
So, thank you to everyone on the list. It's
amazing that you've all been so generous with your help.
Especially though, thanks to Bob. Your commitment
to the cause is extraordinary. Your open mind,
patience, rational thinking, and kind manner are
inspiring. I'm going to try and be more like you.
Wishing you all reliable electro-whizzies and happy flying!
Thank you sir . . . you've made my day!
I'm pleased that you were able, willing
and motivated to exploit the best of what
this little community had to offer.
Pay it forward my friend. Knowledge and
experience are often categorized as commodities,
things that are consumed. I consider them
unique among intellectual values in that
they grow in proportion to how often they
are given away.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: So long and thanks |
| From: | Bob Verwey <bob.verwey(at)gmail.com> |
James, though I am going nowhere, I wholeheartedly second your
positive sentiments!
On 07/01/2015, James Kilford wrote:
> I've sold my Jodel and have, for the moment, decided to leave the
> AeroElectric list, so I wanted to drop everyone a quick line to say thanks:
> I certainly couldn't have done the aircraft wiring without Bob, the
> AeroElectric Connection, and the generous list members who give their time
> so selflessly.
>
> However, more than what I've learned about electrons and
> "electro-whizzies", I've learned a whole heap about FMEA, research-based
> conclusions, realistic specification, backup planning, and much more
> besides. I'm especially grateful for that, because it will help me no end
> in the future in work and home life.
>
> So, thank you to everyone on the list. It's amazing that you've all been
> so generous with your help.
>
> Especially though, thanks to Bob. Your commitment to the cause is
> extraordinary. Your open mind, patience, rational thinking, and kind
> manner are inspiring. I'm going to try and be more like you.
>
> Wishing you all reliable electro-whizzies and happy flying!
>
> James Kilford
>
--
Best...
Bob Verwey
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: lithium facts |
At 17:41 2015-01-06, you wrote:
>
>I think the Aerovoltz and Ballistic batteries may be the same with
>different covers (different logo is all).
>
>Ballistic:
>http://www.ballisticparts.com/product_info.php?cPath=141&products_id=428
>
>Aerovoltz:
>http://www.aerovoltz.com/av16.html
>
>Dave
Seems probable . . . I've read somewhere that AeroVoltz
is housed in ABS plastic . . . not exactly renowned for
a resistance to combustion.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Bob Verwey <bob.verwey(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Fusible links NOW VARIATION ON A THEME |
Gents, thanks again for the responses....I have installed the manual (300
amp rated) disconnect 6" from the battery, and it is reachable for an
emergency disconnect.
Best...
Bob Verwey
On 8 December 2014 at 18:00, Jeff Luckey wrote:
> BobV,
>
> The rule of thumb is to keep the fat wires that are bolted directly to B+
> as short as possible. My personal rule is less than 18 inches.
>
> Is there a reason not to add a traditional start solenoid right at the
> battery? In your case is may be redundant but it keeps the un-protected
> feeder length short. You would have to move the master relay to that
> position also - so that's another few feet of #4. This is probably less
> expensive than the manual disconnect & it keeps the big starter cable inert
> except during cranking.
>
> -Jeff
>
>
> On Monday, December 8, 2014 3:25 AM, Bob Verwey
> wrote:
>
>
> Correct Bob N, I have only a 70amp relay to feed the bus.
>
> [image: Inline images 1]
>
> Best...
>
> Bob Verwey
>
>
> On 4 December 2014 at 17:58, Robert L. Nuckolls, III <
> nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> wrote:
>
> nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com>
>
> At 02:19 2014-12-04, you wrote:
>
> So I have a fat wire (00) running from the battery behind pilot seat, to
> the firewall, from whence the starter fat wire is connected on the engine
> side, and a 4 awg behind the firewall to the bus through a contactor.
>
>
> You mean that your battery contactor is not
> mounted adjacent to the battery?
>
>
> Bob . . .
>
> ===================================
> br> fts!)
> r> > /www.aeroelectric.com" target="_blank">www.aeroelectric.com
> w.buildersbooks.com" target="_blank">www.buildersbooks.com
> p.com" target="_blank">www.homebuilthelp.com
> e.com" target="_blank">www.mypilotstore.com
> " target="_blank">www.mrrace.com
> target="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/contribution
> -Matt Dralle, List Admin.
> ===================================
> -
> Electric-List" target="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/
> Navigator?AeroElectric-List
> ===================================
> FORUMS -
> _blank">http://forums.matronics.com
> ===================================
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Robert Reed <robertr237(at)att.net> |
| Subject: | Z14 DWG File for FADEC |
Does anyone have the DWG File for the
Dual Battery, Dual Alternator, FADEC Version Schematic (Z14)
I have the PDF Version but need to obtain the DWG File.
If up have it, could you email it to me at RobertR237(at)att.net
Thanks,
Bob Reed
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | rayj <raymondj(at)frontiernet.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Z14 DWG File for FADEC |
Just ran across this ad. Thought I'd pass it on to you. Maybe the trial
version would get the job done.
http://www.axsware.com/?gclid=CNuDqvOqjcMCFTBgMgodymsARA
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 01/11/2015 06:17 PM, Robert Reed wrote:
> Does anyone have the DWG File for the
>
> Dual Battery, Dual Alternator, FADEC Version Schematic (Z14)
>
> I have the PDF Version but need to obtain the DWG File.
>
> If up have it, could you email it to me at RobertR237(at)att.net
>
>
> Thanks,
>
> Bob Reed
>
> *
>
>
> *
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Z14 DWG File for FADEC |
At 18:17 2015-01-11, you wrote:
>Does anyone have the DWG File for the
>
>Dual Battery, Dual Alternator, FADEC Version Schematic (Z14)
>
>I have the PDF Version but need to obtain the DWG File.
>
>If up have it, could you email it to me at RobertR237(at)att.net
The entire library of AeroElectric Connection drawings
in .pdf and .dwg form are available from the website
at:
http://tinyurl.com/og7ztjl
A 'fadec version' . . . not sure what this is.
can you mail me a copy of the .pdf?
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Robert Reed <robertr237(at)att.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Z14 DWG File for FADEC |
Bob
I have attached a copy of the only file that I have which it turns out is not the
one I thought it was.
Several years back you worked up a version of the Z14 Dual Bat, Dual Alt, Split
Bus for the Aerosance FADEC system. I think it was called the Z14-FADEC and
I remember seeing it on your site but I can't find it now. The copy that I have
looks the same but does not identify the original. I thought I had a copy
on my computer but have been unable to locate and suspect it was lost when I upgraded
computers a while back.
The attached schematic is very close to what I need but I need to make a few changes
for my configuration. I can probably use the Z14 and make the changes if
all else fails.
Thanks,
Bob Reed
________________________________
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com>
Sent: Sunday, January 11, 2015 8:21 PM
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Z14 DWG File for FADEC
At 18:17 2015-01-11, you wrote:
>Does anyone have the DWG File for the
>
>Dual Battery, Dual Alternator, FADEC Version Schematic (Z14)
>
>I have the PDF Version but need to obtain the DWG File.
>
>If up have it, could you email it to me at RobertR237(at)att.net
The entire library of AeroElectric Connection drawings
in .pdf and .dwg form are available from the website
at:
http://tinyurl.com/og7ztjl
A 'fadec version' . . . not sure what this is.
can you mail me a copy of the .pdf?
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Noise Cancelling headphones |
| From: | "danb" <danb_89(at)yahoo.com> |
John,
I recently bought a set of Bose headsets and had a similar thing happen. Oddly
enough, I was able to hit the PTT and talk to ground fine, however, when i went
to tower and hit the PTT I got a loud squeal. Strange how a different frequency
on the radio induces the noise. Anyone have a thought? use a filter?
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=436876#436876
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Kelly McMullen <kellym(at)aviating.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Noise Cancelling headphones |
I had that problem with a previous plane, where radio mostly worked fine
with lower frequencies, but would squeal with frequencies above say
125.0. Once I put my radio in another aircraft that didn't have
problems, it was obvious the problem existed in my airplane outside of
the radio. Turned out to be the antenna cable, which was made in the
days before crimped connectors were common. On the radio end of the
cable there was a cold solder joint on the shield, allowing RF to
feedback into the radio. I was given all kinds of theories in trouble
shooting, of problems in the radio, problems with the brand headset not
having shielded wires, etc. etc.
New cable completely eliminated the problem.
So I suggest trying a different PTT, try your radio in a different
airframe that has same model radio, see if the problem follows the
components or not.
On 1/12/2015 2:05 AM, danb wrote:
>
> John,
> I recently bought a set of Bose headsets and had a similar thing happen. Oddly
enough, I was able to hit the PTT and talk to ground fine, however, when i went
to tower and hit the PTT I got a loud squeal. Strange how a different frequency
on the radio induces the noise. Anyone have a thought? use a filter?
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=436876#436876
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | DeWitt Whittington <dee.whittington(at)gmail.com> |
Hello Larry,
I sent in a bid for a number of items, but never heard from you. I assume
you easily sold them all?
Dee
DeWitt (Dee) Whittington
Richmond, VA
804-677-4849 iPhone
804-358-4333 Home
On Mon, Dec 8, 2014 at 3:05 PM, Larry Mac Donald wrote:
>
> I am offering the following aviation tools for sale.
> If you are interested, make a reasonable offer.
>
> Whitney hand punch
> Tubing cutter
> Hole flanging tool
> Seaming tool
> Fly-cutter
> Micro stop countersink
> Aviation snips-left-right & straight
> 3X rivet gun
> Safety wire twister
> Magnetic base protractor
> Rivet spacer
> Air grinder
> Pop rivet tool
> Rivet gauges
> Cleco pliers
> Deburring tool
> Countersink
> Fluting plier
> Bucking bar
> Rivet squeezer with 1-1/2 yoke
> 3 In. yoke
> Pneumatic Rivet squeezer with 1-1/2 in. yoke
> Rivet squeezer dies
> Dimpleing dies
> Blind rivet kit
> Air drill
> Clecos
> Hand seamer
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> NetZero now offers 4G mobile broadband. Sign up now.
> http://www.netzero.net/?refcd=NZINTISP0512T4GOUT1
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Noise Cancelling headphones |
Try also taking your headset cord and wrap three turns of it around your han
d and secure it with a pair of tie wraps. You've just made an RF choke that
may eliminate conduct RF energy into the headset.
Vern
=====
Vernon R. Little | Chairman, Iris Dynamics Ltd. | President, Vx Aviation
> On Jan 12, 2015, at 6:15 AM, Kelly McMullen wrote:
>
om>
>
> I had that problem with a previous plane, where radio mostly worked fine w
ith lower frequencies, but would squeal with frequencies above say 125.0. On
ce I put my radio in another aircraft that didn't have problems, it was obvi
ous the problem existed in my airplane outside of the radio. Turned out to b
e the antenna cable, which was made in the days before crimped connectors we
re common. On the radio end of the cable there was a cold solder joint on th
e shield, allowing RF to feedback into the radio. I was given all kinds of t
heories in trouble shooting, of problems in the radio, problems with the bra
nd headset not having shielded wires, etc. etc.
> New cable completely eliminated the problem.
> So I suggest trying a different PTT, try your radio in a different airfram
e that has same model radio, see if the problem follows the components or no
t.
>> On 1/12/2015 2:05 AM, danb wrote:
>>
>> John,
>> I recently bought a set of Bose headsets and had a similar thing happen. O
ddly enough, I was able to hit the PTT and talk to ground fine, however, whe
n i went to tower and hit the PTT I got a loud squeal. Strange how a differe
nt frequency on the radio induces the noise. Anyone have a thought? use a fi
lter?
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Read this topic online here:
>>
>> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=436876#436876
>
>
==========================
=========
==========================
=========
==========================
=========
==========================
=========
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "danielj.billingsley(at)yahoo.com" <danb_89(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Noise Cancelling headphones |
Thanks Kelly, that's good =C2-information and gives me something to look
at.Dan
From: Kelly McMullen <kellym(at)aviating.com>
To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Monday, January 12, 2015 7:15 AM
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: Noise Cancelling headphones
m
I had that problem with a previous plane, where radio mostly worked fine
with lower frequencies, but would squeal with frequencies above say
125.0. Once I put my radio in another aircraft that didn't have
problems, it was obvious the problem existed in my airplane outside of
the radio. Turned out to be the antenna cable, which was made in the
days before crimped connectors were common. On the radio end of the
cable there was a cold solder joint on the shield, allowing RF to
feedback into the radio. I was given all kinds of theories in trouble
shooting, of problems in the radio, problems with the brand headset not
having shielded wires, etc. etc.
New cable completely eliminated the problem.
So I suggest trying a different PTT, try your radio in a different
airframe that has same model radio, see if the problem follows the
components or not.
On 1/12/2015 2:05 AM, danb wrote:
>
> John,
> I recently bought a set of Bose headsets and had a similar thing happen.
Oddly enough, I was able to hit the PTT and talk to ground fine, however, w
hen i went to tower and hit the PTT I got a loud squeal. Strange how a diff
erent frequency on the radio induces the noise. Anyone have a thought? use
a filter?
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=436876#436876
>
>
=C2- =C2- =C2- =C2- =C2- -Matt Dralle, List Admin.
-
S -
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "rv7a.builder" <rv7a.builder(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Noise Cancelling headphones |
My headsets are plugged into the bulkhead right behind the baggage area in
my RV-7A. The thought was to keep the cords out of the way. When I bought t
he nose canceling headsets it became difficult to reach the headset control
ler(volume, Bluetooth, on/off) so I bought a 5ft extension from Aircraft Sp
ruce and I no longer have any squealing? Go Figure? This 5ft extension also
allows me to easily unplug my headset if I have to use my handheld as a ba
ckup. Previously I would have to=C2-yank the cord from the back bulkhead
which I am sure is not a good idea. Thank you guys for all of your input. J
ohn=C2-
On Monday, January 12, 2015 7:32 AM, Vern Little <voltar@vx-aviation.c
om> wrote:
Try also taking your headset cord and wrap three turns of it around your h
and and secure it with a pair of tie wraps. =C2-You've just made an RF ch
oke that may eliminate conduct RF energy into the headset.
Vern
======Vernon R. Little | Chairman, Iris Dynamics Ltd. | Preside
nt, Vx Aviation
On Jan 12, 2015, at 6:15 AM, Kelly McMullen wrote:
m>
I had that problem with a previous plane, where radio mostly worked fine wi
th lower frequencies, but would squeal with frequencies above say 125.0. On
ce I put my radio in another aircraft that didn't have problems, it was obv
ious the problem existed in my airplane outside of the radio. Turned out to
be the antenna cable, which was made in the days before crimped connectors
were common. On the radio end of the cable there was a cold solder joint o
n the shield, allowing RF to feedback into the radio. I was given all kinds
of theories in trouble shooting, of problems in the radio, problems with t
he brand headset not having shielded wires, etc. etc.
New cable completely eliminated the problem.
So I suggest trying a different PTT, try your radio in a different airframe
that has same model radio, see if the problem follows the components or no
t.
On 1/12/2015 2:05 AM, danb wrote:
John,
I recently bought a set of Bose headsets and had a similar thing happen. Od
dly enough, I was able to hit the PTT and talk to ground fine, however, whe
n i went to tower and hit the PTT I got a loud squeal. Strange how a differ
ent frequency on the radio induces the noise. Anyone have a thought? use a
filter?
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=436876#436876
www.aeroelectric.cre www.buildersbooks.comnbsp;=C2-=C2-* My Pilot Stor
e wwonsulting www.mrrace.com
http://www.matronics.com/contribution http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?A
eroElectric-List
= =C2-=C2-=C2-=C2-=C2-=C2-=C2-=C2-=C2-=C2-=C2-=C2
-&nb =C2-=C2---> http://forums.ma============
===============
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Larry Mac Donald <lm4(at)juno.com> |
Dee, Sorry things didn't work out quite that way.
First of all i did not receive your bid. Second, that was between
december 10th and 15th. and i was starting to feel out of breath
around that time. By the 20th i had to check into a Hospital and
spent Christmas week there. i was released Christmas eve and
have been weak and sleepy ever since. Others have inquired
and have asked for photos and i will have to accommodate them
as soon as I get the strength to clean and photograph the items.
That's where i stand now. When i can get these things done i will
get back to you. i'm sorry for the delay.
Larry
12, 2015, at 10:13 AM, DeWitt Whittington wrote:
> Hello Larry,
>
> I sent in a bid for a number of items, but never heard from you. I ass
ume you easily sold them all?
>
> Dee
>
> DeWitt (Dee) Whittington
> Richmond, VA
> 804-677-4849 iPhone
> 804-358-4333 Home
>
>
> On Mon, Dec 8, 2014 at 3:05 PM, Larry Mac Donald wrote:
m>
>
> I am offering the following aviation tools for sale.
> If you are interested, make a reasonable offer.
>
> Whitney hand punch
> Tubing cutter
> Hole flanging tool
> Seaming tool
> Fly-cutter
> Micro stop countersink
> Aviation snips-left-right & straight
> 3X rivet gun
> Safety wire twister
> Magnetic base protractor
> Rivet spacer
> Air grinder
> Pop rivet tool
> Rivet gauges
> Cleco pliers
> Deburring tool
> Countersink
> Fluting plier
> Bucking bar
> Rivet squeezer with 1-1/2 yoke
> 3 In. yoke
> Pneumatic Rivet squeezer with 1-1/2 in. yoke
> Rivet squeezer dies
> Dimpleing dies
> Blind rivet kit
> Air drill
> Clecos
> Hand seamer
>
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> NetZero now offers 4G mobile broadband. Sign up now.
> http://www.netzero.net/?refcd=NZINTISP0512T4GOUT1
>
> ==========
> br> fts!)
> r> > com" target="_blank">www.aeroelectric.com
> w.buildersbooks.com" target="_blank">www.buildersbooks.com
> p.com" target="_blank">www.homebuilthelp.com
> e.com" target="_blank">www.mypilotstore.com
> " target="_blank">www.mrrace.com
> target="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/contribution
> -Matt Dralle, List Admin.
> ==========
> -
> Electric-List" target="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Ae
roElectric-List
> ==========
> FORUMS -
> _blank">http://forums.matronics.com
> ==========
>
>
>
>
>
>
========================
============
========================
============
========================
============
========================
============
>
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
>
____________________________________________________________
The #1 Worst Carb Ever?
Click to Learn #1 Carb that Kills Your Blood Sugar (Don't Eat Th
is!)
http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL3141/54b40850c821e8507119st02duc
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Michael Orth" <mosurf(at)xplornet.com> |
>(I) was starting to feel out of breath around that time
Larry,
Pulmonary embolism?
Michael
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------
----- Original Message -----
From: Larry Mac Donald
To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Monday, January 12, 2015 9:45 AM
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: For sale
Dee, Sorry things didn't work out quite that way.
First of all i did not receive your bid. Second, that was between
december 10th and 15th. and i was starting to feel out of breath
around that time. By the 20th i had to check into a Hospital and
spent Christmas week there. i was released Christmas eve and
have been weak and sleepy ever since. Others have inquired
and have asked for photos and i will have to accommodate them
as soon as I get the strength to clean and photograph the items.
That's where i stand now. When i can get these things done i will
get back to you. i'm sorry for the delay.
Larry
12, 2015, at 10:13 AM, DeWitt Whittington wrote:
Hello Larry,
I sent in a bid for a number of items, but never heard from you. I
assume you easily sold them all?
Dee
DeWitt (Dee) Whittington
Richmond, VA
804-677-4849 iPhone
804-358-4333 Home
On Mon, Dec 8, 2014 at 3:05 PM, Larry Mac Donald
wrote:
I am offering the following aviation tools for sale.
If you are interested, make a reasonable offer.
Whitney hand punch
Tubing cutter
Hole flanging tool
Seaming tool
Fly-cutter
Micro stop countersink
Aviation snips-left-right & straight
3X rivet gun
Safety wire twister
Magnetic base protractor
Rivet spacer
Air grinder
Pop rivet tool
Rivet gauges
Cleco pliers
Deburring tool
Countersink
Fluting plier
Bucking bar
Rivet squeezer with 1-1/2 yoke
3 In. yoke
Pneumatic Rivet squeezer with 1-1/2 in. yoke
Rivet squeezer dies
Dimpleing dies
Blind rivet kit
Air drill
Clecos
Hand seamer
____________________________________________________________
NetZero now offers 4G mobile broadband. Sign up now.
http://www.netzero.net/?refcd=NZINTISP0512T4GOUT1
==========
br> fts!)
r> > com" target="_blank">www.aeroelectric.com
w.buildersbooks.com" target="_blank">www.buildersbooks.com
p.com" target="_blank">www.homebuilthelp.com
e.com" target="_blank">www.mypilotstore.com
" target="_blank">www.mrrace.com
target="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/contribution
-Matt Dralle, List Admin.
==========
-
Electric-List"
target="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List
==========
FORUMS -
_blank">http://forums.matronics.com
==========
href="http://www.aeroelectric.com/">www.aeroelectric.com
href="http://www.buildersbooks.com/">www.buildersbooks.com
href="http://www.homebuilthelp.com/">www.homebuilthelp.com
href="http://www.mypilotstore.com/">www.mypilotstore.com
href="http://www.mrrace.com/">www.mrrace.com
href="http://www.matronics.com/contribution">http://www.matronics.com/c
ontribution
href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List">http://www.
matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List
href="http://forums.matronics.com/">http://forums.matronics.com
____________________________________________________________
No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
01/12/15
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Larry Mac Donald <lm4(at)juno.com> |
C.O.P.D. plus a cold in the lower throat plus a cold in
the upper throat plus all my sinuses infected.
Larry
On Jan 12, 2015, at 2:32 PM, Michael Orth wrote:
> >(I) was starting to feel out of breath around that time
>
> Larry,
> Pulmonary embolism?
> Michael
____________________________________________________________
NetZero now offers 4G mobile broadband. Sign up now.
http://www.netzero.net/?refcd=NZINTISP0512T4GOUT1
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | UN-FUSED MAIN BUS FEEDER |
| From: | "user9253" <fransew(at)gmail.com> |
It is common practice not to fuse the main bus feeder between the battery and the main power bus. But what about aircraft with small electrical loads and small feeders? For example, the RV-12 typically uses 10 to 15 amps total. The main feeder is 12 awg per the factory plans. This thread, http://www.vansairforce.com/community/showthread.php?t=120999
is about a fire (while on the ground) that was caused by the main feeder shorting
out to the choke cable. Do we need to rethink the practice of not fusing the
main power feeder? Or are good wiring practices safe enough?
Joe
--------
Joe Gores
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=436938#436938
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: UN-FUSED MAIN BUS FEEDER |
At 22:07 2015-01-12, you wrote:
>
>It is common practice not to fuse the main bus feeder between the
>battery and the main power bus. But what about aircraft with small
>electrical loads and small feeders? For example, the RV-12
>typically uses 10 to 15 amps total. The main feeder is 12 awg per
>the factory plans. This thread,
>http://www.vansairforce.com/community/showthread.php?t=120999
>is about a fire (while on the ground) that was caused by the main
>feeder shorting out to the choke cable. Do we need to rethink the
>practice of not fusing the main power feeder? Or are good wiring
>practices safe enough?
>Joe
The FARS speak to the risks for ENGINE CRANKING
feeders where bus feeders are on the same order
of risk as the cranking circuits.
Airplanes that are powered with 'tiny' alternators
tend to have bus feeders to match and are
at greater risk from battery-fed faults. The
thread is extensive and riddled with unclear
and/or erroneous words. I'll need to digest
it a bit . . .
The short answer is that some form of transient
tolerant fault protection wouldn't hurt but better
installation of the potentially vulnerable wire
would be better. So yes, good wiring practices
are the first line of defense against such events.
The fact that this wire became mechanically
compromised speaks to questionable shop practice.
I'll sift through the narrative and report back.
Watch this space.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Jeff Luckey <jluckey(at)pacbell.net> |
| Subject: | Re: UN-FUSED MAIN BUS FEEDER |
Joe,
Thanks for bringing this to our attention. Very scary and very interesting. A
poster on the VansAirforce forum states that the RV-12 is "certified" under an
ASTM standard.
I found this:
ASTM F2245 - 14. Standard Specification for Design and Performance of a Light Sport Airplane. http://www.astm.org/Standards/F2245.htm
The abstract for that document suggests that it discusses electrical systems.
I would like to get a look at that document but I'm hesitant to spend $60 just
for a look-see.
Does anyone have a copy of that document that I could look at? Has anyone on this
forum seen/read that document and would care to comment on it.
Back to the VansAirforce post - The original poster did not post any pictures of
the before & after. That's a shame because it might be very instructive if
we could see how that feeder was routed.
-Jeff
PS - As long-time members of this forum may recall, I have been a proponent of
protecting all feeders and my designs incorporate such protection. This current
(no pun intended) issue is a good example of why. If this fire had occurred
while airborne the results could have been catastrophic.
On Monday, January 12, 2015 8:24 PM, user9253 wrote:
It is common practice not to fuse the main bus feeder between the battery and the main power bus. But what about aircraft with small electrical loads and small feeders? For example, the RV-12 typically uses 10 to 15 amps total. The main feeder is 12 awg per the factory plans. This thread, http://www.vansairforce.com/community/showthread.php?t=120999
is about a fire (while on the ground) that was caused by the main feeder shorting
out to the choke cable. Do we need to rethink the practice of not fusing the
main power feeder? Or are good wiring practices safe enough?
Joe
--------
Joe Gores
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=436938#436938
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: UN-FUSED MAIN BUS FEEDER |
At 23:45 2015-01-12, you wrote:
>Joe,
>
>Thanks for bringing this to our attention. Very scary and very
>interesting. A poster on the VansAirforce forum states that the
>RV-12 is "certified" under an ASTM standard.
>
>I found this:
>ASTM F2245 - 14. Standard Specification for Design and Performance
>of a Light Sport Airplane.
><http://www.astm.org/Standards/F2245.htm>http://www.astm.org/Standards/F2245.htm
>
>The abstract for that document suggests that it discusses electrical
>systems. I would like to get a look at that document but I'm
>hesitant to spend $60 just for a look-see.
>
>Does anyone have a copy of that document that I could look at? Has
>anyone on this forum seen/read that document and would care to comment on it.
>
>
>Back to the VansAirforce post - The original poster did not post any
>pictures of the before & after. That's a shame because it might be
>very instructive if we could see how that feeder was routed.
>
>-Jeff
>
>PS - As long-time members of this forum may recall, I have been a
>proponent of protecting all feeders and my designs incorporate such
>protection. This current (no pun intended) issue is a good example
>of why. If this fire had occurred while airborne the results could
>have been catastrophic.
Yes, there are a constellation of risks associated
with materials and processes for assembling
airplanes. I recall a couple of instances
of fuel fed fires on Glasairs waaayyy back when
with root cause traced to poorly installed
fire wall fittings on fuel lines. An RV8
went down in flames with the pilot electing
to do a no-parachute egress from the aircraft.
Root cause for this unhappy event will never be
known . . . but a whole lot of history and FMEA
practices can give us some good ideas . . . and
I'll bet none of them are mitigated by ADDING
another feature to a proven system. It's more
likely that some simple failure to observe
good practice is the root cause. Missing safety
wire, o-ring pinched, cracked line, etc. etc.
Hard Reality of Life: No amount of ISO9000
documentation and holy-watered work instructions
will guarantee that one of life's little
"Aw S@#$s" won't jump up an bite you.
Are you working under the assumption that the
triggering event was a hard faulted 12AWG bus
feeder?
In your hypothesis, how does a relatively young,
robust wire get compromised severely over
a short period of time to produce such
a high energy event?
I'm going to sift through the narrative but
there was one poster to the thread that wondered
about engine grounding. Those control cables
(wound jacket Bowden controls?) are steel and
relatively poor conductors. If the airplane's
engine were not properly bonded to a high integrity
ground system, then the current demands of an engine
start circulating in the control cables offers
a plausible explanation for the energy flows
that triggered the event.
Before we chase the rabbit down the bus-feeder-
protection hole, let's assure ourselves that
it was a hard-faulted WIRE that started the unhappy
event and not a couple of heater-coil control
cables being tasked to do things never intended
by the designers. I am skeptical that a burning
12AWG wire bundled with steel engine controls would
do much damage to them. On the other hand, engine
controls masquerading as crankcase grounds would
not only exhibit severe heat stress, they would
compromise the insulation on wires bundled together
the controls.
I looked at the link for the ATSM document . . .
33 pages for $60 ???? I'm pretty sure Textron
has a subscription to such documents, I'll see
if I can put my hands on one. But at best, it's
an index to a bunch of other documents or at
worst, a gathering of lofty words speaking
to design goals dreamed up by individuals with
little or no experience at the craft.
If you look through the z-figures, you'll see
fusible links at the source end of bus feeders
on 'tiny alternator' airplanes. Airplanes with
big alternators are assumed to carry the same
gage wire throughout the cranking circuit and
bus feeders . . . 4AWG or larger. Probability
of hard faulting a fat wire in a manner that
puts the wire at risk is exceedingly low as
demonstrated in hundreds of thousands of examples
over the last century of aviation history.
The fact that the 12AWG wire in question burned
only ahead of the fire wall suggests that it
came to ground at the fire wall penetration
site. How would/did this happen? Just
for grins . . . connect a 12AWG wire to a
battery grounded to a 'fire wall', run the
wire through a hole in that piece of metal
then work the wire against the edge of the hole
until you produce a fault sufficient to
burn the wire. How much time? How much force?
What kind of motion? What was going on from
the time sparks first started to fly (soft
fault) until connection could be made to
cook the wire? Now, how did this happen in
the event airplane?
The discussion I downloaded last night is
long on supposition and conjecture . . . short
on failure analysis. It seems more likely that the
controls got hot first and compromised the
insulation which triggered an electrical
compromise of the wire but without sifting
the aftermath in a logical and ordered manner,
the facts are elusive.
We need to be sure of the simple-ideas in
physics and proven practices before painting
this event as a justification for pasting
a band-aid on a system that was bleeding
profusely somewhere else.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: UN-FUSED MAIN BUS FEEDER |
| From: | "user9253" <fransew(at)gmail.com> |
> Are you working under the assumption that the
> triggering event was a hard faulted 12AWG bus
> feeder?
Yes, that is what happened, in my opinion, after reading the builder's description in this post: http://www.vansairforce.com/community/showpost.php?p=945235&postcount=17
Posts by others in that thread are only speculation.
> In your hypothesis, how does a relatively young,
> robust wire get compromised severely over
> a short period of time to produce such
> a high energy event?
The #12 awg wire that burned is the main feeder between the contactor and the instrument panel. The wire does NOT run parallel to or with choke or throttle cables through the firewall. Wires in the RV-12 pass through a separate hole in the firewall. The #12 wire runs perpendicular to and under the throttle cables. In my RV-12, there is a half inch space between the #12 wire and throttle cables and both are held apart by cushion clamps. In the accident RV-12, the #12 wire must have been in contact with the underside of a throttle cable. I suspect that the insulation on the wire was abraded by a vibrating throttle cable. The copper wire then welded itself to the steel cable. The builder is adamant that his engine is well grounded and thus had nothing to do with the incident. The Rotax engine starts so quickly, within 1 or 2 seconds, that it seems unlikely that throttle and choke cables would have time to heat up over their entire length to a temperature high enough to melt wire insulation. The Rotax dynamo does not use engine ground for conducting current as would a conventional alternator. The single phase AC output of the dynamo is conducted through two wires to the rectifier/regulator which is mounted on the firewall. After engine start, only engine-instrument-sensor current is dependent on the engine ground. Without having the fire damage to examine, all we have to go by is the post by the pilot-builder. Below is a link to a picture of the wire in question in my airplane, not the accident aircraft. http://tinyurl.com/RV-12-wires
Joe
--------
Joe Gores
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=436974#436974
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: UN-FUSED MAIN BUS FEEDER |
The #12 awg wire that burned is the main feeder between the contactor
and the instrument panel. The wire does NOT run parallel to or with
choke or throttle cables through the firewall. Wires in the RV-12
pass through a separate hole in the firewall. The #12 wire runs
perpendicular to and under the throttle cables. In my RV-12, there
is a half inch space between the #12 wire and throttle cables and
both are held apart by cushion clamps. In the accident RV-12, the
#12 wire must have been in contact with the underside of a throttle
cable. I suspect that the insulation on the wire was abraded by a
vibrating throttle cable. The copper wire then welded itself to the
steel cable. The builder is adamant that his engine is well grounded
and thus had nothing to do with the incident. The Rotax engine
starts so quickly, within 1 or 2 seconds, that it seems unlikely that
throttle and choke cables would have time to heat up over their
entire length to a temperature high enough to melt wire
insulation. The Rotax dynamo does not use engine ground for
conducting current as would a conventional alternator. The single
phase AC output of the dynamo is conducted through two wires to the
rectifier/regulator which is mounted on the firewall. After engine
start, only engine-instrument-sensor current is dependent on the
engine ground. Without having the fire damage to examine, all we
have to go by is the post by the pilot-builder. Below is a link to a
picture of the wire in question in my airplane, not the accident
aircraft. http://tinyurl.com/RV-12-wires
Joe
Aha! Good data points. Just got a task mailed off to
a customer and had time to read the thread downloaded
last night.
It seems clear that the wire insulation was compromised
against the control cables . . . failure to observe
common practice for the maintenance of spacing.
Picked this out of the downloaded thread . . .
On the issue of a fusible link, it is not true that it would create a
weak spot electrically. A fusible link will not fail in the event of
a spurious spike in current; only in the event of a major,
uncontrolled power draw....a short circuit. It is true that it is 4
wire sizes smaller ( or 4 numbers larger); 16 awg in the case of the
RV-12 battery power wire. Regarding the philosophy of aircraft
design, to wit; the issue of a system failure versus a fire aloft is
hardly worth discussion. Seriously? In a VFR, daytime-only RV-12,
we'd consider a fire aloft a better deal than a display failure?! I
appreciate all the redundant advice to carefully route & shield the
battery power wire. Great advice. Took care of it. But that is a
separate issue of the wire becoming shorted for whatever unforeseen
reason. And there seems to be much naive comment on this blog that if
there's a problem, a fuse would blow. It needs to be clearly
understood here that if a power wire shorts out in the RV-12, a
fantastically dangerous hot spot will result; in essence, an arc
welder. That's what I had, and the damage was devastating.
Additionally, it needs to be understood that proper
engine-to-fuselage grounding will not protect against such a short
circuit. My engine is properly grounded, In fact, I long ago took the
precaution of an additional ( and very substantial) electrical ground
wire. Unprotected +12v current will find ANY path when it "shorts"
out. In my case, it virtually welded right through both the throttle
& choke cables, as well as destroying the #22 (black) ground wire in
the GPS antenna/receiver cable all the way to the connector on the
Vans AV-5000A control module in the avionics bay (a $600 piece)
As I mentioned last night, as wire sizes drop out
of the relatively invincible 'fat wire' category,
they do become vulnerable a hard-fault burn. The
fusible link is one way to go. It's compact, inexpensive
and effective. Cars have used them for years but
to my knowledge, the TC aircraft industry has never
embraced them. There's a class of circuit protector
with LONG fusing constants commonly referred to as
a current limiter. The ANL series devices . . .
http://tinyurl.com/k9tmfmh
. . . have been a common ingredient in time-delay,
hard-fault protection for over 70 years. The
automotive industry has used a variety of
heavy-fuses as well. An interesting line
that popped up 30 or so years ago was the
miniature current limiters or MANL series
devices. They're popular with installers
of kilowatt boom boxes in automobiles. They're
readily available from hundreds of sources.
http://tinyurl.com/pcuscp2
I've not seen a MANL holder from the automotive
world that instilled much confidence. Not sure
about the base materials but they're probably
okay. If it were my installation, I'd make base
our of a piece of phenolic or Delrin . . .but
the current limiters are just fine,
Fusible link wire is available in bulk from
a host of automotive supply houses. Here's
one such product
http://tinyurl.com/p3hrq22
The fusible link is mechanically attractive.
Installs with splices, ties right into a wire
bundle with the rest of the wires. If it's in
a bundle, it would e a good thing to add a layer
of silicon impregnated fiberglas sleeving like
that described in my articles and offered in
B&C's fusible link kit.
In any case, protecting light feeders
directly attached to a battery is a good idea.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: UN-FUSED MAIN BUS FEEDER |
| From: | "user9253" <fransew(at)gmail.com> |
Thanks for your insight, Bob.
Joe
--------
Joe Gores
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=436978#436978
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: UN-FUSED MAIN BUS FEEDER |
>
> In any case, protecting light feeders
> directly attached to a battery is a good idea.
P.S. Keep in mind that there are numerous ways
a failure can take down the main bus. Battery
contactor failure. Failure in controls for
battery contactor . . . as well as any fault
that compromises the main bus feeder.
This is one reason why the e-bus evolved to
the present day. It's a two-feed bus
that not only offers easily accessed, planed
reduction in load. It also offers redundancy
in source paths that negates risks for loss
of main bus.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Jeff Luckey <jluckey(at)pacbell.net> |
| Subject: | Re: UN-FUSED MAIN BUS FEEDER |
Bob,
Were you able to gain access to an ASTM subscription. I would like to get a look at the http://www.astm.org/Standards/F2245.htm document.
-Jeff
On Wednesday, January 14, 2015 8:32 AM, "Robert L. Nuckolls, III"
wrote:
> In any case, protecting light feeders
> directly attached to a battery is a good
idea.
P.S. Keep in mind that there are numerous ways
a failure can take down the main bus. Battery
contactor failure. Failure in controls for
battery contactor . . . as well as any fault
that compromises the main bus feeder.
This is one reason why the e-bus evolved to
the present day. It's a two-feed bus
that not only offers easily accessed, planed
reduction in load. It also offers redundancy
in source paths that negates risks for loss
of main bus.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: UN-FUSED MAIN BUS FEEDER |
At 11:06 2015-01-14, you wrote:
>Bob,
>
>Were you able to gain access to an ASTM
>subscription. I would like to get a look at the
><http://www.astm.org/Standards/F2245.htm>http://www.astm.org/Standards/F224
5.htm
>document.
Yeah, got a peek at the full document . . . what
is said is rather well written. 33 pages doesn't
cover much from a systems perspective (like part 23)
but they do get into details on weights, handling
qualities and performance. Here's excerpts that
speak to electrical systems . . .
=====
Under "Required Equipment"
--------------------------------
A2.6.5 An adequate source of electrical energy for all
installed electrical and radio equipment specified in A2.9.2;
====================
8.4 Miscellaneous Equipment=97Other Than EPU:
----------------------------------------------
8.4.1 If installed, an electrical system shall include a master
switch and overload protection devices (fuses or circuit breakers).
8.4.2 The electric wiring shall be sized according to the load
of each circuit.
8.4.3 The battery installation shall withstand all applicable
inertia loads.
8.4.4 Battery containers shall be vented outside of the
airplane (see 6.5).
=====================
A2.9 Electrical Requirements
-----------------------------------------------
A2.9.1 Switches=97Each switch must be:
A2.9.1.1 Rated by the switch manufacturer to carry its
circuit=92s current;
A2.9.1.2 For circuits containing incandescent lamps, have a
minimum in-rush rating of 15 times the lamp=92s continuous
current;
A2.9.1.3 Constructed with enough distance or insulating
material between current carrying parts and the housing so that
vibration in flight will not cause shorting;
A2.9.1.4 Accessible to the pilot;
A2.9.1.5 Labeled as to operation and the circuit controlled;
and
A2.9.1.6 Illuminated in accordance with A2.7.1.
A2.9.2 Circuit Protection Requirements=97Circuit overload
protection (fuses or circuit breakers) must:
A2.9.2.1 Be installed on each circuit containing wiring,
equipment, or other components rated for less than the maximum
output of the battery and alternator or generator;
A2.9.2.2 Be appropriately rated for each component installed
on the protected circuit;
A2.9.2.3 Be accessible to and in clear view of the pilot;
A2.9.2.4 Open before the conductor emits smoke; and
A2.9.2.5 Automatic re-set circuit breakers may not be used.
A2.9.3 Electrical Energy Requirements=97The total continuous
electrical load may not exceed 80 % of the total rated
generator or alternator output capacity.
A2.9.4 Conductor Requirements=97Any wire or other material
intended to conduct electricity must be:
A2.9.4.1 Rated to carry its circuits current;
A2.9.4.2 For wiring rated to 150=B0C, 600 V minimum;
A2.9.4.3 Constructed with enough distance or insulating
material between current carrying conductors so that vibration
in flight will not cause shorting; and
A2.9.4.4 Where used, insulating material must have, at a
minimum, the equivalent or better properties of either PTFE
-polytetrafluoroethylene (commonly known by the trade name,
TEFLON) or ETFE-(Frequently referred to by the trade name,
TEFZEL) a copolymer of PTFE and of polyethylene including:
(1) Temperature,
(2) Abrasion resistance,
(3) Cut-through resistance,
(4) Chemical resistance,
(5) Flammability,
(6) Smoke generation,
(7) Flexibility,
(8) Creep (at temperature), and
(9) Arc propagation resistance.
===========
All pretty much common sense stuff . . .
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Peter Pengilly <peter(at)sportingaero.com> |
| Subject: | Re: UN-FUSED MAIN BUS FEEDER |
Does the para below mean that VPX type equipment is not permitted?
Peter
On 14/01/2015 21:22, Robert L. Nuckolls, III wrote:
> A2.9.2.5 Automatic re-set circuit breakers may not be used.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Jeff Luckey <jluckey(at)pacbell.net> |
| Subject: | Re: UN-FUSED MAIN BUS FEEDER |
Bob,=0A=0AThanks for that. A poster on VansAirforce remarked that putting
an overload protection device in the feeder to the distribution panel (the
wire in question) was specifically prohibited in the ASTM 2245. (which I fi
nd hard to believe.)=0A=0ADid you see any language to that effect?=0A=0ATha
nk,=0A=0A-Jeff=0A=0A=0A=0AOn Wednesday, January 14, 2015 1:33 PM, "Robert L
. Nuckolls, III" wrote:=0A =0A=0A=0AAt 11:0
6 2015-01-14, you wrote:=0A=0ABob,=0A>=0A>Were you able to gain access to a
n ASTM subscription. I would like=0Ato get a look at the http://www.astm.o
rg/Standards/F2245.htm document.=0A Yeah, got a peek at the full document
. . . what=0A is said is rather well written. 33 pages doesn't=0A cover m
uch from a systems perspective (like part 23)=0A but they do get into deta
ils on weights, handling=0A qualities and performance. Here's excerpts tha
t=0A speak to electrical systems . . . =0A=0A=======0AUnder "
Required Equipment"=0A--------------------------------=0AA2.6.5 An adequate
source of electrical energy for all=0Ainstalled electrical and radio equip
ment specified in A2.9.2;=0A=0A=0A=0A============
==========0A8.4 Miscellaneous Equipment=94Other Tha
n EPU:=0A----------------------------------------------=0A8.4.1 If installe
d, an electrical system shall include a master=0Aswitch and overload protec
tion devices (fuses or circuit=0Abreakers).=0A=0A8.4.2 The electric wiring
shall be sized according to the load=0Aof each circuit.=0A=0A8.4.3 The batt
ery installation shall withstand all applicable=0Ainertia loads.=0A=0A8.4.4
Battery containers shall be vented outside of the=0Aairplane (see 6.5).=0A
=0A=======================0AA2.
9 Electrical Requirements=0A-----------------------------------------------
=0AA2.9.1 Switches=94Each switch must be:=0A=0AA2.9.1.1 Rated by the
switch manufacturer to carry its=0Acircuit=99s current;=0A=0AA2.9.1.2
For circuits containing incandescent lamps, have a=0Aminimum in-rush ratin
g of 15 times the lamp=99s continuous=0Acurrent;=0A=0AA2.9.1.3 Constr
ucted with enough distance or insulating=0Amaterial between current carryin
g parts and the housing so that=0Avibration in flight will not cause shorti
ng;=0A=0AA2.9.1.4 Accessible to the pilot;=0A=0AA2.9.1.5 Labeled as to oper
ation and the circuit controlled;=0Aand=0A=0AA2.9.1.6 Illuminated in accord
ance with A2.7.1.=0A=0AA2.9.2 Circuit Protection Requirements=94Circu
it overload=0Aprotection (fuses or circuit breakers) must:=0A=0AA2.9.2.1 Be
installed on each circuit containing wiring,=0Aequipment, or other compone
nts rated for less than the maximum=0Aoutput of the battery and alternator
or generator;=0A=0AA2.9.2.2 Be appropriately rated for each component insta
lled=0Aon the protected circuit;=0A=0AA2.9.2.3 Be accessible to and in clea
r view of the pilot;=0A=0AA2.9.2.4 Open before the conductor emits smoke; a
nd=0A=0AA2.9.2.5 Automatic re-set circuit breakers may not be used.=0A=0AA2
.9.3 Electrical Energy Requirements=94The total continuous=0Aelectric
al load may not exceed 80 % of the total rated=0Agenerator or alternator ou
tput capacity.=0A=0AA2.9.4 Conductor Requirements=94Any wire or other
material=0Aintended to conduct electricity must be:=0A=0AA2.9.4.1 Rated to
carry its circuits current;=0A=0AA2.9.4.2 For wiring rated to 150=C2=B0C,
600 V minimum;=0A=0AA2.9.4.3 Constructed with enough distance or insulating
=0Amaterial between current carrying conductors so that vibration=0Ain flig
ht will not cause shorting; and=0A=0AA2.9.4.4 Where used, insulating materi
al must have, at a=0Aminimum, the equivalent or better properties of either
PTFE=0A-polytetrafluoroethylene (commonly known by the trade name,=0ATEFLO
N) or ETFE-(Frequently referred to by the trade name,=0ATEFZEL) a copolymer
of PTFE and of polyethylene including:=0A=0A(1) Temperature,=0A=0A(2) Abra
sion resistance,=0A=0A(3) Cut-through resistance,=0A=0A(4) Chemical resista
nce,=0A=0A(5) Flammability,=0A=0A(6) Smoke generation,=0A=0A(7) Flexibility
,=0A=0A(8) Creep (at temperature), and=0A=0A(9) Arc propagation resistance.
=0A=0A=============0A=0AAll pretty much common sens
=========================0A
======
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Jeff Luckey <jluckey(at)pacbell.net> |
| Subject: | Re: UN-FUSED MAIN BUS FEEDER |
Oops! My paraphrasing was inaccurate. Here is what the other poster said:
"The ASTM specs that the RV-12 is certificated under specifically
prohibit the use of of a circuit protector that is not resetable by the
pilot.
That means the wire highlighted in this discussion can not have a
fusible link or any other circuit protection that would actually be
capable of preventing a failure in the location that this one was."
Bob, In reading the text you supplied, I did not see anything that supports the
above statement. Is there more to the ASTM doc that supports the above?
I'm simply trying to understand what the "Standards" ACTUALLY say. Therefore I'm
trying to filter-out hearsay, mis-interpretation, urban legend, & wive's tales.
Again, thanks,
-Jeff
On Wednesday, January 14, 2015 2:05 PM, Peter Pengilly
wrote:
Does the para below mean that VPX type equipment is not permitted?
Peter
On 14/01/2015 21:22, Robert L. Nuckolls, III wrote:
> A2.9.2.5 Automatic re-set circuit breakers may not be used.
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: UN-FUSED MAIN BUS FEEDER |
| From: | "user9253" <fransew(at)gmail.com> |
A2.9.2 Does not specifically mention fusible links. Are they considered fuses
that must (A2.9.2.3) be accessible to and in clear view of the pilot?
What if a #12 AWG main power feeder were replaced with 8 AWG except for a short
section of 12 AWG enclosed in a fire sleeve? Would that meet the letter of the
law? Sometimes rules and regulations prohibit using common sense.
Joe
--------
Joe Gores
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=437014#437014
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: UN-FUSED MAIN BUS FEEDER |
At 16:05 2015-01-14, you wrote:
>Bob,
>
>Thanks for that. A poster on VansAirforce remarked that putting an
>overload protection device in the feeder to the distribution panel
>(the wire in question) was specifically prohibited in the ASTM 2245.
>(which I find hard to believe.)
>
>Did you see any language to that effect?
>
>Thank,
>
>-Jeff
Nope . . . in fact, there were words that spoke
specifically to:
A2.9.2.1 Be installed on each circuit containing wiring,
equipment, or other components rated for less than the maximum
output of the battery and alternator or generator;
While poorly worded, I think the intent is similar
to the reasoning for not protecting fat wires
in legacy aircraft.
Reading between the lines, it says that any wire
subject to catastrophic stresses from engine driven
power or battery should be protected. But the
phrase "maximum output of the battery" is
curious . . . most SLVA batteries of any size
are good for 500-1200A in a faulted condition.
Is that the battery's 'rating'? If so, then
one might want to consider fusing a 4AWG
cranking feeder . . . I think I like the FAR23
wording better.
The wording also speaks to equipment and other
components. Do the writers now expect circuit
protection at the bus to look out for potential
faults within a piece of equipment? And where
would the system integrator find data that speaks
to a fault current limit for any failure within
a device?
It would be interesting to know why the wording
in Parts 23 and 25 were inadequate to the new
order . . .
But in any case, I too believe the poster
was in error.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: UN-FUSED MAIN BUS FEEDER |
| From: | Ken Ryan <keninalaska(at)gmail.com> |
I keep asking myself why I would use a fusible link instead of an inline
fuse. So far I am simply not convinced.
On Jan 14, 2015 5:33 PM, "user9253" wrote:
>
> A2.9.2 Does not specifically mention fusible links. Are they considered
> fuses that must (A2.9.2.3) be accessible to and in clear view of the pilot?
> What if a #12 AWG main power feeder were replaced with 8 AWG except for a
> short section of 12 AWG enclosed in a fire sleeve? Would that meet the
> letter of the law? Sometimes rules and regulations prohibit using common
> sense.
> Joe
>
> --------
> Joe Gores
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=437014#437014
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: UN-FUSED MAIN BUS FEEDER |
| From: | "user9253" <fransew(at)gmail.com> |
> I keep asking myself why I would use a fusible link instead of an inline fuse.
I think that fusible links are more robust and less likely to fail than a fuse.
However, there are some very robust types of fuses like the ANL. The old style
automotive glass fuses were prone to fail because the fuse holders did not
make a high pressure contact. Yeah, if I wanted to protect my 12 AWG main feeder
from vaporizing, I would install an inline 30 amp ATC fuse. My posting about
fusible links was in response to a Van's Aircraft employee who stated that
fusible links in the engine compartment were prohibited by ASTM rules. But
it seems those rules are ambiguous and open to interpretation.
Joe
--------
Joe Gores
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=437020#437020
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Jeff Luckey <jluckey(at)pacbell.net> |
| Subject: | Re: UN-FUSED MAIN BUS FEEDER |
Ken,
Regarding a fusible link - There is one reason I can think of that someone might
choose a fusible like: Fusible Links are a "slow-blow" kind of animal where
a standard fuse is not. If the mission requires a slow-blow device then the
Fusible Link might be the right choice. Fusible Links are also cheap.
But I'm with you, my preference is to use Current Limiters like ANL or Littlefuse
MIDIs instead of a Fusible Link. But these fuses must be mounted on something...
-Jeff
On Wednesday, January 14, 2015 3:57 PM, Ken Ryan wrote:
I keep asking myself why I would use a fusible link instead of an inline fuse.
So far I am simply not convinced.
On Jan 14, 2015 5:33 PM, "user9253" wrote:
>
>A2.9.2 Does not specifically mention fusible links. Are they considered fuses
that must (A2.9.2.3) be accessible to and in clear view of the pilot?
>What if a #12 AWG main power feeder were replaced with 8 AWG except for a short
section of 12 AWG enclosed in a fire sleeve? Would that meet the letter of
the law? Sometimes rules and regulations prohibit using common sense.
>Joe
>
>--------
>Joe Gores
>
>
>Read this topic online here:
>
>http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=437014#437014
>
>
>==========
>br>
fts!)
>r>
>
com" target="_blank">www.aeroelectric.com
>w.buildersbooks.com" target="_blank">www.buildersbooks.com
>p.com" target="_blank">www.homebuilthelp.com
>e.com" target="_blank">www.mypilotstore.com
>" target="_blank">www.mrrace.com
>target="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/contribution
> -Matt Dralle, List Admin.
>==========
>-
>Electric-List" target="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List
>==========
>FORUMS -
>_blank">http://forums.matronics.com
>==========
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: UN-FUSED MAIN BUS FEEDER |
At 17:46 2015-01-14, you wrote:
>I keep asking myself why I would use a fusible link instead of an
>inline fuse. So far I am simply not convinced.
>On Jan 14, 2015 5:33 PM, "user9253"
><fransew(at)gmail.com> wrote:
If a FUSE . . . meaning NOT an ANL current limiter,
then pick a fuse that is 2 to 3x larger than the
operational current rating for the wire. I.e. a 12AWG
wire (20A) would want a 60A fuse. This is because fuses
are normally applied in situations where relatively
fast response is desirable . . . not so for feeder
protection.
ANL style devices and fusible links have very LONG
time constants. No nuisance trips of these puppies.
Yet, they will operate to put a box around the
protection event whether inside the housing of
a limiter or under the jacket of a fusible link.
Mechanically, the fusible link is attractive because
it generally looks like and can be treated almost
like wire. Crimped joints on each end. Any other
device is 'lumpy', puts more connections in the
pathway and may need to be mounted to some mechanically
immobile surface.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: UN-FUSED MAIN BUS FEEDER |
At 16:17 2015-01-14, you wrote:
>Oops! My paraphrasing was inaccurate. Here is what the other poster said:
>
>"The ASTM specs that the RV-12 is certificated under specifically
>prohibit the use of of a circuit protector that is not resetable by the pilot.
Opps . . . yeah, that makes a difference. Can't imagine
why that assertion is part of the spec . . . there's
no foundation in FMEA for the outcome of any given
flight by fiddling with circuit protection in the air.
>That means the wire highlighted in this discussion can not have a
>fusible link or any other circuit protection that would actually be
>capable of preventing a failure in the location that this one was."
My argument would be that the fusible link or ANL
at the battery contactor is not unlike similar devices
scattered about the airplane on King Airs and
their hot-air cousins . . . and those cannot be reached
by pilots either. Lots of breakers on those airplanes
can't be reached either. These are not systems fuses, they're
a hedge against catastrophic events that either (1) put
every device on that feeder at risk of going dark or (2) the
whole damned airplane at risk of going down very brightly.
I'd let the enforcer of requirements choose . . .
>Bob, In reading the text you supplied, I did not see anything that
>supports the above statement. Is there more to the ASTM doc that
>supports the above?
>
>I'm simply trying to understand what the "Standards" ACTUALLY say.
>Therefore I'm trying to filter-out hearsay, mis-interpretation,
>urban legend, & wive's tales.
Understand . . . I think I expressed some misgivings
about the relative goodness of this new 'spec'.
Gee, only 33 pages long, a few years old . . . bet the
guys sitting around the table on this one never
did an FMEA or turned wrenches on airplanes.
Consider AC43-13 . . . DECADES old and sifted by
dozens of high-powered spec writers over the years.
However, when offered to EAA for 'friendly critical review'
release of a major revision was delayed another 18 months
and it was STILL full of holes.
Color this ol' dog skeptical as an outcome of having
watched decades of this stuff run under the bridge.
If it were my airplane, there would be a fusible link
at the battery contactor . . . hidden under the sleeving.
Nobody but me needs to know its there. What does Van's
factory wiring dictate?
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: UN-FUSED MAIN BUS FEEDER |
| From: | "user9253" <fransew(at)gmail.com> |
> What does Van's factory wiring dictate?
All RV-12s, that are intended to be registered as E-LSA, MUST be built exactly
according to plans using every part supplied by Van's Aircraft. No modifications
or substitutions are allowed. Van's advertises that every part needed to
build the plane is included in the kit except fluids. That is pretty much true
with few exceptions. The wires are supplied already cut to length and terminated.
It is plug and play, kind of like assembling a desk top computer. Some
builders have wired their RV-12s in a few days, possibly one weekend. The kit
does not come with any protection for the #12 AWG main power feeder. The good
news is that after receiving the airworthiness certificate and competing the
flight test phase, modifications to E-LSA aircraft ARE allowed. However, factory-built
S-LSA aircraft can not be modified without written permission from
the factory.
Joe
--------
Joe Gores
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=437025#437025
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Jeff Luckey <jluckey(at)pacbell.net> |
| Subject: | Re: UN-FUSED MAIN BUS FEEDER |
Bob,
I think there's been a slight mis-communication:
ok, here we go, follow me down into the weeds...
"The ASTM specs that the RV-12 is certificated under specifically
>prohibit the use of of a circuit protector that is not resetable by the pilot."
That quote is someone's interpretation of the ASTM Standard - NOT an actual quote
from the Standard.
I was looking for wording in the ASTM document that supported that claim and after
reading the excerpt
you provided, I think we both concluded that the above statement is not supported
by the words in the
Standard.
This is the kind of detail that can be difficult to express in prose without getting
wordy (and boring). If we
were sitting at the same table, we'd have it cleared up in less than a minute.
-Jeff
On Wednesday, January 14, 2015 6:13 PM, "Robert L. Nuckolls, III"
wrote:
At 16:17 2015-01-14, you wrote:
>Oops! My paraphrasing was inaccurate. Here is what the other poster said:
>
>"The ASTM specs that the RV-12 is certificated under specifically
>prohibit the use of of a circuit protector that is not resetable by the pilot.
Opps . . . yeah, that makes a difference. Can't imagine
why that assertion is part of the spec . . . there's
no foundation in FMEA for the outcome of any given
flight by fiddling with circuit protection in the air.
>That means the wire highlighted in this discussion can not have a
>fusible link or any other circuit protection that would actually be
>capable of preventing a failure in the location that this one was."
My argument would be that the fusible link or ANL
at the battery contactor is not unlike similar devices
scattered about the airplane on King Airs and
their hot-air cousins . . . and those cannot be reached
by pilots either. Lots of breakers on those airplanes
can't be reached either. These are not systems fuses, they're
a hedge against catastrophic events that either (1) put
every device on that feeder at risk of going dark or (2) the
whole damned airplane at risk of going down very brightly.
I'd let the enforcer of requirements choose . . .
>Bob, In reading the text you supplied, I did not see anything that
>supports the above statement. Is there more to the ASTM doc that
>supports the above?
>
>I'm simply trying to understand what the "Standards" ACTUALLY say.
>Therefore I'm trying to filter-out hearsay, mis-interpretation,
>urban legend, & wive's tales.
Understand . . . I think I expressed some misgivings
about the relative goodness of this new 'spec'.
Gee, only 33 pages long, a few years old . . . bet the
guys sitting around the table on this one never
did an FMEA or turned wrenches on airplanes.
Consider AC43-13 . . . DECADES old and sifted by
dozens of high-powered spec writers over the years.
However, when offered to EAA for 'friendly critical review'
release of a major revision was delayed another 18 months
and it was STILL full of holes.
Color this ol' dog skeptical as an outcome of having
watched decades of this stuff run under the bridge.
If it were my airplane, there would be a fusible link
at the battery contactor . . . hidden under the sleeving.
Nobody but me needs to know its there. What does Van's
factory wiring dictate?
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Eric M. Jones" <emjones(at)charter.net> |
FWIW: Free
http://www.recreationalflying.com/tutorials/regulations/ASTM_F2245-07_Airplanes.pdf
--------
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=437045#437045
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: UN-FUSED MAIN BUS FEEDER |
At 21:57 2015-01-14, you wrote:
>Bob,
>
>I think there's been a slight mis-communication:
>
>ok, here we go, follow me down into the weeds...
>
>"The ASTM specs that the RV-12 is certificated under specifically
> >prohibit the use of of a circuit protector
> that is not resetable by the pilot."
>
>That quote is someone's interpretation of the
>ASTM Standard - NOT an actual quote from the Standard.
>
>I was looking for wording in the ASTM document
>that supported that claim and after reading the excerpt
>you provided, I think we both concluded that the
>above statement is not supported by the words in the
>Standard.
>
>This is the kind of detail that can be difficult
>to express in prose without getting wordy (and boring). If we
>were sitting at the same table, we'd have it cleared up in less than a
minute.
You got that right. Let's pour another cup of coffee
and sift through it . . .
A2.9.2 Circuit Protection Requirements=97Circuit overload
protection (fuses or circuit breakers) must:
A2.9.2.1 Be installed on each circuit containing wiring,
equipment, or other components rated for less than the maximum
output of the battery and alternator or generator;
A2.9.2.2 Be appropriately rated for each component installed
on the protected circuit;
A2.9.2.3 Be accessible to and in clear view of the pilot;
A2.9.2.4 Open before the conductor emits smoke; and
A2.9.2.5 Automatic re-set circuit breakers may not be used.
I think it's A2.9.2.3 from which an ASSUMPTION might
be made that the writers intend for all circuit protection
to be accessible to (and extrapolated to include re-setable)
the pilot.
The spirit and intent is not clear. One might think that
having a clear view is good as a tell . . . warning that
a circuit protector has opened. Except you can't 'see' blown
fuses. Further, a pilot is 100x more likely to detect
loss of system functionality first than to see a popped
breaker. We understand further that there are many more
ways a system can be rendered inop than a simple fault
on the power supply line. Hence, making the circuit protector
visible and/or reachable becomes a distraction and adds
no demonstrable value going to comfortable termination
of the flight.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
At 09:45 2015-01-15, you wrote:
>
>FWIW: Free
>
>http://www.recreationalflying.com/tutorials/regulations/ASTM_F2245-07_Airplanes.pdf
Interesting. Mr. Bernsten seems to take a different
interpretation of the 'agreement' . . .
It's unfortunate that one is required to pay for
copies extracted from mountains of pages of regulation,
specification, process, law, etc. etc. that limit or
drive the behaviors of honorable citizens in their
daily exercise of spontaneous order . . . at the
risk of experiencing FORCE for failure to comply.
Doesn't seem quite right somehow . . .
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Charlie England <ceengland7(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: UN-FUSED MAIN BUS FEEDER |
On 1/15/2015 10:13 AM, Robert L. Nuckolls, III wrote:
> At 21:57 2015-01-14, you wrote:
>> Bob,
>>
>> I think there's been a slight mis-communication:
>>
>> ok, here we go, follow me down into the weeds...
>>
>> "The ASTM specs that the RV-12 is certificated under specifically
>> >prohibit the use of of a circuit protector that is not resetable by
>> the pilot."
>>
>> That quote is someone's interpretation of the ASTM Standard - NOT an
>> actual quote from the Standard.
>>
>> I was looking for wording in the ASTM document that supported that
>> claim and after reading the excerpt
>> you provided, I think we both concluded that the above statement is
>> not supported by the words in the
>> Standard.
>>
>> This is the kind of detail that can be difficult to express in prose
>> without getting wordy (and boring). If we
>> were sitting at the same table, we'd have it cleared up in less than
>> a minute.
>
> You got that right. Let's pour another cup of coffee
> and sift through it . . .
>
> *A2.9.2 **/Circuit Protection Requirements/Circuit overload
> protection (fuses or circuit breakers) must: *
>
> *
> A2.9.2.1 Be installed on each circuit containing wiring,
> equipment, or other components rated for less than the maximum
> output of the battery and alternator or generator;
> A2.9.2.2 Be appropriately rated for each component installed
> on the protected circuit;
>
> A2.9.2.3 Be accessible to and in clear view of the pilot;
>
> A2.9.2.4 Open before the conductor emits smoke; and
> *
> *A2.9.2.5 Automatic re-set circuit breakers may not be used.
>
> *
>
> I think it's A2.9.2.3 from which an ASSUMPTION might
> be made that the writers intend for all circuit protection
> to be accessible to (and extrapolated to include re-setable)
> the pilot.
>
> The spirit and intent is not clear. One might think that
> having a clear view is good as a tell . . . warning that
> a circuit protector has opened. Except you can't 'see' blown
> fuses. Further, a pilot is 100x more likely to detect
> loss of system functionality first than to see a popped
> breaker. We understand further that there are many more
> ways a system can be rendered inop than a simple fault
> on the power supply line. Hence, making the circuit protector
> visible and/or reachable becomes a distraction and adds
> no demonstrable value going to comfortable termination
> of the flight.
>
>
> Bob . . .
>
>
What's really nonsensical is A2.9.2.2, which is contrary to the real
reason for the protection (the wire), and impossible to implement if
there's more than one device on a circuit.
Charlie
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | David Josephson <dlj04(at)josephson.com> |
| Subject: | ASTM F2245 et al |
It's unfortunate that the ASTM standards aren't available for free
public review, but they have no funding other than from their membership
and sales of standards. The people working on their revision don't get
paid at all. There's another route, that I would encourage anyone
interested to follow.
For $75 a year you can join ASTM and get all of the standards that apply
to aviation for free (you want ASTM volume 15 with your membership.)
And, you're then welcome to join the deliberation on what they should
include. End-users and other interested people are just as eligible as
producers of aircraft and actually have a bigger say in the outcome
(each producer has only one vote) although few actually participate.
It's a bit cumbersome but if you have something to contribute you should
really be included in the process. Decisions are made by email and
online review and balloting. There are several committees: F37 looks
after the light-sport rules, F39 on aircraft systems, F44 is winding up
to do the same for GA planes to replace FAR Part 23. For now, F44 is
focusing only on capturing the language of Part 23 and simplifying it.
When that's done, additional "tiers" will be added to allow other levels
of airworthiness to be planned other than what's in the rules today.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Z-9 diagrm for Corvair |
At 22:35 2015-01-14, you wrote:
>Bob,
>
>My version of the AeroElectric book is from 2009 and the Z diagrams
>began at 10. At some point, I downloaded a Z-9 from the website, I
>think around 2009/10. I'm finishing the wiring on my plane and I
>wanted to know if the Z-9 diagram has been updated or if the one I
>have is still the best.
>
Revision (A) is the most current but it will
be updated shortly to include REAL pinouts
for the 4-function module have been firmed
up . . . the device is going to production
pretty soon.
Z09 was crafted as a demonstration project
for the AEC9024 4-function module as well as
a talking paper for a List reader's intention
to incorporate a Corvair engine in his project.
I'll be updating Z09 for attachment to the
AEC9024 installation manual as an exemplar
system that might exploit the AEC9024's features.
Let's talk about your intentions/desires.
Are you going to use a single or three-phase
alternator?
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: ASTM F2245 et al |
At 13:03 2015-01-15, you wrote:
>
>It's unfortunate that the ASTM standards aren't available for free
>public review, but they have no funding other than from their
>membership and sales of standards. The people working on their
>revision don't get paid at all. There's another route, that I would
>encourage anyone interested to follow.
>
>For $75 a year you can join ASTM and get all of the standards that
>apply to aviation for free (you want ASTM volume 15 with your
>membership.) And, you're then welcome to join the deliberation on
>what they should include. End-users and other interested people are
>just as eligible as producers of aircraft and actually have a bigger
>say in the outcome (each producer has only one vote) although few
>actually participate. It's a bit cumbersome but if you have
>something to contribute you should really be included in the
>process. Decisions are made by email and online review and
>balloting. There are several committees: F37 looks after the
>light-sport rules, F39 on aircraft systems, F44 is winding up to do
>the same for GA planes to replace FAR Part 23. For now, F44 is
>focusing only on capturing the language of Part 23 and simplifying
>it. When that's done, additional "tiers" will be added to allow
>other levels of airworthiness to be planned other than what's in the
>rules today.
Excellent point . . . I'll do that. I'll also
write to suggest that non-for profit distribution
should be allowed . . .
Like RTCA, ASTM is at risk for becoming 'siloed' . . .
relatively isolated from accurate and useful
feedback from the very folks who would are supposed
to "benefit" by the best of what the specs have to offer
. . . and like the EAA feedback into AC43-13 many
years ago . . . a conduit for refinement.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | <rnjcurtis(at)charter.net> |
| Subject: | Re:_AeroElectric-List:_ASTM_F2245_et_al? |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________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Skip <cardinalnsb(at)aol.com> |
| Subject: | review wanted of Renaissance battery charger |
Does anyone have any experience with the "Renaissance" line of battery chargers?
http://potentialtec.com/RC-1AU-Manual.pdf
I am skeptical of most claims, but was surprised that the tiny lithium battery
pack from Walmart would start my car, so I guess anything is possible. Thanks
Skip
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: ASTM F2245 et al |
| From: | "user9253" <fransew(at)gmail.com> |
Non-members and individuals are welcome to make suggestions to the ASTM committee.
I made a suggestion today concerning fuses & circuit breakers.
A2.9.2.3 Be accessible to and in clear view of the pilot.
Go to http://www.astm.org/ASK_ASTM/index.html
Click on "I am not an ASTM Member."
Fill out the form and click on an item like, "A new Work Item to revise an existing
standard"
Enter F2245 for the Disignation.
Make your suggestion.
My suggestion was to add the following to A2.9.2.3
> (This standard shall not apply to fusible links).
> This standard shall not prohibit protection for remote circuits nor shall it
prohibit complying with A2.9.2.1
I described the recent engine fire as a reason to implement the change.
Joe
--------
Joe Gores
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=437064#437064
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | David Josephson <dlj04(at)josephson.com> |
Bob Nuckolls responded to my post
> For $75 a year you can join ASTM and get all of the standards that
> apply to aviation for free (you want ASTM volume 15 with your
> membership.) And, you're then welcome to join the deliberation on
> what they should include. End-users and other interested people are
> Excellent point . . . I'll do that. I'll also
> write to suggest that non-for profit distribution
> should be allowed . . .
You might consider instead writing a summary of the current standard
without the legalese. It will be both more useful and less threatening to
the legal beagles.
>
> Like RTCA, ASTM is at risk for becoming 'siloed' . . .
> relatively isolated from accurate and useful
> feedback from the very folks who would are supposed
> to "benefit" by the best of what the specs have to offer
> . . . and like the EAA feedback into AC43-13 many
> years ago . . . a conduit for refinement.
That's right. I should also point out that the 2007 version of the
standard that's on the recreationalflying download site is quite
different from the current one. And, this very issue of circuit
protective devices has just been worked on, and is the subject of a
ballot in F37.20 which closes on January 30. There is still some
argument about the language, so I expect at least one more round of
discussion before it's done, and the time is right now to propose
alternate wording. ASTM, like most standards bodies, requires "the
absence of sustained objection" to new standards language, or has to
show a thorough review about why an objection is technically not valid.
As proposed now, circuit overload protection must be installed on each
circuit containing wiring rated for less than the combined output of the
battery and alternator, must open before the conductor emits smoke, must
not automatically reset, and must be accessible to and in clear view of
the pilot if it covers required equipment, equipment essential to safety
of flight unless redundant equipment is provided, or switchable circuit
protection installed to accommodate aircraft operating procedures
(combined switch/breaker). So a fusible link (not accessible in flight)
to protect wiring to the starter would be OK unless the manufacturer
decided that in-flight starter operation was essential.
David Josephson
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: ASTM F2245 et al |
>I would be more than happy to split this cost of membership, for
>Bob, with anyone interested. We have received many times more than
>this in experience and great advice. I am sure you will be a great
>knowledgeable outspoken advocate for the OBAM community.
>
>Anyone interested, let us know here and we can easily make a
>contribution through Paypal.
>
>Roger
Roger, thanks but that's not necessary. I've
got a 'budget' for professional expenses that
includes memberships and the like. In fact,
I purchased a copy of the document without
knowing that for a few $ more, I could have had
the membership + the document! In a few hours
I'll be pitching about $150 worth of proof
of concept ECBs that were ordered to do
beta-assemblies on some new products. Yeah,
those dollars might have bought me some new
goodies but the 'sacrifice' greatly improved
the quality of my work product. It's that
cost-of-doing-business thingy . . .
I'll look into a cooperative involvement
with the LSA specs effort.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Jeff Luckey <jluckey(at)pacbell.net> |
Boy this is all very interesting and wierd coincidence on the timing.
I have a few thoughts:
1. I am a firm believer in protecting feeders. I would rather blow a fuse/current
limiter
that I can't reset in flight, than catch on fire. Absolutely no question about
it.
If I had an electrically dependent engine, and was dumb enough not to have redundant
power, I would rather be flying a glider than a glider that is on fire. This idea
seems
obvious to me. And the recent posting re the RV-12 fire reinforces this idea.
2. After reviewing F2245 it seems strange that not only is such circuit protection
not
recommended but it is specifically prohibited. Seems like adding insult to injury.
It must
be due to the fact that small GA does not protect this feeder - but I don't believe
that protection
of this wire is specifically prohibited by the FARs.
3. Now, as BobN has informed us, the GA manufacturers decided a long time ago that
protection was not necessary for this feeder. I sure would like to talk to someone
who
was in the room when that decision was made. I would like to know the thought
process & what criteria was being considered. And if BobN does not know who
these people were/are, then I don't know who would. I'm guessing that they came
to a
logical conclusion based on the criteria and context of the moment. But without
know
some of that context, it is difficult to understand.
4. In all other disciplines of electrical engineering (and I've worked on
everything from Motor Homes to Mega-yachts, commercial & residential electrical
contracting, etc.) there are codes, regulations, guidelines, or just plain old
best practices
that prohibit un-protected feeders. Why did the aviation community decide not
to
protect this particular wire?
Just trying to get a little smarter...
-Jeff
On Friday, January 16, 2015 8:27 AM, David Josephson wrote:
Bob Nuckolls responded to my post
> For $75 a year you can join ASTM and get all of the standards that
> apply to aviation for free (you want ASTM volume 15 with your
> membership.) And, you're then welcome to join the deliberation on
> what they should include. End-users and other interested people are
> Excellent point . . . I'll do that. I'll also
> write to suggest that non-for profit distribution
> should be allowed . . .
You might consider instead writing a summary of the current standard
without the legalese. It will be both more useful and less threatening to
the legal beagles.
>
> Like RTCA, ASTM is at risk for becoming 'siloed' . . .
> relatively isolated from accurate and useful
> feedback from the very folks who would are supposed
> to "benefit" by the best of what the specs have to offer
> . . . and like the EAA feedback into AC43-13 many
> years ago . . . a conduit for refinement.
That's right. I should also point out that the 2007 version of the
standard that's on the recreationalflying download site is quite
different from the current one. And, this very issue of circuit
protective devices has just been worked on, and is the subject of a
ballot in F37.20 which closes on January 30. There is still some
argument about the language, so I expect at least one more round of
discussion before it's done, and the time is right now to propose
alternate wording. ASTM, like most standards bodies, requires "the
absence of sustained objection" to new standards language, or has to
show a thorough review about why an objection is technically not valid.
As proposed now, circuit overload protection must be installed on each
circuit containing wiring rated for less than the combined output of the
battery and alternator, must open before the conductor emits smoke, must
not automatically reset, and must be accessible to and in clear view of
the pilot if it covers required equipment, equipment essential to safety
of flight unless redundant equipment is provided, or switchable circuit
protection installed to accommodate aircraft operating procedures
(combined switch/breaker). So a fusible link (not accessible in flight)
to protect wiring to the starter would be OK unless the manufacturer
decided that in-flight starter operation was essential.
David Josephson
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | David Saylor <saylor.dave(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | Insulated ground cables? |
Bob and Listers,
I've been working on a few Beech products lately and a question has come up.
Many of the fuel lines are grounded to the airframe by short, thick ground
cables.
Here's a link that shows a typical ground strap. This isn't one of the
planes I'm working on, just a convenient snapshot off the internet:
http://www.csobeech.com/images/Baron-FuelSelectorCable.jpg
The question is, why bother to install a ground strap that terminates to an
insulated adel clamp?
About all we can figure is that -if- they're for lightning protection, the
rubber won't offer much relative resistance.
The practice is consistent across several airplanes. Are we missing
something? It's so counterintuitive that there must be a good reason.
--Dave
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Charlie England <ceengland7(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Insulated ground cables? |
On 1/17/2015 8:36 AM, David Saylor wrote:
> Bob and Listers,
>
> I've been working on a few Beech products lately and a question has
> come up.
>
> Many of the fuel lines are grounded to the airframe by short, thick
> ground cables.
>
> Here's a link that shows a typical ground strap. This isn't one of
> the planes I'm working on, just a convenient snapshot off the internet:
>
> http://www.csobeech.com/images/Baron-FuelSelectorCable.jpg
>
> The question is, why bother to install a ground strap that terminates
> to an insulated adel clamp?
>
> About all we can figure is that -if- they're for lightning protection,
> the rubber won't offer much relative resistance.
>
> The practice is consistent across several airplanes. Are we missing
> something? It's so counterintuitive that there must be a good reason.
>
> --Dave
>
>
Just wild speculation, but my 1st guess would be, static dissipation. If
there's any carbon in the rubber at all, it would provide a high
resistance path to dissipate any high voltage static charge buildup
caused by the fuel flowing through the line.
Why they wouldn't just pick a spot for the clamp where it could provide
vibration protection to the line at the same time, is another question....
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | <rnjcurtis(at)charter.net> |
| Subject: | Re:_AeroElectric-List:_Insulated_ground_cables=3F? |
DQoNCg0KDQoNCg0KDQoNCg0KDQoNCk1hbnkgb2YgdGhlIGZ1ZWwgbGluZXMgYXJlIGdyb3VuZGVk
IHRvIHRoZSBhaXJmcmFtZSBieSBzaG9ydCwgdGhpY2sgZ3JvdW5kIGNhYmxlcy4NCg0KDQoNCg0K
SGVyZSdzIGEgbGluayB0aGF0IHNob3dzIGEgdHlwaWNhbCBncm91bmQgc3RyYXAuICBUaGlzIGlz
bid0IG9uZSBvZiB0aGUgcGxhbmVzIEknbSB3b3JraW5nIG9uLCBqdXN0IGEgY29udmVuaWVudCBz
bmFwc2hvdCBvZmYgdGhlIGludGVybmV0Og0KDQoNCg0KDQpodHRwOi8vd3d3LmNzb2JlZWNoLmNv
bS9pbWFnZXMvQmFyb24tRnVlbFNlbGVjdG9yQ2FibGUuanBnDQoNCg0KDQoNCg0KVGhlIHF1ZXN0
aW9uIGlzLCB3aHkgYm90aGVyIHRvIGluc3RhbGwgYSBncm91bmQgc3RyYXAgdGhhdCB0ZXJtaW5h
dGVzIHRvIGFuIGluc3VsYXRlZCBhZGVsIGNsYW1wPw0KDQoNCg0KDQpBYm91dCBhbGwgd2UgY2Fu
IGZpZ3VyZSBpcyB0aGF0IC1pZi0gdGhleSdyZSBmb3IgbGlnaHRuaW5nIHByb3RlY3Rpb24sIHRo
ZSBydWJiZXIgd29uJ3Qgb2ZmZXIgbXVjaCByZWxhdGl2ZSByZXNpc3RhbmNlLg0KDQoNCg0KDQpU
aGUgcHJhY3RpY2UgaXMgY29uc2lzdGVudCBhY3Jvc3Mgc2V2ZXJhbCBhaXJwbGFuZXMuICBBcmUg
d2UgbWlzc2luZyBzb21ldGhpbmc/ICBJdCdzIHNvIGNvdW50ZXJpbnR1aXRpdmUgdGhhdCB0aGVy
ZSBtdXN0IGJlIGEgZ29vZCByZWFzb24uDQoNCg0KDQoNCi0tRGF2ZQ0KDQoNCg0KDQoNCkkgYmVs
aWV2ZSB0aGF0IHlvdSB3aWxsIGZpbmQsIGlmIHlvdSByZW1vdmUgYW5kIGluc3BlY3QgdGhlIEFk
ZWwgY2xhbXAsIHRoZXJlIGlzIGEgdGhpbiBtZXRhbCByaWJib24gd292ZW4gdGhyb3VnaCB0aGUg
cnViYmVyIGluIHN1Y2ggYSB3YXkgdGhhdCBpdCBtYWtlcyBjb250YWN0IHdpdGggdGhlIGZ1ZWwg
bGluZSBhbmQgdGhlIG1ldGFsIHN0cnVjdHVyZSBvZiB0aGUgY2xhbXAuICBUaGlzIHdpbGwsIGlu
IGZhY3QgZ3JvdW5kIHRoZSBmdWVsIGxpbmUuDQoNCg0KUm9nZXINCg0KDQoNCl8tPT09PT09PT09
PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09DQpfLT0N
Cl8tPSAgICAgICAtLSBQbGVhc2UgU3VwcG9ydCBZb3VyIExpc3RzIFRoaXMgTW9udGggLS0NCl8t
PSAgICAgICAgICAgKEFuZCBHZXQgU29tZSBBV0VTT01FIEZSRUUgR2lmdHMhKQ0KXy09DQpfLT0g
ICBOb3ZlbWJlciBpcyB0aGUgQW5udWFsIExpc3QgRnVuZCBSYWlzZXIuICBDbGljayBvbg0KXy09
ICAgdGhlIENvbnRyaWJ1dGlvbiBsaW5rIGJlbG93IHRvIGZpbmQgb3V0IG1vcmUgYWJvdXQNCl8t
PSAgIHRoaXMgeWVhcidzIFRlcnJpZmljIEZyZWUgSW5jZW50aXZlIEdpZnRzIHByb3ZpZGVkDQpf
LT0gICBieToNCl8tPSAgIA0KXy09ICAgICAqIEFlcm9FbGVjdHJpYyB3d3cuYWVyb2VsZWN0cmlj
LmNvbQ0KXy09ICAgICAqIFRoZSBCdWlsZGVyJ3MgQm9va3N0b3JlIHd3dy5idWlsZGVyc2Jvb2tz
LmNvbQ0KXy09ICAgICAqIEhvbWVidWlsdEhFTFAgd3d3LmhvbWVidWlsdGhlbHAuY29tDQpfLT0g
ICAgICogTXkgUGlsb3QgU3RvcmUgd3d3Lm15cGlsb3RzdG9yZS5jb20NCl8tPSAgICAgKiBSYWNl
IENvbnN1bHRpbmcgd3d3Lm1ycmFjZS5jb20NCl8tPQ0KXy09ICAgTGlzdCBDb250cmlidXRpb24g
V2ViIFNpdGU6DQpfLT0NCl8tPSAgIC0tPiBodHRwOi8vd3d3Lm1hdHJvbmljcy5jb20vY29udHJp
YnV0aW9uDQpfLT0NCl8tPSAgIFRoYW5rIHlvdSBmb3IgeW91ciBnZW5lcm91cyBzdXBwb3J0IQ0K
Xy09DQpfLT0gICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAtTWF0dCBEcmFsbGUsIExpc3Qg
QWRtaW4uDQpfLT0NCl8tPT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09
PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09DQpfLT0gICAgICAgICAgLSBUaGUgQWVyb0VsZWN0cmljLUxpc3Qg
RW1haWwgRm9ydW0gLQ0KXy09IFVzZSB0aGUgTWF0cm9uaWNzIExpc3QgRmVhdHVyZXMgTmF2aWdh
dG9yIHRvIGJyb3dzZQ0KXy09IHRoZSBtYW55IExpc3QgdXRpbGl0aWVzIHN1Y2ggYXMgTGlzdCBV
bi9TdWJzY3JpcHRpb24sDQpfLT0gQXJjaGl2ZSBTZWFyY2ggJiBEb3dubG9hZCwgNy1EYXkgQnJv
d3NlLCBDaGF0LCBGQVEsDQpfLT0gUGhvdG9zaGFyZSwgYW5kIG11Y2ggbXVjaCBtb3JlOg0KXy09
DQpfLT0gICAtLT4gaHR0cDovL3d3dy5tYXRyb25pY3MuY29tL05hdmlnYXRvcj9BZXJvRWxlY3Ry
aWMtTGlzdA0KXy09DQpfLT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09
PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PQ0KXy09ICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgLSBNQVRST05JQ1MgV0VCIEZP
UlVNUyAtDQpfLT0gU2FtZSBncmVhdCBjb250ZW50IGFsc28gYXZhaWxhYmxlIHZpYSB0aGUgV2Vi
IEZvcnVtcyENCl8tPQ0KXy09ICAgLS0+IGh0dHA6Ly9mb3J1bXMubWF0cm9uaWNzLmNvbQ0KXy09
DQpfLT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09
PT09PT09PQ=
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | David Saylor <saylor.dave(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Insulated ground cables? |
That's a good theory. I'll post if I get a sure answer.
On Sat, Jan 17, 2015 at 7:37 AM, Charlie England
wrote:
> ceengland7(at)gmail.com>
>
> On 1/17/2015 8:36 AM, David Saylor wrote:
>
>> Bob and Listers,
>>
>> I've been working on a few Beech products lately and a question has come
>> up.
>>
>> Many of the fuel lines are grounded to the airframe by short, thick
>> ground cables.
>>
>> Here's a link that shows a typical ground strap. This isn't one of the
>> planes I'm working on, just a convenient snapshot off the internet:
>>
>> http://www.csobeech.com/images/Baron-FuelSelectorCable.jpg
>>
>> The question is, why bother to install a ground strap that terminates to
>> an insulated adel clamp?
>>
>> About all we can figure is that -if- they're for lightning protection,
>> the rubber won't offer much relative resistance.
>>
>> The practice is consistent across several airplanes. Are we missing
>> something? It's so counterintuitive that there must be a good reason.
>>
>> --Dave
>>
>>
>> Just wild speculation, but my 1st guess would be, static dissipation. If
> there's any carbon in the rubber at all, it would provide a high resistance
> path to dissipate any high voltage static charge buildup caused by the fuel
> flowing through the line.
>
> Why they wouldn't just pick a spot for the clamp where it could provide
> vibration protection to the line at the same time, is another question....
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | David Saylor <saylor.dave(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Insulated ground cables? |
I'll look for a contact ribbon. I found this picture. It makes sense.
http://www.interfast.ca/images/115.jpg
On Sat, Jan 17, 2015 at 7:34 AM, wrote:
>
>
> Many of the fuel lines are grounded to the airframe by short, thick ground
> cables.
>
> Here's a link that shows a typical ground strap. This isn't one of the
> planes I'm working on, just a convenient snapshot off the internet:
>
> http://www.csobeech.com/images/Baron-FuelSelectorCable.jpg
>
> The question is, why bother to install a ground strap that terminates to
> an insulated adel clamp?
>
> About all we can figure is that -if- they're for lightning protection, the
> rubber won't offer much relative resistance.
>
> The practice is consistent across several airplanes. Are we missing
> something? It's so counterintuitive that there must be a good reason.
>
> --Dave
>
> I believe that you will find, if you remove and inspect the Adel clamp,
> there is a thin metal ribbon woven through the rubber in such a way that it
> makes contact with the fuel line and the metal structure of the clamp.
> This will, in fact ground the fuel line.
>
> Roger
>
> *
>
>
> *
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Insulated ground cables? |
At 08:36 2015-01-17, you wrote:
Bob and Listers,
I've been working on a few Beech products lately and a question has come up.
Many of the fuel lines are grounded to the
airframe by short, thick ground cables.
Here's a link that shows a typical ground
strap. This isn't one of the planes I'm working
on, just a convenient snapshot off the internet:
http://www.csobeech.com/images/Baron-FuelSelectorCable.jpg
The question is, why bother to install a ground
strap that terminates to an insulated adel clamp?
About all we can figure is that -if- they're for
lightning protection, the rubber won't offer much relative resistance.
The practice is consistent across several
airplanes. Are we missing something? It's so
counterintuitive that there must be a good reason.
--Dave
There is . . .
The padded clamp is for abrasion protection. Micro-vibration
between the tube's surface and mounting (perhaps in combination
with greasy dust) risks erosion of the surface(s) and failure
of the tube.
It doesn't even have to be a 'hard' mounting surface. My
'57 Chevy had a steel brake line resting against a power
steering hose for what had to be years. Oily contaminants
helped gather 'grinding compounds' in the interface. One
night about 1am my brake pedal went to the floor at a stop
sign . . . fortunately out in the country on deserted roads.
I nursed the car into an all night Standard station. The
guy behind the counter was there to pump gas . . . didn't
have a clue as to what might be useful. But he did give me
access to some wrenches and acid core solder I found
in the work bays. I used jumper cables on to hook my hunk
of disconnected brake line across the battery. Got it warm
enough to flow some solder over the hole. But it back on
the car and 'had brakes' albeit a little squishy . . . bubble
in the line.
THAT case was a rubber hose rubbing on a steel tube.
On airplane liquid lines, it's important not only to reduce
the hardness of materials at the clamp up interface (hence
padded clamp) but to make sure the clamp gets a firm grip
on the tube (excludes contaminants and prevents relative
motion). That, brethren, is the reading of THE WORD on
mechanical aspects of liquid line installation.
THE WORD on lightning is found in another book and
discusses an entirely separate constellation of simple
ideas' which drive installation of the bonding straps.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Billy Stewart" <bssailor(at)bellsouth.net> |
| Subject: | RE: Z-9 diagram for Corvair |
Bob,
I'm building a Zenith 601XLb with a Corvair engine. I'm using the Z-9
diagram, the Corvair/601 Engine Installation Manual By William Wynne and The
AeroElectric Connection 12A as guides/references.
My intentions are mostly fun flying with trips to visit family and
interesting places. It will be day VFR.
My desires are reliability first and foremost.
I have a Dynon EFIS-D100, a EMS-D120, Garmin GTX-327, Icom IC-A210, and
Garmin aera all installed, wired and tested. This was all pretty straight
forward. I'm using tefzel wire, PDIG connectors and the correct crimpers for
all of this.
I'm into the charging system now, and since the ignition system is
battery/alternator powered instead of magneto, my desire is to have a
reliable charging system. If the charging system is malfunctioning, I want
to know about it as soon as possible.
I have the John Deere MIA10338 Alternator and the MIA881279
Rectifier/Regulator. The alternator is a permanent magnet type with single
phase A.C. output coming out of the alternator.
Thanks,
Billy Stewart
-----Original Message-----
From: Robert L. Nuckolls, III [mailto:nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com]
Sent: Thursday, January 15, 2015 3:00 PM
Subject: Re: Z-9 diagrm for Corvair
At 22:35 2015-01-14, you wrote:
>Bob,
>
>My version of the AeroElectric book is from 2009 and the Z diagrams
>began at 10. At some point, I downloaded a Z-9 from the website, I
>think around 2009/10. I'm finishing the wiring on my plane and I
>wanted to know if the Z-9 diagram has been updated or if the one I
>have is still the best.
>
Revision (A) is the most current but it will
be updated shortly to include REAL pinouts
for the 4-function module have been firmed
up . . . the device is going to production
pretty soon.
Z09 was crafted as a demonstration project
for the AEC9024 4-function module as well as
a talking paper for a List reader's intention
to incorporate a Corvair engine in his project.
I'll be updating Z09 for attachment to the
AEC9024 installation manual as an exemplar
system that might exploit the AEC9024's features.
Let's talk about your intentions/desires.
Are you going to use a single or three-phase
alternator?
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | C&K <yellowduckduo(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Insulated ground cables? |
On 17/01/2015 12:05 PM, Robert L. Nuckolls, III wrote:
>
>
> At 08:36 2015-01-17, you wrote:
> Bob and Listers,
>
> I've been working on a few Beech products lately and a question has
> come up.
>
> Many of the fuel lines are grounded to the airframe by short, thick
> ground cables.
>
> Here's a link that shows a typical ground strap. This isn't one of
> the planes I'm working on, just a convenient snapshot off the internet:
>
> http://www.csobeech.com/images/Baron-FuelSelectorCable.jpg
>
> The question is, why bother to install a ground strap that terminates
> to an insulated adel clamp?
>
> About all we can figure is that -if- they're for lightning protection,
> the rubber won't offer much relative resistance.
>
> The practice is consistent across several airplanes. Are we missing
> something? It's so counterintuitive that there must be a good reason.
>
> --Dave
>
> There is . . .
>
> The padded clamp is for abrasion protection. Micro-vibration
> between the tube's surface and mounting (perhaps in combination
> with greasy dust) risks erosion of the surface(s) and failure
> of the tube.
>
> It doesn't even have to be a 'hard' mounting surface. My
> '57 Chevy had a steel brake line resting against a power
> steering hose for what had to be years. Oily contaminants
> helped gather 'grinding compounds' in the interface. One
> night about 1am my brake pedal went to the floor at a stop
> sign . . . fortunately out in the country on deserted roads.
>
> I nursed the car into an all night Standard station. The
> guy behind the counter was there to pump gas . . . didn't
> have a clue as to what might be useful. But he did give me
> access to some wrenches and acid core solder I found
> in the work bays. I used jumper cables on to hook my hunk
> of disconnected brake line across the battery. Got it warm
> enough to flow some solder over the hole. But it back on
> the car and 'had brakes' albeit a little squishy . . . bubble
> in the line.
>
> THAT case was a rubber hose rubbing on a steel tube.
>
> On airplane liquid lines, it's important not only to reduce
> the hardness of materials at the clamp up interface (hence
> padded clamp) but to make sure the clamp gets a firm grip
> on the tube (excludes contaminants and prevents relative
> motion). That, brethren, is the reading of THE WORD on
> mechanical aspects of liquid line installation.
>
> THE WORD on lightning is found in another book and
> discusses an entirely separate constellation of simple
> ideas' which drive installation of the bonding straps.
>
> Bob . . .
>
57 Chevy
86 Dodge same thing. Rubber hose OK but it abraded through a steel brake
line below the master cylinder after about 7 years. There were dual
(split) braking systems by 1986 but the emergency brake was more
effective. I also had a rust out on a 88 Dodge and the pedal went to
the floor despite the dual system.
There has been discussion on bad engine ground cables that then allowed
current to flow through control cables or even sensor grounds. I've seen
some aircraft with metal braided fuel lines going to the engine. I
question the wisdom of that and have wondered whether that could have
been a factor in a failed fuel hose and subsequent fatal engine fire a
few years ago. I have two independent ground cables going to my engine
and sure enough I did once find a problem with one of them on an annual
inspection.
I've come across a couple of those adel clamps with integral metal
ground but never thought about them until now. With several rubber hoses
connecting various parts of some fuel systems, it makes sense to bond it
such that no static can possibly build on any part of the system. Must
check this because I think I might have a section of metal tubing all
nicely insulated in Adel clamps, rubber grommets, and rubber hoses.
Ken
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | David Saylor <saylor.dave(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Insulated ground cables? |
=8BOK, I understand that using a tight padded clamp will preserve the
clampee=8B. I've repaired much damaged from loose clamps and ty-wrap
s.
I still don't get, unless it's a conducting clamp, why a bonding strap
would be well insulated at one end of the circuit. They're not providing
any mechanical connection. Purely electrical so far as I can see.
I may know a lot more after looking closer at the clamp.
--Dave
On Sat, Jan 17, 2015 at 9:05 AM, Robert L. Nuckolls, III <
nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> wrote:
> nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com>
>
> At 08:36 2015-01-17, you wrote:
> Bob and Listers,
>
> I've been working on a few Beech products lately and a question has come
> up.
>
> Many of the fuel lines are grounded to the airframe by short, thick groun
d
> cables.
>
> Here's a link that shows a typical ground strap.=C3=82 This isn't one of
the
> planes I'm working on, just a convenient snapshot off the internet:
>
> http://www.csobeech.com/images/Baron-FuelSelectorCable.jpg
>
> The question is, why bother to install a ground strap that terminates to
> an insulated adel clamp?
>
> About all we can figure is that -if- they're for lightning protection, th
e
> rubber won't offer much relative resistance.
>
> The practice is consistent across several airplanes.=C3=82 Are we missin
g
> something?=C3=82 It's so counterintuitive that there must be a good reas
on.
>
> --Dave
>
> There is . . .
>
> The padded clamp is for abrasion protection. Micro-vibration
> between the tube's surface and mounting (perhaps in combination
> with greasy dust) risks erosion of the surface(s) and failure
> of the tube.
>
> It doesn't even have to be a 'hard' mounting surface. My
> '57 Chevy had a steel brake line resting against a power
> steering hose for what had to be years. Oily contaminants
> helped gather 'grinding compounds' in the interface. One
> night about 1am my brake pedal went to the floor at a stop
> sign . . . fortunately out in the country on deserted roads.
>
> I nursed the car into an all night Standard station. The
> guy behind the counter was there to pump gas . . . didn't
> have a clue as to what might be useful. But he did give me
> access to some wrenches and acid core solder I found
> in the work bays. I used jumper cables on to hook my hunk
> of disconnected brake line across the battery. Got it warm
> enough to flow some solder over the hole. But it back on
> the car and 'had brakes' albeit a little squishy . . . bubble
> in the line.
>
> THAT case was a rubber hose rubbing on a steel tube.
>
> On airplane liquid lines, it's important not only to reduce
> the hardness of materials at the clamp up interface (hence
> padded clamp) but to make sure the clamp gets a firm grip
> on the tube (excludes contaminants and prevents relative
> motion). That, brethren, is the reading of THE WORD on
> mechanical aspects of liquid line installation.
>
> THE WORD on lightning is found in another book and
> discusses an entirely separate constellation of simple
> ideas' which drive installation of the bonding straps.
>
> Bob . . .
>
>
===========
===========
===========
===========
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | D L Josephson <dlj04(at)josephson.com> |
On 1/16/15 11:59 PM, Jeff Luckey wrote:
> 2. After reviewing F2245 it seems strange that not only is such
> circuit protection not recommended but it is specifically prohibited.
> Seems like
With all due respect, that is simply false with respect both to the
subcommittee's intent (having been a participant or observer in many of
the discussions on this topic) and the current language. People are
commenting on an obsolete edition of the standard that someone pirated
on to the net, not even the current one, and certainly not the one that
is being further refined this month.
Second, a standard permits or prohibits nothing. The point of a standard
is to set a definition which can be referred to. It has no regulatory
impact. FAA will accept a manufacturer's assertion of compliance with
this particular standard as indicating compliance with the light-sport
rules, and will consider others if proposed to them.
If you don't like the standard as it is, get involved in changing it.
The process is very unlike the FAA's rulemaking process: rather than
staying the same for decades, the default is review and updating to meet
current best practices. I have been part of that effort for two years.
It takes some time, and I believe it's worthwhile. I'm involved in
several other standards-making bodies and the ASTM process is faster and
more accessible than most. But it is dependent on the good-faith efforts
of everyone interested in the outcome.
David Josephson
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Insulated ground cables? |
At 12:23 2015-01-17, you wrote:
>OK, I understand that using a tight padded
>clamp will preserve the clampee. I've
>repaired much damaged from loose clamps and ty-wraps.
>
>I still don't get, unless it's a conducting
>clamp, why a bonding strap would be well
>insulated at one end of the circuit. They're
>not providing any mechanical
>connection. Purely electrical so far as I can see.
>
>I may know a lot more after looking closer at the clamp.
Any sort of 'conductive' clamp can serve no better purpose
than to mitigate potential differences at LOW current.
I.e. static and maybe noise in radios generated by
itty-bitty arcs due differences across separate airframe
grounds . . . recall that any electrical connection worthy
of the name is gas tight. Lots of pressure, welding, soldering,
crimping, or other joining process intended to exclude
moisture and preserve a BOND. There may be a constellation
of simple-ideas that speak to the utility of 'mildly conducive'
Adel clamps; but not that I've heard/read/observed in my travels.
If design goals for airplane include some level of
survivability to lightning strike, then conductive
bushings in a clamp will not be part of that particular
hardening process.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
>It takes some time, and I believe it's worthwhile. I'm involved in
>several other standards-making bodies and the ASTM process is faster
>and more accessible than most. But it is dependent on the good-faith
>efforts of everyone interested in the outcome.
>
>David Josephson
Well put . . .
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Jeff Luckey <jluckey(at)pacbell.net> |
"With all due respect, that is simply false with respect both to the
subcommittee's intent (having been a participant or observer in many of
the discussions on this topic) and the current language. "
OK, very good, I'm pleased to hear that. I must be looking at an old copy as you
mention and/or factoring in other people's interpretation - bad on me. However,
there is evidence that people are interpreting the standard as though it
prohibits protecting the feeder in question, however incorrect that may be.
"Second, a standard permits or prohibits nothing. The point of a standard
is to set a definition which can be referred to."
I agree in theory, however in practical application people interpret (or mis-interpret)
standards like this as though they do permit or prohibit.
Thanks for the clarification,
-Jeff
On Saturday, January 17, 2015 10:52 AM, D L Josephson wrote:
On 1/16/15 11:59 PM, Jeff Luckey wrote:
> 2. After reviewing F2245 it seems strange that not only is such
> circuit protection not recommended but it is specifically prohibited.
> Seems like
With all due respect, that is simply false with respect both to the
subcommittee's intent (having been a participant or observer in many of
the discussions on this topic) and the current language. People are
commenting on an obsolete edition of the standard that someone pirated
on to the net, not even the current one, and certainly not the one that
is being further refined this month.
Second, a standard permits or prohibits nothing. The point of a standard
is to set a definition which can be referred to. It has no regulatory
impact. FAA will accept a manufacturer's assertion of compliance with
this particular standard as indicating compliance with the light-sport
rules, and will consider others if proposed to them.
If you don't like the standard as it is, get involved in changing it.
The process is very unlike the FAA's rulemaking process: rather than
staying the same for decades, the default is review and updating to meet
current best practices. I have been part of that effort for two years.
It takes some time, and I believe it's worthwhile. I'm involved in
several other standards-making bodies and the ASTM process is faster and
more accessible than most. But it is dependent on the good-faith efforts
of everyone interested in the outcome.
David Josephson
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Robert Reed <RobertR237(at)att.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Insulated ground cables? |
Test it to see if there a connection.
Bob Reed
Sent from my iPhone
> On Jan 17, 2015, at 12:23 PM, David Saylor wrote:
>
> =8BOK, I understand that using a tight padded clamp will preserve th
e clampee=8B. I've repaired much damaged from loose clamps and ty-wra
ps.
>
> I still don't get, unless it's a conducting clamp, why a bonding strap wou
ld be well insulated at one end of the circuit. They're not providing any m
echanical connection. Purely electrical so far as I can see.
>
> I may know a lot more after looking closer at the clamp.
>
> --Dave
>
>> On Sat, Jan 17, 2015 at 9:05 AM, Robert L. Nuckolls, III <nuckolls.bob@ae
roelectric.com> wrote:
lls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com>
>>
>> At 08:36 2015-01-17, you wrote:
>> Bob and Listers,
>>
>> I've been working on a few Beech products lately and a question has come u
p.
>>
>> Many of the fuel lines are grounded to the airframe by short, thick groun
d cables.
>>
>> Here's a link that shows a typical ground strap.=C3=82 This isn't one of
the planes I'm working on, just a convenient snapshot off the internet:
>>
>> http://www.csobeech.com/images/Baron-FuelSelectorCable.jpg
>>
>> The question is, why bother to install a ground strap that terminates to a
n insulated adel clamp?
>>
>> About all we can figure is that -if- they're for lightning protection, th
e rubber won't offer much relative resistance.
>>
>> The practice is consistent across several airplanes.=C3=82 Are we missin
g something?=C3=82 It's so counterintuitive that there must be a good reaso
n.
>>
>> --Dave
>>
>> There is . . .
>>
>> The padded clamp is for abrasion protection. Micro-vibration
>> between the tube's surface and mounting (perhaps in combination
>> with greasy dust) risks erosion of the surface(s) and failure
>> of the tube.
>>
>> It doesn't even have to be a 'hard' mounting surface. My
>> '57 Chevy had a steel brake line resting against a power
>> steering hose for what had to be years. Oily contaminants
>> helped gather 'grinding compounds' in the interface. One
>> night about 1am my brake pedal went to the floor at a stop
>> sign . . . fortunately out in the country on deserted roads.
>>
>> I nursed the car into an all night Standard station. The
>> guy behind the counter was there to pump gas . . . didn't
>> have a clue as to what might be useful. But he did give me
>> access to some wrenches and acid core solder I found
>> in the work bays. I used jumper cables on to hook my hunk
>> of disconnected brake line across the battery. Got it warm
>> enough to flow some solder over the hole. But it back on
>> the car and 'had brakes' albeit a little squishy . . . bubble
>> in the line.
>>
>> THAT case was a rubber hose rubbing on a steel tube.
>>
>> On airplane liquid lines, it's important not only to reduce
>> the hardness of materials at the clamp up interface (hence
>> padded clamp) but to make sure the clamp gets a firm grip
>> on the tube (excludes contaminants and prevents relative
>> motion). That, brethren, is the reading of THE WORD on
>> mechanical aspects of liquid line installation.
>>
>> THE WORD on lightning is found in another book and
>> discusses an entirely separate constellation of simple
>> ideas' which drive installation of the bonding straps.
>>
>> Bob . . .
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> =========================
>> br> fts!)
>> r> > /www.aeroelectric.com" target="_blank">www.aeroelectric.com
>> w.buildersbooks.com" target="_blank">www.buildersbooks.com
>> p.com" target="_blank">www.homebuilthelp.com
>> e.com" target="_blank">www.mypilotstore.com
>> " target="_blank">www.mrrace.com
>> target="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/contribution
>> -Matt Dralle, List Admin.
>> =========================
>> -
>> Electric-List" target="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroE
lectric-List
>> =========================
>> FORUMS -
>> _blank">http://forums.matronics.com
>> =========================
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
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: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | The AeroVoltz battery fire . . . |
A few days ago we were apprised of a battery fire involving
an AeroVoltz product. A few minutes ago I ran across this
posting by the owner of the incident aircraft:
http://tinyurl.com/qa8tdoo
. . . I'm a little . . . no . . . REALLY astounded
that for this day in the age of owner built and maintained
aircraft, there are machines flying around with no active
notification/response for abnormal bus voltages.
I'd better shut up for now and sort my thoughts into
a more rational response to a clear problem of disseminating
what amounts to boat loads of free information and education
on the art and science of building and operating airplanes . . .
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | jan <jan(at)CLAVER.DEMON.CO.UK> |
| Subject: | The AeroVoltz battery fire . . . |
You can lead a horse to water ... but not make it drink .. ;-) ...
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Robert L.
Nuckolls, III
Sent: 18 January 2015 20:23
Subject: AeroElectric-List: The AeroVoltz battery fire . . .
A few days ago we were apprised of a battery fire involving
an AeroVoltz product. A few minutes ago I ran across this
posting by the owner of the incident aircraft:
http://tinyurl.com/qa8tdoo
. . . I'm a little . . . no . . . REALLY astounded
that for this day in the age of owner built and maintained
aircraft, there are machines flying around with no active
notification/response for abnormal bus voltages.
I'd better shut up for now and sort my thoughts into
a more rational response to a clear problem of disseminating
what amounts to boat loads of free information and education
on the art and science of building and operating airplanes . . .
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Paul A. Fisher" <paulf(at)hughes.net> |
| Subject: | Re: The AeroVoltz battery fire . . . |
Agreed. I liked his last statement "Over voltage has to be able to be
detected and remedied quickly in flight". We have discussed the
products that do exactly this in milliseconds with no input from the
pilot. If he thinks he is going to watch his voltage, detect it, and
shut it down manually, I think he is going to be disappointed (again!).
- Paul
On 1/18/2015 4:03 PM, jan wrote:
>
> You can lead a horse to water ... but not make it drink .. ;-) ...
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Robert L.
> Nuckolls, III
> Sent: 18 January 2015 20:23
> To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
> Subject: AeroElectric-List: The AeroVoltz battery fire . . .
>
>
>
> A few days ago we were apprised of a battery fire involving
> an AeroVoltz product. A few minutes ago I ran across this
> posting by the owner of the incident aircraft:
>
> http://tinyurl.com/qa8tdoo
>
> . . . I'm a little . . . no . . . REALLY astounded
> that for this day in the age of owner built and maintained
> aircraft, there are machines flying around with no active
> notification/response for abnormal bus voltages.
>
> I'd better shut up for now and sort my thoughts into
> a more rational response to a clear problem of disseminating
> what amounts to boat loads of free information and education
> on the art and science of building and operating airplanes . . .
>
>
> Bob . . .
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Insulated ground cables? |
| From: | Etienne Phillips <etienne.phillips(at)gmail.com> |
On 17 January 2015 at 21:18, Robert L. Nuckolls, III <
nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> wrote:
> nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com>
>
> Any sort of 'conductive' clamp can serve no better purpose
> than to mitigate potential differences at LOW current.
> I.e. static and maybe noise in radios generated by
> itty-bitty arcs due differences across separate airframe
> grounds . . . recall that any electrical connection worthy
> of the name is gas tight. Lots of pressure, welding, soldering,
> crimping, or other joining process intended to exclude
> moisture and preserve a BOND. There may be a constellation
> of simple-ideas that speak to the utility of 'mildly conducive'
> Adel clamps; but not that I've heard/read/observed in my travels.
>
> If design goals for airplane include some level of
> survivability to lightning strike, then conductive
> bushings in a clamp will not be part of that particular
> hardening process.
>
>
> Bob . . .
>
>
Hi Bob et al.
The fuel line is conductive aluminium - why would there be a static build
up, unless it were isolated completely from the rest of the airframe by
rubber fittings at every support as well as rubber hoses connecting it to
the rest of the fuel system? Surely no matter where the pipe is grounded
(by connecting it to the fuel tank, gascolator, fuel selector switch or
similar), that would dissipate any static build up along the entire length
of aluminium piping and anything else connected to it by the AN fittings? I
am particularly intrigued by this having _just_ ordered 50' of aluminium
fuel piping to refit my Citabria's continuously perishing rubber fuel hoses.
Could it not be as a mechanical restraint in the event of an accident to
ensure that when the airframe crumples the pipe bends in a particular
fashion to reduce the risk of kinking and spraying fuel all over a fire...?
Thanks
Etienne
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Insulated ground cables? |
>Hi Bob et al.
>
>The fuel line is conductive aluminium - why would there be a static
>build up, unless it were isolated completely from the rest of the
>airframe by rubber fittings at every support as well as rubber hoses
>connecting it to the rest of the fuel system? Surely no matter where
>the pipe is grounded (by connecting it to the fuel tank, gascolator,
>fuel selector switch or similar), that would dissipate any static
>build up along the entire length of aluminium piping and anything
>else connected to it by the AN fittings? I am particularly intrigued
>by this having _just_ ordered 50' of aluminium fuel piping to refit
>my Citabria's continuously perishing rubber fuel hoses.
Not a static built up WITHIN the tube, but static
currents circulating WITHOUT wherein two conductive
entities are not electrically bonded to each others
and some 'discharge' occurs between them. This is
not a fire safety kind of issue but purely one of
potential noise.
Admittedly, this is an stretch in the extreme to
apply this kind of reasoning to 99 percent of little
airplanes . . . but there are folks who have listened
well to their teachers with experience in high performance,
high altitude and perhaps weapons-grade machines
wherein the slightest risk for mission failure was
treated as a national security issue.
The question that Dave was pondering is probably
not germane to any airplanes that we're interested
in . . . and the narrative supporting the practice
for what he is observing is not readily available
to us.
It's interesting to ponder the value of many of the
process specifications I've encountered over the
years. Beech and Cessna had libraries of them. If
there's a failing of requirements laid out in hard
document (or cultural rules-of-thumb), it's the
dearth of background for why some things are a good
idea and under what conditions they should . . . or
need not be applied.
The authors were long gone and could not be queried
as to the foundation for the practice. Hence, things
that may have been done in good faith and sound
physics on some project years ago have been filtered
down as part of the cultural boiler-plate; dutifully
honored to this day . . . sometimes as more of a
religion than a science. Sorta like the cultural
obsession with oil pressure during the first seconds
of an engine start. Charles Lindbergh may have personally
experience broken oil circulation systems or perhaps
his associates had personal experiences . . . but
what is the likelihood of such an event today?
Most automobiles are fitted with oil pressure switches
that kill the fuel pump when no pressure is sensed.
This prevents a tank mounted pump from driving a
broken fuel line after the engine stops from fuel
starvation. The engine is more likely the become 'inop'
due to fuel plumbing problems (or shorted bus feeder
or smoked electrical system) than for lack of lubrication.
>Could it not be as a mechanical restraint in the event of an
>accident to ensure that when the airframe crumples the pipe bends in
>a particular fashion to reduce the risk of kinking and spraying fuel
>all over a fire...?
Without published background for a particular
practice, we'll never know for sure. But I think
it's more simplistic. AC43-13 focus is on robust
mounting with allowances for necessary movement while
maintaining clearances between antagonistic components
and mitigating the effects of environment.
The astute systems installer views power steering
hoses, fuel lines, brake lines, control cables,
wire bundles, and all manner of moving parts as
potential antagonists against each other. The
art of their craft includes a running narrative
FMEA pondering all the ways these components may fail
to function due to interference by another component
combined perhaps with an environmental stress.
I used to field worrisome questions about 'exposed'
bus bars behind the panel with the following: "Okay,
with your choice of hammers, saws, clippers or
any other tool, crawl under the panel and do
what ever it takes to bring some part of your
airplane against that exposed bus bar. If you
find some component at risk for such interference,
what is the likelihood of that happening in flight?
If there is strong likelihood, is it better to shield
the bus . . . or improve on the mounting and robustness
of the interfering part?"
From narratives like this . . . and lessons learned
. . . that process specs are crafted and become part of
THE WORD . . . a word often adopted on faith
after the supporting narrative is lost to history.
But we can hone our own awareness of risks by
constantly reviewing the capabilities, limits
and vulnerabilities of components we bolt to our
airplanes. When you bolt in a nice, new, feather
light lithium battery, you ponder . . . "Gee, is
this little feller going to be happy in my airplane?"
When you bundle a bus feeder line together with
come control cables . . . "Hmmmmm . . . can those
guys get each other into trouble like squabbling
two-year-olds?"
The potential for problematic combinations
is huge but they're all based on exceedingly simple
ideas with risks for failure to sift through
the beans for pebbles . . . before the pot goes
on the stove.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Alternator/regulator |
| From: | Gary Burdett <gburdett1(at)frontier.com> |
I have a JD/yanmar PM alternator and regulator with crowbar circuit. Voltage was
starting to run over 15 volts at cruise rpms. Replaced battery and regulator,
now hits 15.5 volts at anything over 2400 rpms on first test with a fully charged
battery..????
Sent from my iPad
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Power Generation without Battery? |
| From: | Chris Mullins <mullincl(at)gmail.com> |
Bob,
I am building a Carbon Cub - a lightweight experimental design for
backcountry use. It will use a fully electrically dependent Lycoming
engine. I plan on 1 battery/2 alternators, and I desire the system to run
the engine with any 1 of those 3 failed.
I want to use a lithium battery for starting purposes only. I am not
worried about battery only endurance with 2 other power sources.
Alternator technology is mature, but Li batteries seem to be still
evolving. Some type of battery fault would seem be a likely failure mode in
my planned system. (I'd like to monitor battery temp using a probe and my
on board electronics, and to have some way to electrically isolate or even
physically remove the battery).
I plan to use your Z12 or Z13 architecture.
People I speak with advise me that alternators (even the SD8) are dependent
on a functioning battery in the system, and that they will cease to
function if the battery fails or is taken offline.
Recent revelations regarding the Challenger/Aerovoltz scenario aside, there
seem to still be legitimate issues with the current Li crop. At the very
least they remain relatively unproven.
So I am concerned about the Li battery being a single point of failure
capable of stopping the engine.
How can I design around this problem?
Chris M
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Ben" <n801bh(at)netzero.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Power Generation without Battery? |
Pmag ????? Ben Haas
N801BH
www.haaspowerair.com
---------- Original Message ----------
From: Chris Mullins <mullincl(at)gmail.com>
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Power Generation without Battery?
Date: Mon, 19 Jan 2015 14:49:42 -0800
Bob,
I am building a Carbon Cub - a lightweight experimental design for backc
ountry use. It will use a fully electrically dependent Lycoming engine.
I plan on 1 battery/2 alternators, and I desire the system to run the en
gine with any 1 of those 3 failed.
I want to use a lithium battery for starting purposes only. I am not wor
ried about battery only endurance with 2 other power sources.
Alternator technology is mature, but Li batteries seem to be still evolv
ing. Some type of battery fault would seem be a likely failure mode in m
y planned system. (I'd like to monitor battery temp using a probe and my
on board electronics, and to have some way to electrically isolate or e
ven physically remove the battery).
I plan to use your Z12 or Z13 architecture.
People I speak with advise me that alternators (even the SD8) are depend
ent on a functioning battery in the system, and that they will cease to
function if the battery fails or is taken offline.
Recent revelations regarding the Challenger/Aerovoltz scenario aside, th
ere seem to still be legitimate issues with the current Li crop. At the
very least they remain relatively unproven.
So I am concerned about the Li battery being a single point of failure c
apable of stopping the engine.
How can I design around this problem?
========================
========================
========================
========================
========================
=========
____________________________________________________________
The Next Big Thing
3 Companies Running Big Cable Out of Business
http://thirdpartyoffers.netzero.net/TGL3241/54bd90f12addb10f06697st03duc
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Power Generation without Battery? |
| From: | Peter Pengilly <peter(at)sportingaero.com> |
Use a lead acid battery? Something like a PC545 at 11.4 lb may be an
acceptable weight penalty?
Peter
On 19 Jan 2015 23:03, "Chris Mullins" wrote:
> Bob,
> I am building a Carbon Cub - a lightweight experimental design for
> backcountry use. It will use a fully electrically dependent Lycoming
> engine. I plan on 1 battery/2 alternators, and I desire the system to run
> the engine with any 1 of those 3 failed.
>
> I want to use a lithium battery for starting purposes only. I am not
> worried about battery only endurance with 2 other power sources.
>
> Alternator technology is mature, but Li batteries seem to be still
> evolving. Some type of battery fault would seem be a likely failure mode in
> my planned system. (I'd like to monitor battery temp using a probe and my
> on board electronics, and to have some way to electrically isolate or even
> physically remove the battery).
>
> I plan to use your Z12 or Z13 architecture.
>
> People I speak with advise me that alternators (even the SD8) are
> dependent on a functioning battery in the system, and that they will cease
> to function if the battery fails or is taken offline.
>
> Recent revelations regarding the Challenger/Aerovoltz scenario aside,
> there seem to still be legitimate issues with the current Li crop. At the
> very least they remain relatively unproven.
>
> So I am concerned about the Li battery being a single point of failure
> capable of stopping the engine.
>
> How can I design around this problem?
>
> Chris M
>
> *
>
>
> *
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | David Saylor <saylor.dave(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Insulated ground cables? |
Here's a picture of the clamp. It clearly has the contact patch that Roger
described.
The fit is not at all tight.
It's cabled to the wing skin under a nacelle. The cable attaches to the
skin about 1.5" from the bulkhead fitting supporting the tube...
Thankfully, if the tube comes completely disconnected at each end from it's
fittings, it still has a path to ground...(kidding).
I still don't know the original intent, but the owner is satisfied that the
fuel lines are grounded. Mission accomplished.
Thanks for all the input,
--Dave
[image: Inline image 1]
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Jeff Luckey <jluckey(at)pacbell.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Power Generation without Battery? |
Chris,
If your mission profile could put you in the back country with ground support hundreds
of miles away, you may want to consider a few ideas:
1. Consider changing architecture to 2 batteries & 1 alternator. If your only
battery goes dead or has diminished capacity due to extreme cold, you done. Having
an extra alternator won't get the engine started.
2. Maybe this is not the place for un-proven lithium battery technology. Again,
if your survival depends on it, you may want to go w/ technology that has a
proven track record.
-Jeff
On Monday, January 19, 2015 3:51 PM, Peter Pengilly wrote:
Use a lead acid battery? Something like a PC545 at 11.4 lb may be an acceptable
weight penalty?
Peter
On 19 Jan 2015 23:03, "Chris Mullins" wrote:
Bob,
>I am building a Carbon Cub - a lightweight experimental design for backcountry
use. It will use a fully electrically dependent Lycoming engine. I plan on 1
battery/2 alternators, and I desire the system to run the engine with any 1 of
those 3 failed.
>
>I want to use a lithium battery for starting purposes only. I am not worried about
battery only endurance with 2 other power sources.
>
>Alternator technology is mature, but Li batteries seem to be still evolving. Some
type of battery fault would seem be a likely failure mode in my planned system.
(I'd like to monitor battery temp using a probe and my on board electronics,
and to have some way to electrically isolate or even physically remove the
battery).
>
>I plan to use your Z12 or Z13 architecture.
>
>People I speak with advise me that alternators (even the SD8) are dependent on
a functioning battery in the system, and that they will cease to function if
the battery fails or is taken offline.
>
>
>Recent revelations regarding the Challenger/Aerovoltz scenario aside, there seem
to still be legitimate issues with the current Li crop. At the very least they
remain relatively unproven.
>
>So I am concerned about the Li battery being a single point of failure capable
of stopping the engine.
>
>How can I design around this problem?
>
>
>Chris M
>
>_blank">www.aeroelectric.com
.com" target="_blank">www.buildersbooks.com
="_blank">www.homebuilthelp.com
="_blank">www.mypilotstore.com
ank">www.mrrace.com
_blank">http://www.matronics.com/contribution
ist" target="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List
tp://forums.matronics.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Alternator/regulator |
At 15:34 2015-01-19, you wrote:
>
>I have a JD/yanmar PM alternator and regulator with crowbar circuit.
>Voltage was starting to run over 15 volts at cruise rpms. Replaced
>battery and regulator, now hits 15.5 volts at anything over 2400
>rpms on first test with a fully charged battery..????
Regulator is not properly adjusted for maintaining
a lead-acid battery. Unfortunately, most of the
off-the-shelf regulators for pm alternators do not
offer user adjustments.
Finding a drop-in replacement with friendlier
performance is about your only option. Your
problem is not uncommon and the folks who design,
manufacture and market these products seem oblivious
to the disservice they impose on their customers.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Alternator/regulator |
| From: | Gary Burdett <gburdett1(at)frontier.com> |
Thanks Bob,
I have an odyssey 680 cell and the first regulator ran ok for about 75 hours and
two years. I checked B&C and they do not recommend using their regulator with
an 18-20 amp pm alternator.
Oddly enough, about 10 hours ago, I switched to a rear alt setup on a Corvair which
meant the alt would spin a lot slower than the belt setup so it doesn't
start getting up to voltage until about 15-1800 rpms. If there is nothing else
to check,I will look for a higher quality regulator,maybe ,motorcycle . If you
know of good ones.....
Sent from my iPad
> On Jan 20, 2015, at 8:08 AM, Robert L. Nuckolls, III
wrote:
>
>
> At 15:34 2015-01-19, you wrote:
>>
>> I have a JD/yanmar PM alternator and regulator with crowbar circuit. Voltage
was starting to run over 15 volts at cruise rpms. Replaced battery and regulator,
now hits 15.5 volts at anything over 2400 rpms on first test with a fully
charged battery..????
>
>
> Regulator is not properly adjusted for maintaining
> a lead-acid battery. Unfortunately, most of the
> off-the-shelf regulators for pm alternators do not
> offer user adjustments.
>
> Finding a drop-in replacement with friendlier
> performance is about your only option. Your
> problem is not uncommon and the folks who design,
> manufacture and market these products seem oblivious
> to the disservice they impose on their customers.
>
>
> Bob . . .
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Alternator/regulator |
| From: | "user9253" <fransew(at)gmail.com> |
Measure the voltage between the regulator case and regulator voltage-sense-input
terminal. If that voltage is at the desired set-point, then the regulator is
doing its job and is not defective. And if that measured voltage is at the
desired set-point, but aircraft system voltage is much higher, then there is a
bad connection someplace between the alternator output and the regulator input.
Possible trouble spots are wire terminals and alternator switch contacts.
Joe
--------
Joe Gores
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=437306#437306
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Alternator/regulator |
| From: | Gary Burdett <gburdett1(at)frontier.com> |
Thanks Joe,
The input to,the regulator comes directly from the aircraft bus through a switch
and breaker and the alternator feeds directly to the bus through the regulator
and breaker. . The input is reading what the bus is reading minus 2/10 volt
due to resistance in circuit . This regulator has no adjustable set point. It
is for a PM alternator.
Sent from my iPad
> On Jan 20, 2015, at 9:40 AM, user9253 wrote:
>
>
> Measure the voltage between the regulator case and regulator voltage-sense-input
terminal. If that voltage is at the desired set-point, then the regulator
is doing its job and is not defective. And if that measured voltage is at the
desired set-point, but aircraft system voltage is much higher, then there is
a bad connection someplace between the alternator output and the regulator input.
Possible trouble spots are wire terminals and alternator switch contacts.
> Joe
>
> --------
> Joe Gores
>
>
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=437306#437306
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Alternator/regulator |
| From: | Gary Burdett <gburdett1(at)frontier.com> |
Follow up on pm alt regulator, adding about 5 amps of load brings the voltage down
to 14.2 at WOT .My plane does not use a lot of electricity and normal running
with radios and some low draw instruments pulls only a few amps. Maybe it's
a heat dissipation issue although the regulator is on the firewall under the
panel with good air flow around it and it's cool today. So , when weather breaks,a
will try a flight with everything on. Since I don't need cabin lights all
the time, maybe a 50 watt switched resistor across the bus may be a good addition.
Sent from my iPad
> On Jan 20, 2015, at 11:50 AM, Gary Burdett wrote:
>
>
> Thanks Joe,
> The input to,the regulator comes directly from the aircraft bus through a switch
and breaker and the alternator feeds directly to the bus through the regulator
and breaker. . The input is reading what the bus is reading minus 2/10 volt
due to resistance in circuit . This regulator has no adjustable set point.
It is for a PM alternator.
>
> Sent from my iPad
>
>> On Jan 20, 2015, at 9:40 AM, user9253 wrote:
>>
>>
>> Measure the voltage between the regulator case and regulator voltage-sense-input
terminal. If that voltage is at the desired set-point, then the regulator
is doing its job and is not defective. And if that measured voltage is at the
desired set-point, but aircraft system voltage is much higher, then there is
a bad connection someplace between the alternator output and the regulator input.
Possible trouble spots are wire terminals and alternator switch contacts.
>> Joe
>>
>> --------
>> Joe Gores
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Read this topic online here:
>>
>> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=437306#437306
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Alternator/regulator |
| From: | Kent or Jackie Ashton <kjashton(at)vnet.net> |
I see a lot of discussion on tractor and boat forums about the Yanmar alternator
and its regulators, for example
http://ymowners.com/phpbb/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=1924
Try this search for a good bit of discussion:
https://www.google.com/search?q=yanmar+PM+alternator+voltage+regulator&biw=1531&bih=894&source=lnms&sa=X&ei=HrO-VN7ZCqOxsATijILgDg&ved=0CAUQ_AUoAA&dpr=1
Here is one disassembled
http://www.mytractorforum.com/showthread.php?t=258762
-Kent
> On Jan 20, 2015, at 10:07 AM, Gary Burdett wrote:
>
>
> Thanks Bob,
> I have an odyssey 680 cell and the first regulator ran ok for about 75 hours
and two years. I checked B&C and they do not recommend using their regulator with
an 18-20 amp pm alternator.
> Oddly enough, about 10 hours ago, I switched to a rear alt setup on a Corvair
which meant the alt would spin a lot slower than the belt setup so it doesn't
start getting up to voltage until about 15-1800 rpms. If there is nothing else
to check,I will look for a higher quality regulator,maybe ,motorcycle . If
you know of good ones.....
>
> Sent from my iPad
>
>> On Jan 20, 2015, at 8:08 AM, Robert L. Nuckolls, III
wrote:
>>
>>
>> At 15:34 2015-01-19, you wrote:
>>>
>>> I have a JD/yanmar PM alternator and regulator with crowbar circuit. Voltage
was starting to run over 15 volts at cruise rpms. Replaced battery and regulator,
now hits 15.5 volts at anything over 2400 rpms on first test with a fully
charged battery..????
>>
>>
>> Regulator is not properly adjusted for maintaining
>> a lead-acid battery. Unfortunately, most of the
>> off-the-shelf regulators for pm alternators do not
>> offer user adjustments.
>>
>> Finding a drop-in replacement with friendlier
>> performance is about your only option. Your
>> problem is not uncommon and the folks who design,
>> manufacture and market these products seem oblivious
>> to the disservice they impose on their customers.
>>
>>
>> Bob . . .
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | C&K <yellowduckduo(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Alternator/regulator |
That seems strange to me. Perhaps you meant +2/10 volts.
My PM J.Deere controls the voltage at the regulator output. ie the
highest voltage in the system is at the regulator output lug. There is
no separate voltage sense wire on my regulator. Perhaps the Yanmar does
have one in which case you can trouble shoot much like for a
conventional wound field regulator.
A 0.2 volt difference anywhere while charging lightly seems high to me
but possible if the regulator is in fact not regulating and feeding many
amps into the battery. I assume you've verified the voltage with a
handheld digital voltmeter to rule out a bad indication.
I would give the same advice that Joe did. FWIW the easiest way I've
found to kill a J.Deere regulator is to start the engine without a
battery connected (actually I had a completely dead AGM battery
connected but it might as well have been disconnected) and yes the
failure mode was maximum output with no regulation. I encourage you to
get this fixed properly and not mess with adding load to manually lower
the voltage. These batteries do not like to be overcharged.
Ken
On 20/01/2015 12:50 PM, Gary Burdett wrote:
>
> Thanks Joe,
> The input to,the regulator comes directly from the aircraft bus through a switch
and breaker and the alternator feeds directly to the bus through the regulator
and breaker. . The input is reading what the bus is reading minus 2/10 volt
due to resistance in circuit . This regulator has no adjustable set point.
It is for a PM alternator.
>
> Sent from my iPad
>
>> On Jan 20, 2015, at 9:40 AM, user9253 wrote:
>>
>>
>> Measure the voltage between the regulator case and regulator voltage-sense-input
terminal. If that voltage is at the desired set-point, then the regulator
is doing its job and is not defective. And if that measured voltage is at the
desired set-point, but aircraft system voltage is much higher, then there is
a bad connection someplace between the alternator output and the regulator input.
Possible trouble spots are wire terminals and alternator switch contacts.
>> Joe
>>
>> --------
>> Joe Gores
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Read this topic online here:
>>
>> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=437306#437306
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | RE: Power Generation without Battery |
| From: | Chris Mullins <mullincl(at)gmail.com> |
I keep coming back to the legacy standard of being able to shut off
everything except the ignition switch, and have the engine be able to
exhaust its fuel. I still remember my surprise during training when my
instructor flipped off the rocker switch! That robustness of design is
pretty exciting.
Is one lead acid battery considered so reliable that it can reasonably
stand as a single point of engine failure in a modern electrically
dependent OBAM system? I honestly don't know.
I am seeking advice regarding what seems to me the optimal arrangement - 2
alternators and one lightweight battery - which will run the engine until
fuel is exhausted in the face of any 1 out of 3 power source failures.
Maybe I am shooting too high or focusing on the wrong areas.
I am not even close to an engineer but am willing to learn and really
appreciate every ones thoughts. I have spoken with B&C and Plane Power and
they have told me their alternators will not work without a battery.
Regarding the P Mag - It seems to be a solid product. Attractive in that
it's a bridge between old magneto technology and newer fully integrated
ones.
My current hope is to be able to use the EFII system, which has been
mentioned a number of times on the forum. Here is a link to the companies
website: http://www.flyefii.com/
It allows integration of both the fuel and ignition systems and also
precise programming of ignition curves and air fuel ratios based on real
time monitoring of several parameters. It is a single knob (ie no mixture)
system promoted as based on and similar in function to a modern automobile
system. This is beyond the P Mags capabilities, as I understand them.
Chris M
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Peter Pengilly <peter(at)sportingaero.com> |
| Subject: | Re: RE: Power Generation without Battery |
I think you have to be careful what,
"... it will not work without a battery ..." means,
As I understand it, if the battery has failed and you somehow start the
motor (hand prop, etc), then the alternator won't produce any energy as
it requires a battery to 'energise' it. However, how much energy, and
what is left in a 'dead' battery is a good question I cannot answer
quantitatively. A little and usually some are the likely answers, but
that's quite hand waving.
If the battery quits while the engine is running and the alternator(s)
are producing current, then I can't see why they would stop producing.
Its not something you would want to experiment with very often - the
battery will soak up any variation in the alternator output - but in a
failure case the aircraft should run until the fuel is exhausted.
Which question did you ask?
Peter
On 20/01/2015 22:52, Chris Mullins wrote:
> I keep coming back to the legacy standard of being able to shut off
> everything except the ignition switch, and have the engine be able to
> exhaust its fuel. I still remember my surprise during training when my
> instructor flipped off the rocker switch! That robustness of design is
> pretty exciting.
>
> Is one lead acid battery considered so reliable that it can reasonably
> stand as a single point of engine failure in a modern electrically
> dependent OBAM system? I honestly don't know.
>
> I am seeking advice regarding what seems to me the optimal arrangement
> - 2 alternators and one lightweight battery - which will run the
> engine until fuel is exhausted in the face of any 1 out of 3 power
> source failures. Maybe I am shooting too high or focusing on the wrong
> areas.
>
> I am not even close to an engineer but am willing to learn and really
> appreciate every ones thoughts. I have spoken with B&C and Plane Power
> and they have told me their alternators will not work without a battery.
>
> Regarding the P Mag - It seems to be a solid product. Attractive in
> that it's a bridge between old magneto technology and newer fully
> integrated ones.
>
> My current hope is to be able to use the EFII system, which has been
> mentioned a number of times on the forum. Here is a link to the
> companies website: http://www.flyefii.com/
> It allows integration of both the fuel and ignition systems and also
> precise programming of ignition curves and air fuel ratios based on
> real time monitoring of several parameters. It is a single knob (ie no
> mixture) system promoted as based on and similar in function to a
> modern automobile system. This is beyond the P Mags capabilities, as I
> understand them.
>
> Chris M
> *
>
>
> *
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Ben" <n801bh(at)netzero.net> |
| Subject: | Re: RE: Power Generation without Battery |
My experimental had dual ignitions that are electric dependent and I hav
e 500+ hours and / 1000,000 miles without a single hiccup.. Altho I do h
ave a 1000 CCA Optima battery to draw from, Not some lightweight / small
capacity one... YMMV. Ben Haas
N801BH
www.haaspowerair.com
---------- Original Message ----------
From: Chris Mullins <mullincl(at)gmail.com>
Subject: AeroElectric-List: RE: Power Generation without Battery
Date: Tue, 20 Jan 2015 14:52:37 -0800
I keep coming back to the legacy standard of being able to shut off ever
ything except the ignition switch, and have the engine be able to exhaus
t its fuel. I still remember my surprise during training when my instruc
tor flipped off the rocker switch! That robustness of design is pretty e
xciting.
Is one lead acid battery considered so reliable that it can reasonably s
tand as a single point of engine failure in a modern electrically depend
ent OBAM system? I honestly don't know. I am seeking advice regarding wh
at seems to me the optimal arrangement - 2 alternators and one lightweig
ht battery - which will run the engine until fuel is exhausted in the fa
ce of any 1 out of 3 power source failures. Maybe I am shooting too high
or focusing on the wrong areas.
I am not even close to an engineer but am willing to learn and really ap
preciate every ones thoughts. I have spoken with B&C and Plane Power and
they have told me their alternators will not work without a battery.
Regarding the P Mag - It seems to be a solid product. Attractive in that
it's a bridge between old magneto technology and newer fully integrated
ones.
My current hope is to be able to use the EFII system, which has been men
tioned a number of times on the forum. Here is a link to the companies w
ebsite: http://www.flyefii.com/It allows integration of both the fuel an
d ignition systems and also precise programming of ignition curves and a
ir fuel ratios based on real time monitoring of several parameters. It i
s a single knob (ie no mixture) system promoted as based on and similar
in function to a modern automobile system. This is beyond the P Mags cap
abilities, as I understand them.
========================
========================
========================
========================
========================
=========
____________________________________________________________
Old School Yearbook Pics
View Class Yearbooks Online Free. Search by School & Year. Look Now!
http://thirdpartyoffers.netzero.net/TGL3241/54bee2fc8088d62fc752cst02duc
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Alternator/regulator |
| From: | "user9253" <fransew(at)gmail.com> |
I agree with Ken that 2/10 volt drop seems high for a sense circuit that conducts
very little current. Try measuring the voltage drop across the switch and
then across the breaker to determine exactly where the 2/10 volt is being dropped.
Also measure the voltage drop from the regulator case to ground, assuming
the regulator is grounded through the case.
A jumper wire could be temporarily connected from the bus to the regulator input
to see if the regulation improves.
Joe
--------
Joe Gores
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=437365#437365
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Jeff Luckey <jluckey(at)pacbell.net> |
| Subject: | Re: RE: Power Generation without Battery |
I'm not sure if this message got through - apologies if this is a duplicate
Chris,
If your mission profile could put you in the back country with ground
support hundreds of miles away, you may want to consider a few ideas:
1. Consider changing architecture to 2 batteries & 1 alternator. If
your only battery goes dead or has diminished capacity due to extreme
cold, you done. Having an extra alternator won't get the engine
started.
2. Maybe this is not the place for un-proven lithium battery technology.
Again, if your survival depends on it, you may want to go w/ technology that has
a proven track record.
-Jeff
On Tuesday, January 20, 2015 3:20 PM, Ben wrote:
My experimental had dual ignitions that are electric dependent and I have 500+
hours and / 1000,000 miles without a single hiccup.. Altho I do have a 1000 CCA
Optima battery to draw from, Not some lightweight / small capacity one... YMMV.
Ben Haas
N801BH
www.haaspowerair.com
---------- Original Message ----------
From: Chris Mullins <mullincl(at)gmail.com>
Subject: AeroElectric-List: RE: Power Generation without Battery
Date: Tue, 20 Jan 2015 14:52:37 -0800
I keep coming back to the legacy standard of being able to shut off everything
except the ignition switch, and have the engine be able to exhaust its fuel. I
still remember my surprise during training when my instructor flipped off the
rocker switch! That robustness of design is pretty exciting.
Is one lead acid battery considered so reliable that it can reasonably stand as
a single point of engine failure in a modern electrically dependent OBAM system?
I honestly don't know.
I am seeking advice regarding what seems to me the optimal arrangement - 2 alternators
and one lightweight battery - which will run the engine until fuel is
exhausted in the face of any 1 out of 3 power source failures. Maybe I am shooting
too high or focusing on the wrong areas.
I am not even close to an engineer but am willing to learn and really appreciate
every ones thoughts. I have spoken with B&C and Plane Power and they have told
me their alternators will not work without a battery.
Regarding the P Mag - It seems to be a solid product. Attractive in that it's a
bridge between old magneto technology and newer fully integrated ones.
My current hope is to be able to use the EFII system, which has been mentioned a number of times on the forum. Here is a link to the companies website: http://www.flyefii.com/It allows integration of both the fuel and ignition systems and also precise programming of ignition curves and air fuel ratios based on real time monitoring of several parameters. It is a single knob (ie no mixture) system promoted as based on and similar in function to a modern automobile system. This is beyond the P Mags capabilities, as I understand them.
Chris M
==================================== oelectric.com
com">www.buildersbooks.com
omebuilthelp.com
ypilotstore.com
.com
www.matronics.com/contribution
===================================
c-List">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List
===================================
ronics.com
====================================
____________________________________________________________
Old School Yearbook Pics
View Class Yearbooks Online Free. Search by School & Year. Look Now!
classmates.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Alternator/regulator |
| From: | Gary Burdett <gburdett1(at)frontier.com> |
Joe etal,
The 2/10 was just the voltage difference between different points in the circuit
with the master turned on, no alternator charging. Just to illustrate an insignificant
difference around the circuit and that the power input to the reg,
sensing, was the same as the bus. The system is working, as Bob said earlier,
the lawn tractor regulators are not always crafted to the highest quality as they
are made meet lawn tractor standards, not aviation ones. Nevertheless , I
will keep a watch on the voltage carefully until I find a replacement, giving
it a dummy load does work, just not a permanent fix. Thanks for the help.
Sent from my iPad
> On Jan 20, 2015, at 5:27 PM, user9253 wrote:
>
>
> I agree with Ken that 2/10 volt drop seems high for a sense circuit that conducts
very little current. Try measuring the voltage drop across the switch and
then across the breaker to determine exactly where the 2/10 volt is being dropped.
Also measure the voltage drop from the regulator case to ground, assuming
the regulator is grounded through the case.
> A jumper wire could be temporarily connected from the bus to the regulator input
to see if the regulation improves.
> Joe
>
> --------
> Joe Gores
>
>
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=437365#437365
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Alternator/regulator |
At 15:34 2015-01-19, you wrote:
>
>I have a JD/yanmar PM alternator and regulator with crowbar circuit.
>Voltage was starting to run over 15 volts at cruise rpms. Replaced
>battery and regulator, now hits 15.5 volts at anything over 2400
>rpms on first test with a fully charged battery..????
Regulator is not properly adjusted for maintaining
a lead-acid battery. Unfortunately, most of the
off-the-shelf regulators for pm alternators do not
offer user adjustments.
Finding a drop-in replacement with friendlier
performance is about your only option. Your
problem is not uncommon and the folks who design,
manufacture and market these products seem oblivious
to the disservice they impose on their customers.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Alternator/regulator |
| From: | Gary Burdett <gburdett1(at)frontier.com> |
Bob,
Thanks for the clarification . I think I jumped to confusion.
Sent from my iPad
> On Jan 20, 2015, at 8:08 AM, Robert L. Nuckolls, III
wrote:
>
>
> At 15:34 2015-01-19, you wrote:
>>
>> I have a JD/yanmar PM alternator and regulator with crowbar circuit. Voltage
was starting to run over 15 volts at cruise rpms. Replaced battery and regulator,
now hits 15.5 volts at anything over 2400 rpms on first test with a fully
charged battery..????
>
>
> Regulator is not properly adjusted for maintaining
> a lead-acid battery. Unfortunately, most of the
> off-the-shelf regulators for pm alternators do not
> offer user adjustments.
>
> Finding a drop-in replacement with friendlier
> performance is about your only option. Your
> problem is not uncommon and the folks who design,
> manufacture and market these products seem oblivious
> to the disservice they impose on their customers.
>
>
> Bob . . .
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Power Generation without Battery? |
At 16:49 2015-01-19, you wrote:
Bob,
I am building a Carbon Cub - a lightweight experimental design for
backcountry use. It will use a fully electrically dependent Lycoming
engine. I plan on 1 battery/2 alternators, and I desire the system to
run the engine with any 1 of those 3 failed.
Under what scenario do you perceive that a battery
becomes unavailable to you?
I want to use a lithium battery for starting purposes only. I am not
worried about battery only endurance with 2 other power sources.
Okay . . .
Alternator technology is mature, but Li batteries seem to be still
evolving. Some type of battery fault would seem be a likely failure
mode in my planned system. (I'd like to monitor battery temp using a
probe and my on board electronics, and to have some way to
electrically isolate or even physically remove the battery).
I plan to use your Z12 or Z13 architecture.
Which #2 alternator are you considering?
People I speak with advise me that alternators (even the SD8) are
dependent on a functioning battery in the system, and that they will
cease to function if the battery fails or is taken offline.
Not true. Once they are up and running, all alternators
will continue to run self-excited unless 'stalled' by
a LARGE load, like 200W landing light or an electro-
hydraulic pump motor. The SD-8 can be installed to
self-excite (See Z figures). Many alternators on
Lycoming engines will self excite due to their
high operating speeds with the popular pulley
ratios.
Recent revelations regarding the Challenger/Aerovoltz scenario aside,
there seem to still be legitimate issues with the current Li crop. At
the very least they remain relatively unproven.
It's not one 'crop' but a garden . . . albeit
infested with some weeds. The type
certificated lithium products like True Blue
have 'full up' battery management systems that
are quite capable of preventing events like that
which plagued the Challenger owner. Further,
had the Challenger owner availed himself of
the knowledge and experience freely offered
from the pages of this List and DOZENS of
other sources, he would have caught the mis
behaving rectifier-regulator before it became
antagonistic to his battery.
I'm working on the 'frosting' article to a
series I did in Kitplanes on lithium batteries.
A major feature of the article points out
the constellation of design and marketing
approaches for lithium cranking batteries
in particular and consumer off-the-shelf
cells in general.
It will also discuss the range of offerings
for 'battery management systems' which can
range from a simple fuse built into one
end of a cell . . . up to a bucket full of
electronics and software that costs nearly
as much as the battery itself!
So I am concerned about the Li battery being a single point of
failure capable of stopping the engine.
Engine stoppage due to failed battery? Not
if you take the time to understand how all
those bits and pieces fit together to solve
your particular puzzle. If you want to
go lithium, go EarthX (Full up BMS). There
are some up-n-comers nipping at EarthX's
heels . . .
How can I design around this problem?
Simple . . . not necessarily easy but simple.
Hang out here. Read. Ask questions (which
are already under way . . . good for you!).
When you hear/read/observe some bit of
information from other sources, bring them
here to the List for sharing/sifting of
the simple-ideas in physics that define
REAL performance and risks.
Share your thoughts about load analysis,
qualify your "plan-b" to deal with failures.
Your misgivings are real but I suggest
they are borne more of ignorance than of physical
limits to performance of products that are
thoughtfully and skillfully crafted.
It's your ability to recognize those skills
that will carry you forward with confidence.
By the way, your 'advisors' who speak of
alternator/battery relationships might enjoy
joining us here too . . . their advise is
dated and/or inaccurate.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Power Generation without Battery? |
| From: | "ChrisM" <mullincl(at)gmail.com> |
Bob,
I think the most likely battery failure modes would be temperature related due
mild overcharging/cell imbalance/high ambient temperatures. I think I'll be pretty
protected from a runaway thermal overload due to frank over voltage as I
will use your Z figures with overload protection/notification. An internal short
may also be more likely with lithium than with lead acid.
Regarding alternator #2: I request your advice. Running the engine with the EFII
requires 10 amps - mostly for electric fuel pump. I think I need perhaps 15
amps for a comfort margin and to run the radio. Output curve vs rpm is significant
considering fuel and ignition function are at stake. But this is a vfr aircraft
and I can navigate and fly with nothing but the engine running.
So the SD8 does not have adequate output.
Perhaps adapting one of B&C's larger units intended for Continentals? Wind my
own? Hopefully something off the shelf though!
I contacted B&C on the self/persistent excitation issue and was advised that the
SD8 requires a battery in the system to operate the regulator. He referred me
to you. Also called Plane Power as it seemed their internally regulated design
should be able to continue to run following removal of external battery power,
but was advised not. Answers may have been tainted by my emphasis about actually
keep the engine running!
I don't think I have any large loads in the plane which would tend to stun the
self-excited alternator. Think I may make a small placard to remind about being
gentle with manipulations if running under such circumstances.
I believe you drew Z12 and Z13 prior to predominance of 100% electrically dependent
engines. They both show a magneto in the system for example.
Do you feel these Z figures are appropriate for adapting to electrically dependent
engines using a lead acid battery?
Do you think Z12/13 are reasonable for use with a current technology (eg EarthX)
Li battery?
Which Z do you favor and why?
If yes, is there some means to enhance the alternators propensity to continue to
produce power following battery failure?
What do you recommend for a first and second alternator for my system? Minimum
output needed is 15 amps at perhaps 1800 engine rpm. Weight is a factor for my
setup.
Thank you very much for helping me understand how all these bits and pieces do
fit together.
Your willingness to offer your expertise and experience answering questions like
these is very generous.
Chris M
--------
ChrisM
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=437421#437421
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Power Generation without Battery? |
At 14:00 2015-01-21, you wrote:
Bob,
I think the most likely battery failure modes would be temperature
related due mild overcharging/cell imbalance/high ambient temperatures.
I think I'll be pretty protected from a runaway thermal overload due
to frank over voltage as I will use your Z figures with overload
protection/notification. An internal short may also be more likely
with lithium than with lead acid.
I think you're over-worrying the design decisions before you.
Keep in mind that the aviation industry has a rich history
of what works and lessons learned for what doesn't.
If you sort through the NTSB accident reports, you will be
hard pressed to find one that has root cause in failure of
an electrical system component to perform as advertised. Even when
such stories are found, we read about accidents that just
didn't need to happen based on poor architecture, craftsmanship
and/or operational decisions . . . NOT borne out of any
failure-to-perform to specifications.
http://tinyurl.com/mwo3f4x
http://tinyurl.com/kv7eugm
http://tinyurl.com/msfmldj
A well maintained battery (meaning you don't simply
run it until it doesn't crank the engine any more)
is the single most reliable power source on the airplane.
LIMITED in amount of energy stored but a reliable
resource when that energy is skillfully managed.
Risk of shorted cells in a well managed SVLA based
system is essentially zero. Even the lithium incident
recently discussed had root cause in severe over-charging
from a condition that went unnoticed by the pilot for
a LONG period of time.
Regarding alternator #2: I request your advice. Running the engine
with the EFII requires 10 amps - mostly for electric fuel pump.
Are these published, MEASURED numbers? That's a LOT
of power for a task that takes less than 5A in my
1987 pickup. Are there examples of your proposed system
flying? Have any of those operators shared any current
draw observations?
I think I need perhaps 15 amps for a comfort margin and to run the
radio. Output curve vs rpm is significant considering fuel and
ignition function are at stake. But this is a vfr aircraft and I can
navigate and fly with nothing but the engine running.
So the SD8 does not have adequate output.
The SD-8 is a 10A max machine but it does have
adequate power for the majority of elegantly
crafted architectures
Perhaps adapting one of B&C's larger units intended for
Continentals? Wind my own? Hopefully something off the shelf though!
Wind one? If the over-riding concern driving this thread
is system reliability for an airplane that clearly isn't
going to spend hours at rarified heights . . . any
performance advantages for 'going hi-tech' are not
going to be realized. The most proven recipes for success
in system reliability used independent ignitions either
self-contained (magnetos, p-mags) or very low current
demand (light speed, et. als.)
Electronic fuel injection for a back-country, puddle
jumping pick-em-up truck only adds complexity with limited
return on investment.
If it were my airplane: Lyc with p-mags or light speed
ignition, L-40 belt driven alternator, SD-8 pad driven
alternator, well maintained SLVA battery (or EarthX
if you're ready to $spend$ just for weight reduction.)
This combination has evolved with a track record of
ancestral architectures going back 100 years. Clearly,
your project has the potential for being a great
fun-machine. But time, talent and resources being contemplated
to make it look more like a Lancair IVP only drives up complexity,
adds to your burdens for understanding all the nuances of
its architecture, drives up worry-pressures and adds
almost nothing to observable performance.
I contacted B&C on the self/persistent excitation issue and was
advised that the SD8 requires a battery in the system to operate the
regulator. He referred me to you. Also called Plane Power as it
seemed their internally regulated design should be able to continue
to run following removal of external battery power, but was advised
not. Answers may have been tainted by my emphasis about actually keep
the engine running!
Actually, self-excitation on the SD-8 was discussed
here on the List some time back. Figure Z21 in the
'Connection illustrates the concept for adding a few
components to keep PM alternator's rectifier/regulators
'awake' sans battery.
I don't think I have any large loads in the plane which would tend to
stun the self-excited alternator. Think I may make a small placard to
remind about being gentle with manipulations if running under such
circumstances.
I believe you drew Z12 and Z13 prior to predominance of 100%
electrically dependent engines. They both show a magneto in the
system for example.
Do you feel these Z figures are appropriate for adapting to
electrically dependent engines using a lead acid battery?
Do you think Z12/13 are reasonable for use with a current technology
(eg EarthX) Li battery?
Which Z do you favor and why?
If yes, is there some means to enhance the alternators propensity to
continue to produce power following battery failure?
If you spend as much time taking care of a battery as
you do worrying about it failing, then it's not going
to fail. Taking care of it means, "operate it within
well established limits and preventative maintenance
to verify integrity."
What do you recommend for a first and second alternator for my
system? Minimum output needed is 15 amps at perhaps 1800 engine rpm.
Weight is a factor for my setup.
Z-13/8, simple ignition/fuel delivery, battery optional
but DEMANDING of your attention no matter what alternators
or battery is installed. We tend to worry more about changing
oil in the engine or watching tire tread wear than to
track and verify battery performance. Yet more unhappy
days in the cockpit are rooted in poorly archtiectured/
maintained electrical systems than for dirty oil or worn
tires.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Power Generation without Battery? |
| From: | "user9253" <fransew(at)gmail.com> |
Lightspeed and others recommend connecting electronic ignition directly to the
battery. Since Lithium batteries have been known to short out, maybe they should
not be used. If the battery shorts out, so will the alternators be shorted.
Another failure mode to be considered is a failed master contactor shortly after
takeoff. That is not very likely to happen, but it could. Regardless of
what the manufacturers say, an alternator could keep supplying power to the aircraft
electrical system. Thus the pilot would not know that the master contactor
has opened. If the duration of the flight is longer than the energy stored
in the battery (likely with a Li battery), then the engine will quit. A solution
to the failed master contactor scenario is a relay in parallel (disabled
during engine cranking).
Even if these failure modes are unlikely, everything needs to be considered when
designing an electrical system. Accidents happen sometimes due to unlikely
and unexpected chain of events.
Joe
--------
Joe Gores
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=437550#437550
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Dan Brown" <dbrown2(at)nycap.rr.com> |
| Subject: | Dual Alternator, Dual Battery, Single Bus |
Hello Bob,
My project will have a dual electronic ignition and an all-electric panel. I
intend to have the two battery and individual battery buses per your Figure
Z-30. I will have a single power bus that is supplied by a 60 amp main
alternator (Plane Power AL12-C60) with a 30 amp backup alternator (Plane
Power FS1-14). The B-leads from both alternators are connected through a
Maxi fuse block to the hot side of the starter contactor which then goes
through the firewall to the bus.
I have some questions:
1) The 6 AGW B-leads from the alternators can easily carry 80 amps. Can
I protect the both leads with 80 amp Maxi fuses? I believe I might have read
that this is okay in the List FAQs.
2) According to Hartzell Engine Technologies (new owners of Plane Power
alternators) the main alternator puts out 14.2 v and the backup puts out
13.6 v so if the main drops below 13.6 v the backup takes over. Their
wiring diagram does not show a diode in the circuit to stop the flow of
electricity from the bus to the B-terminal of the backup alternator. I
thought that this may affect the backup alternators life but the technician
at HET said not to worry about it. If I was really concerned I could turn
the field off on the backup under normal operation and turn it on in the
event of a low voltage indication. I prefer the automatic takeover of the
backup so my question is this, do I need to have a diode in the circuit to
block the reverse flow to the backup alternator or is the 0.6 v potential no
big deal? If it is prudent to add the diode what type of diode do you
recommend?
3) I also think I remember reading in the List FAQs (but can't seem to
find it) that in the event of the battery contactor opening and
disconnecting the battery from the bus, a load on the bus could cause
precipitous failure of the alternator. It would be nice to have a battery
contactor open indicator light. What is the best way to add such a device to
your dual battery circuit?
Thanks,
Dan
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Power Generation without Battery? |
At 09:11 2015-01-24, you wrote:
>
>Lightspeed and others recommend connecting electronic ignition
>directly to the battery.
. . . a sentiment that has been echoed in the AEC publications
for a long time. Fuel pumps too . . . any component which depends
on DC to keep the engine running . . .
> Since Lithium batteries have been known to short out, maybe they
> should not be used.
SLVA batteries never short?
> If the battery shorts out, so will the alternators be shorted.
. . . okay, step through the FMEA for a shorted cell in
any battery. How will the event manifest? How will the
pilot become aware of it? What is the recommended plan
of action to be taken by the pilot? Most important . . .
what features can be incorporated into the full-up system
to offer a pilot the best response to the event?
> Another failure mode to be considered is a failed master
> contactor shortly after takeoff.
Again, step through the FEMA . . .
> That is not very likely to happen, but it could. Regardless of
> what the manufacturers say, an alternator could keep supplying
> power to the aircraft electrical system.
Yes . . . consider the plots of data I took on an exemplar
SD-8 at B&C about 20 years ago
http://tinyurl.com/n5yd3vw
In particular, page 9 of the document that cites 14.5v output
at 9.7 amps with a 10KuF 'smoothing' capacitor and NO BATTERY.
One a quality we've not discussed here is the value of the
legacy 'smoothing' capacitor might add in improving NO BATTERY
performance of the rectifier-regulator. A question I will explore
in the future.
> Thus the pilot would not know that the master contactor has
> opened. If the duration of the flight is longer than the energy
> stored in the battery (likely with a Li battery), then the engine
> will quit. A solution to the failed master contactor scenario is a
> relay in parallel (disabled during engine cranking).
That's one solution . . . are there others?
> Even if these failure modes are unlikely, everything needs to be
> considered when designing an electrical system. Accidents happen
> sometimes due to unlikely and unexpected chain of events.
. . . but with some tempering based on lessons learned
and probabilities based on history. Yeah, on occasion
some airplanes throw a prop . . . bad bolts? Probably
not. Bad installation of bolts? Probably. Broken
crankshaft . . . that's a stretch. But again, history
has demonstrated the MAJOR cause of uncomfortable
termination of flight is inattention to simple-ideas
with performance histories rich in data.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Dual Alternator, Dual Battery, Single Bus |
At 09:58 2015-01-25, you wrote:
>Hello Bob,
>My project will have a dual electronic ignition and an all-electric
>panel. I intend to have the two battery and individual battery buses
>per your Figure Z-30. I will have a single power bus that is
>supplied by a 60 amp main alternator (Plane Power AL12-C60) with a
>30 amp backup alternator (Plane Power FS1-14). The B-leads from both
>alternators are connected through a Maxi fuse block to the hot side
>of the starter contactor which then goes through the firewall to the bus.
>I have some questions:
>1) The 6 AGW B-leads from the alternators can easily carry 80
>amps. Can I protect the both leads with 80 amp Maxi fuses? I believe
>I might have read that this is okay in the List FAQs.
Yes . . . as long as your bus feeder protection is much more
robust than the downstream protection . . . you can choose
about anything.
Consider the chain of protection for some device you might
plug in the wall . . .
Protection within the device needs to be much faster than
the breaker that feeds that outlet considering that it
too may be loaded to the maximum continuous rating of
the device. In other words, the failure inside the appliance
needs to have a small fraction of total effects on the
breaker in the panel. As you move upstream in the distribution
system, each branch is protected with careful attention
to dynamics such that a small event in somebody's house
doesn't trigger a 'blackout' in the neighborhood.
It might be better to use the miniature current limiters
like . . .
http://tinyurl.com/qj4vojb
In holders with vertical studs upon which you stack
the current limiter tabs and any/all ring terminals
with good force.
>2) According to Hartzell Engine Technologies (new owners of
>Plane Power alternators) the main alternator puts out 14.2 v and the
>backup puts out 13.6 v so if the main drops below 13.6 v the backup takes over.
Yes . . . B&C pioneered that philosophy 20+ years
ago when we introduced the first pad-driven, wound-
field alternators into OBAM aviation.
> Their wiring diagram does not show a diode in the circuit to
> stop the flow of electricity from the bus to the B-terminal of the
> backup alternator. I
Doesn't need it. Alternators, unlike generators, are
incapable of taking power INTO their b-terminal. They
have diodes built in. See:
http://tinyurl.com/okegwfd
> thought that this may affect the backup alternators life but the
> technician at HET said not to worry about it.
. . . now, if he had only explained why you wouldn't
have been left with a dangling question . . .
>If I was really concerned I could turn the field off on the backup
>under normal operation and turn it on in the event of a low voltage
>indication. I prefer the automatic takeover of the backup so my
>question is this, do I need to have a diode in the circuit to block
>the reverse flow to the backup alternator or is the 0.6 v potential
>no big deal? If it is prudent to add the diode what type of diode do
>you recommend?
Absolutely not. Wire with guidance from Figure Z-12 which
describes the ancestral configuration . . .
http://tinyurl.com/ag46m2f
>3) I also think I remember reading in the List FAQs (but can't
>seem to find it) that in the event of the battery contactor opening
>and disconnecting the battery from the bus, a load on the bus could
>cause precipitous failure of the alternator. It would be nice to
>have a battery contactor open indicator light. What is the best way
>to add such a device to your dual battery circuit?
As long as you don't have 250w incanescant landing lights
or an electro-hydraulic pump system, transient loads
capable of stalling a self-excited alternator don't
exist. Further, since you're running dual batteries,
you'd have to crap two contactors to set that scenario
up.
What does your power distribution look like. What electro-whizzies
from which which busses?
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Power Generation without Battery? |
| From: | "user9253" <fransew(at)gmail.com> |
> I'd like to monitor battery temp using a probe and my on board electronics, and
to have some way to electrically isolate or even physically remove the battery
Here a links to thermocouples. Most EMS or EFIS have inputs for type J.
http://www.omega.com/pptst/WT.html
http://www.omega.com/pptst/SA2.html
If the EFIS alarms with temperature rise, the master switch can be shut off.
> So I am concerned about the Li battery being a single point of failure capable
of stopping the engine.
> How can I design around this problem?
Are there any permanent magnet alternators (dynamo) available for your engine?
One possibility (and I am not necessarily recommending this) is to dedicate a
dynamo to supply electrical power to only one fuel pump and one ignition, keeping
this circuit completely isolated and independent of the rest of the aircraft
electrical system (except for common ground).
Joe
--------
Joe Gores
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=437626#437626
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Power Generation without Battery? |
At 15:30 2015-01-25, you wrote:
> I'd like to monitor battery temp using a probe and my on board
electronics, and to have some way to electrically isolate or even
physically remove the battery
Here a links to thermocouples. Most EMS or EFIS have inputs for type J.
http://www.omega.com/pptst/WT.html
http://www.omega.com/pptst/SA2.html
If the EFIS alarms with temperature rise, the master switch can be shut off.
But where do you put a thermocouple? In a
4x4 array of cells, there are 16 potential
failures. How can you be certain that monitoring
any particular location outside the battery will
offer timely notification of a failure on any
of the 16 cells inside?
What constitutes an alarming temperature rise?
Once that condition is noted, what value is there
in any pilot action. Shut off the battery? Jettison
the battery?
> So I am concerned about the Li battery being a single point of
failure capable of stopping the engine.
> How can I design around this problem?
Design a system that doesn't set batteries on fire (timely
notification of or reaction to over voltage) and perhaps
incorporate batteries with full-up Battery Management Systems
that will function to PREVENT such events as opposed to reacting
to the event AFTER it occurs.
Are there any permanent magnet alternators (dynamo) available for
your engine? One possibility (and I am not necessarily recommending
this) is to dedicate a dynamo to supply electrical power to only one
fuel pump and one ignition, keeping this circuit completely isolated
and independent of the rest of the aircraft electrical system (except
for common ground).
Please make the argument for the battery (of any chemistry)
NOT being the most reliable source of energy on the
airplane. We've read narratives for all manner
of puffed-up and/or vented-dry SVLA batteries . . .
some of which have indeed experienced internal fires.
ALL such cases were preceded by a sustained ov even
that went unnoticed. Batteries don't instantly go
POOF when the alternator runs away. To this date, are
we aware of ANY battery in distress that was NOT
triggered by an event borne of poor system architecture
or operator inattention?
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | ASTM membership is now active . . . |
Just finished the keystrokes needed to join ASTM.
I downloaded a constellation of specs relevant to
the LSA market. Got some reading to do . . .
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Power Generation without Battery? |
| From: | "user9253" <fransew(at)gmail.com> |
Chris,
My mistake, I should have read your first post more closely. You do intend to
use the SD-8 dynamo.
The Rotax 912i fuel injected engine has two dynamos, one for the engine and one
for the rest of the aircraft. The ignition and fuel pumps can also be powered
by the other dynamo if necessary.
Joe
--------
Joe Gores
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=437632#437632
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Power Generation without Battery? |
| From: | "user9253" <fransew(at)gmail.com> |
> Please make the argument for the battery (of any chemistry) NOT being the most
reliable source of energy on the airplane.
I agree that SVLA are very reliable. I am not very knowledgeable about the Lithium
batteries except for the news reports which sensationalize the fire without
explaining why it happened. If you think that the Lithium batteries are safe
(if properly charged and discharged) for use in aircraft, then that is good
enough for me. But I will wait until the price comes down to the level of lead
acid batteries before buying a Lithium. In the mean time, I will keep my plane
light weight by watching what I eat. :-)
Joe
--------
Joe Gores
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=437633#437633
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "user9253" <fransew(at)gmail.com> |
> . . . okay, step through the FMEA for a shorted cell in
> any battery. How will the event manifest? How will the
> pilot become aware of it? What is the recommended plan
> of action to be taken by the pilot? Most important . . .
> what features can be incorporated into the full-up system
> to offer a pilot the best response to the event?
Good suggestion and worthy of a new thread. A shorted AGM battery is highly unlikely.
But I think the symptoms would be low system voltage and high current
on the ammeter no matter if the shunt measures battery current or alternator
output. Of course the pilot would not know what the problem is. There could
be a short external to the battery (which is more likely). The prudent thing
to do would be to shut off the master switch and land to investigate the problem.
Another interesting failure is of the master contactor coil. How will the pilot
know? If the alternator keeps working, which is likely, then there might
not be any clues. The voltage will remain the same. An alternator load meter
will not change much. An ammeter that measures battery charge-discharge current
will be on zero, not far from where it usually is. The pilot might not realize
the contactor coil failed until he closes the throttle or maybe not until
the next engine start.
It would be worthwhile to analyze each component of the electrical system and
ask, if this part fails, how will I know and what should I do about it.
Joe
--------
Joe Gores
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=437636#437636
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Power Generation without Battery? |
At 18:16 2015-01-25, you wrote:
>
>Chris,
>My mistake, I should have read your first post more closely. You do
>intend to use the SD-8 dynamo.
> The Rotax 912i fuel injected engine has two dynamos, one for the
> engine and one for the rest of the aircraft. The ignition and fuel
> pumps can also be powered by the other dynamo if necessary.
The last time I dug through the MM on a 912, a
constellation of windings on the PM alternator
stator core were defined as follows:
Emacs!
4 each, trigger coils for spark timing of the
8 plugs in pairs (waste spark). These
will be a low voltage, low energy
signal to the ignition modules.
2 each, capacitor charging coils, one for
each module. These are moderate energy,
high voltage windings that charge a
capacitor with each pass of the magnet.
This few hundred volts of capacitor
charge is stepped up in coils to the
killovolt levels needed for plugs.
1 each, tachometer signal coil. Another
low voltage, low energy signal generator
for an electronic tach.
1 each, PM alternator coil. High energy, high
current in the 250W class. This is the
only winding available to drive any
sort of rectifier-regulator to operate
ship's electro-whizzies.
All other windings are separate and dedicated
to their respective tasks thus making ignition
systems completely independent of the power
generation system.
Some Rotax installations include aa SECOND,
optional belt driven alternator in the 40-55A class.
This second alternator has been teamed with
the integral PM alternator in a Figure Z-13/8
configuration on several OBAM aircraft . . .
I've seen some pad driven alternators on
Rotax engines . . . in the spot for
vacuum pumps. But this pad is slow and
I don't think THAT particular #2 alternator
was very practical.
In any case, only one coil of eight on the
back of a Rotax 912/914 generates power
for ship's electrical needs.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Power Generation without Battery? |
| From: | "user9253" <fransew(at)gmail.com> |
The Rotax fuel injected engine is new, only having been for sale for the last year
or two. It is an electrically dependent engine, not only for the ignition,
but also for the high pressure fuel pumps. Thus, the electrical system needs
to be fail safe. Below is an excerpt from the installation manual.
http://www.flyrotax.com/customer-serviceImpressum/technical-publications.aspx
Joe
> The internal generator has two isolated coils integrated (individual generators).
During the starting operation, the EMS system is powered by the battery.
With sufficient speed generator B takes over this function. After the EMS system
check, generator A takes over the supply of the EMS system (engine), if the
switching threshold is exceeded. Generator B is then used to supply the aircraft
instruments and for charging the battery.
> Generator A 14.2 V/16 A (220 W nominal capacity at 20C/68 F)
> Generator B 14.2 V/30 A (420 W nominal capacity at 20C/68 F)
>
> If generator A fails, generator B takes over its functions. The onboard computer
and the instruments will be supplied by the battery. The battery will no
longer be charged!
>
> If generator B fails, the battery will no longer be charged. The engine still
runs on generator A and the instruments will be supplied by the battery. The
function of the instruments depends on the state of charge of the battery.
> For monitoring the battery voltage and to ensure that the battery is charged,
a voltmeter and ammeter is necessary.
--------
Joe Gores
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=437640#437640
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Robert Borger <rlborger(at)mac.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Power Generation without Battery? |
Bob,
FWIW, I have one of those (Nippon Denso) alternators on the vacuum pad of my 914.
It is actually capable of producing more amps than the ROTAX built-in alternator.
But it takes 2500 rpm for it to come online.
Best regards,
Robert Borger, President
Geowhiziks & Doodlebugging, Inc.
Certified Petroleum Geophysicist AAPG#101
3705 Lynchburg Dr.
Corinth, TX 76208-5331
(C) 817-992-1117
Sent from my iPad
> On Jan 25, 2015, at 19:17, Robert L. Nuckolls, III
> I've seen some pad driven alternators on
> Rotax engines . . . in the spot for
> vacuum pumps. But this pad is slow and
> I don't think THAT particular #2 alternator
> was very practical.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Dan Brown" <dbrown2(at)nycap.rr.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Dual Alternator, Dual Battery, Single Bus |
Thanks Bob,
> As long as you don't have 250w incanescant landing lights
> or an electro-hydraulic pump system, transient loads
> capable of stalling a self-excited alternator don't
> exist. Further, since you're running dual batteries,
> you'd have to crap two contactors to set that scenario
> up.
I do have an electro-hydraulic pump for the landing gear but I get your
point about the two battery contactors. I will make sure I do a contactor
check during run-up to ensure that I am not flying around with one of them
failed.
> What does your power distribution look like. What electro-whizzies
> from which which busses?
I am still working on that but basically its electronic ignition, fuel pump,
clock and system memories, cabin lighting and 12v outlets split between the
two battery buses and everything else on the main bus. The last time I tried
to estimate the total load I came up with about 40 amps with everything I
plan to equip my plane with on at the same time. If my estimate is correct I
could probably run my full suite of goodies with the 30 amp aux alternator.
If I find that my system want much more than 30 amps during normal cruise
will install a contactor that cuts the power to non-essential equipment and
reduces the load to <30 amps.
This brings up another question. I already have a contactor, that I have
named avionics contactor, conveniently locate by the power bus.
Traditionally I believe its intent was to turn off all the sensitive and
expensive avionics during engine startup and such to protect them from power
spikes or surges. At least that's what I was told. I was also more recently
told that modern avionics, with their internal protection, do not need such
isolation. If that is the case I would like to use my avionics contactor as
the non-essential equipment switch cited above. Is it true that the
avionics switch is a thing of the past?
Thanks again,
Dan
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Rotax 912iS data |
At 20:41 2015-01-25, you wrote:
>
>The Rotax fuel injected engine is new, only having been for sale for
>the last year or two. It is an electrically dependent engine, not
>only for the ignition, but also for the high pressure fuel
>pumps. Thus, the electrical system needs to be fail safe. Below is
>an excerpt from the installation manual.
>http://www.flyrotax.com/customer-serviceImpressum/technical-publications.aspx
>Joe
Thanks for the heads-up on this page! I was aware
of the new engine and spent some time looking for
MM/IM data . . . every offer I found last night
wanted to sell me the book. I've downloaded the
manual and will spend some time with it today.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Dual Alternator, Dual Battery, Single Bus |
| From: | "user9253" <fransew(at)gmail.com> |
> Is it true that the avionics switch is a thing of the past?
Here is a quote from SkyView Pilots User Guide - Revision Q
> SkyViews robust power protection allows it to be powered on during engine start.
And here is a quote from the Dynon D-180 user guide:
> It is acceptable to have the FlightDEK-D180 turned on during engine start.
My RV-12 does have an avionics switch, but only because I had to build the plane
exactly per the plans in order to register it as E-LSA. But I never shut it
off, even during engine start. The Garmin SL-40 and GTX-327 and GPS496 and Dynon
D-180 all still work fine. I probably should exercise the avionics switch
occasionally to remove corrosion on the contacts.
An avionics switch is a single point of failure.
Joe
--------
Joe Gores
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=437665#437665
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Dual Alternator, Dual Battery, Single Bus |
| From: | "user9253" <fransew(at)gmail.com> |
Here is link to Bob Nuckolls article about the avionics master switch.
http://www.aeroelectric.com/articles/avmaster.pdf
--------
Joe Gores
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=437666#437666
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Dan Brown" <dbrown2(at)nycap.rr.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Dual Alternator, Dual Battery, Single Bus |
Thanks Joe,
That article rings of a familiar tone. Maybe that where "I was also more
recently told that modern avionics, with their internal protection, do not
need such isolation."
Dan
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of user9253
Sent: Monday, January 26, 2015 1:47 PM
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Re: Dual Alternator, Dual Battery, Single Bus
Here is link to Bob Nuckolls article about the avionics master switch.
http://www.aeroelectric.com/articles/avmaster.pdf
--------
Joe Gores
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Dual Alternator, Dual Battery, Single Bus |
At 15:20 2015-01-26, you wrote:
>
>Thanks Joe,
>That article rings of a familiar tone. Maybe that where "I was also more
>recently told that modern avionics, with their internal protection, do not
>need such isolation."
>Dan
Actually, the av master was borne on a compelling
but flawed premise . . .
About 1966, when transistors were starting to show
up in aircraft radios (pnp germanium with 30v ratings)
Cessna (and I suspect others . . . don't know for sure
but I was at Cessna) were experiencing a rash of radio
failures in new, ready-to-deliver airplanes . . .
. . .and yes . . . it seems that radios left ON during
engine start were the most affected. It was surmised
that a 'spike' from the starter got 'em. It stood to
good reason. That starter thingy draws hundreds of amps,
was very inductive . . . it HAD to be a potential source
of inductive 'kick back' deleterious to those relatively
fragile.
The Avionics Master was borne . . . and yes . . . the
failures went away. In retrospect, it was not an
inductive 'spike' that got the radios but brownout.
The 'Airplane Patch' east of the plant would park hundreds
of airplanes waiting for delivery . . . none of which had
guaranteed battery integrity . . . a 6v sag to the 14v radio
during a starter 'grunt' was the most likely cause. Further,
while DO-160 (and its predecessors DO-138 and DO-108)
was definitely around, it was not as rigorous with
respect to bus voltage aberrations.
In years since, solid state devices have become very
robust in that they are designed to EXPECT the very
abuse that rolled a NavCom 300 T.U. in 1967.
By the time yours truly was designing transistors into
airplanes in the 1975 time frame, the idea that I would
want to 'take it off the bus' during an engine start
was rather humorous . . . the industry had learned
how to live in the vehicular DC power environment.
It was no big deal . . . yet the seeds of concern for
'spiking' a radio persisted as did the avionics master
switch.
Bob . . .
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | ARGOLDMAN(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Dual Alternator, Dual Battery, Single Bus |
The below not withstanding, Dynon recommends starting and stopping the
engine with the /Skyview not connected to the ships buss. They recommend
starting the engine on the skyview backup battery so that you can see the engine
instruments and connecting to the ships power after start. What do they
know that we don't?
Rich
In a message dated 1/26/2015 10:11:07 P.M. Central Standard Time,
nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com writes:
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III"
At 15:20 2015-01-26, you wrote:
>
>Thanks Joe,
>That article rings of a familiar tone. Maybe that where "I was also more
>recently told that modern avionics, with their internal protection, do not
>need such isolation."
>Dan
Actually, the av master was borne on a compelling
but flawed premise . . .
About 1966, when transistors were starting to show
up in aircraft radios (pnp germanium with 30v ratings)
Cessna (and I suspect others . . . don't know for sure
but I was at Cessna) were experiencing a rash of radio
failures in new, ready-to-deliver airplanes . . .
. . .and yes . . . it seems that radios left ON during
engine start were the most affected. It was surmised
that a 'spike' from the starter got 'em. It stood to
good reason. That starter thingy draws hundreds of amps,
was very inductive . . . it HAD to be a potential source
of inductive 'kick back' deleterious to those relatively
fragile.
The Avionics Master was borne . . . and yes . . . the
failures went away. In retrospect, it was not an
inductive 'spike' that got the radios but brownout.
The 'Airplane Patch' east of the plant would park hundreds
of airplanes waiting for delivery . . . none of which had
guaranteed battery integrity . . . a 6v sag to the 14v radio
during a starter 'grunt' was the most likely cause. Further,
while DO-160 (and its predecessors DO-138 and DO-108)
was definitely around, it was not as rigorous with
respect to bus voltage aberrations.
In years since, solid state devices have become very
robust in that they are designed to EXPECT the very
abuse that rolled a NavCom 300 T.U. in 1967.
By the time yours truly was designing transistors into
airplanes in the 1975 time frame, the idea that I would
want to 'take it off the bus' during an engine start
was rather humorous . . . the industry had learned
how to live in the vehicular DC power environment.
It was no big deal . . . yet the seeds of concern for
'spiking' a radio persisted as did the avionics master
switch.
Bob . . .
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Dan Brown" <dbrown2(at)nycap.rr.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Dual Alternator, Dual Battery, Single Bus |
There is a similar note in the Garmin G3X installation manual (Note 14, P.
22-1, Rev. P) that recommends power inputs are connected to an aux battery
or stabilized power input during engine start in order to maintain minimum
LRU input voltage and minimize the chance of the system restarting during
engine cranking.
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of
ARGOLDMAN(at)aol.com
Sent: Monday, January 26, 2015 11:37 PM
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: Dual Alternator, Dual Battery, Single
Bus
The below not withstanding, Dynon recommends starting and stopping the
engine with the /Skyview not connected to the ships buss. They recommend
starting the engine on the skyview backup battery so that you can see the
engine instruments and connecting to the ships power after start. What do
they know that we don't?
Rich
In a message dated 1/26/2015 10:11:07 P.M. Central Standard Time,
nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com writes:
At 15:20 2015-01-26, you wrote:
>
>Thanks Joe,
>That article rings of a familiar tone. Maybe that where "I was also more
>recently told that modern avionics, with their internal protection, do not
>need such isolation."
>Dan
Actually, the av master was borne on a compelling
but flawed premise . . .
About 1966, when transistors were starting to show
up in aircraft radios (pnp germanium with 30v ratings)
Cessna (and I suspect others . . . don't know for sure
but I was at Cessna) were experiencing a rash of radio
failures in new, ready-to-deliver airplanes . . .
. . .and yes . . . it seems that radios left ON during
engine start were the most affected. It was surmised
that a 'spike' from the starter got 'em. It stood to
good reason. That starter thingy draws hundreds of amps,
was very inductive . . . it HAD to be a potential source
of inductive 'kick back' deleterious to those relatively
fragile.
The Avionics Master was borne . . . and yes . . . the
failures went away. In retrospect, it was not an
inductive 'spike' that got the radios but brownout.
The 'Airplane Patch' east of the plant would park hundreds
of airplanes waiting for delivery . . . none of which had
guaranteed battery integrity . . . a 6v sag to the 14v radio
during a starter 'grunt' was the most likely cause. Further,
while DO-160 (and its predecessors DO-138 and DO-108)
was definitely around, it was not as rigorous with
respect to bus voltage aberrations.
In years since, solid state devices have become very
robust in that they are designed to EXPECT the very
abuse that rolled a NavCom 300 T.U. in 1967.
By the time yours truly was designing transistors into
airplanes in the 1975 time frame, the idea that I would
want to 'take it off the bus' during an engine start
was rather humorous . . . the industry had learned
how to live in the vehicular DC power environment.
It was no big deal . . . yet the seeds of concern for
'spiking' a radio persisted as did the avionics master
switch.
Bob . . .
Bob . . . ========================= Use utilities Day
================================================ - MATRONICS
WEB FORUMS ================================================ -
List Contribution Web Site sp;
==================================================
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Dual Alternator, Dual Battery, Single Bus |
| From: | "user9253" <fransew(at)gmail.com> |
> The below not withstanding, Dynon recommends starting and stopping the engine
with the /Skyview not connected to the ships buss. They recommend starting the
engine on the skyview backup battery so that you can see the engine instruments
and connecting to the ships power after start. What do they know that we don't?
> Rich
Where did you read that? Please post a link to Dynon manual and page.
The Dynon SkyView Pilots User Guide - Revision Q page 2-1 says, "SkyViews robust
power protection allows it to be powered on during engine start."
According to Bob's teachings, there are no high voltage spikes during engine starting.
The only concern is a brownout. Dynon's SkyView automatically switches
to its own backup battery during brownout conditions. No action is required
by the pilot as the power transfer is automatic.
Joe
--------
Joe Gores
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=437690#437690
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Dual Alternator, Dual Battery, Single Bus |
| From: | "user9253" <fransew(at)gmail.com> |
Below is a quote from SkyView System Installation Guide - Revision R page 2-5.
> SkyView Can Be On During Engine Start SkyView units incorporate robust power
protection that allows them to be powered on during engine start for full engine
monitoring. SkyView displays require a minimum of 10V, and during engine start,
its common for the electrical system to temporarily drop below 10V. If an
SV-BAT- 320 backup battery is not installed, SkyView may shut off / reboot. If
you wish to monitor your engine prior to engine start, an SV-BAT-320 backup
battery should be installed so that the SkyView display can switch to the SV-BAT-320
when its power inputs are not receiving at least 10V. The SkyView display
will switch from SV-BAT-320 to ships power when its power inputs receive voltage
above 10V.
--------
Joe Gores
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=437692#437692
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Dual Alternator, Dual Battery, Single Bus |
The below not withstanding, Dynon recommends starting and stopping
the engine with the /Skyview not connected to the ships buss. They
recommend starting the engine on the skyview backup battery so that
you can see the engine instruments and connecting to the ships power
after start. What do they know that we don't?
Rich
Keep in mind that we're talking about
two different classes of behavior for
a DC powered appliance:
The most critical being resistance to
environmental effects that cause transient
or even permanent loss of performance.
In the case of 1967 nav/com 300 radios,
the effect was blown power supply
transistors that were not protected against
a brown-out event. Vacuum tubes didn't give
a rip . . . who would have thought that
this new solid state thingy would be so
particular?
The other concern is for operational
availability. All of my designs are vulnerable
to brown-out events below some value of
bus voltage . . . but they come alive
milliseconds after the event. Other
systems are not so light on their feet.
Some years ago we marched through this
forest of thought when the Blue Mountain
products (based on MS Dos as I recall)
demonstrated recovery times of 60 or so
seconds to stand up after falling on the
ground. The system was not damaged by the low-
voltage event but it was temporarily
unavailable.
This is an area of appliance marketing
that many suppliers put their foot into the
tar bucket. A famous supplier who shall
remain nameless actually published a
full-up, two-battery, two-alternator,
split bus system in the back of their
installation manual . . . a 'suggestion'
that went far afield with respect to the
airplane's performance. I have some clients
who have asked me to help craft recommended
applications for their products . . .
requests that I have declined. The reason
is simple. Any supplier is obligated to
define the behavior of their product
in detail.
But refrain from uttering any imperatives
intended to mitigate some temporary loss
of performance event. The DATA says, "This
product may take xx seconds to reboot after
a brown-out event." They should stop right
there. It's up to the system integrator to
decide the operational significance of
that characteristic.
What does Dynon, et als know? Their
gizmo, like all others, will initiate a restart
cycle after a brown-out event. They should tell
you how long that is. They should also mention
that alternative sources of power can be
used to prevent the reboot . . . and stop
right there. But as soon as they venture
into operational imperatives or 'recommendations',
they're assuming responsibility for operational
characteristics of a system over which they
have no design authority or operational control.
I think it was last week that I posed the
question: "What is the imperative for knowing
oil pressure or engine rpm in the first
few seconds after engine start?" I'll
bet there's not a single instructor-pilot
who can articulate an answer based on
simple-ideas . . . but they will be glad
to pass along a legacy operational imperative
handed down from Charles Lindbergh.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Dual Alternator, Dual Battery, Single Bus |
| From: | "user9253" <fransew(at)gmail.com> |
> TO MINIMIZE THE CHANCE OF THE SYSTEM RESETTING DURING ENGINE CRANKING, THE OPTIONAL
REDUNDANT (DIODE OR'D) POWER INPUTS MAY BE CONNECTED TO AN AUXILIARY BATTERY
. . .OR STABILIZED POWER INPUT. . .
The Garmin manual does not recommend using backup power during engine start. It
says that OPTIONAL backup power MAY be used.
Both Garmin and Dynon say that having optional backup power will prevent rebooting
during engine cranking, which I think is a good idea because rebooting is
annoying. But neither company says that not having backup power will damage
their units. And neither company recommends disconnecting their units from the
aircraft electrical system during engine starting.
The point that I am trying to make is that an avionics master switch to protect
avionics is unnecessary. Installing an avionics master switch introduces a
single point of failure. If that switch fails, avionics go dark.
Joe
--------
Joe Gores
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=437697#437697
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | ARGOLDMAN(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Dual Alternator, Dual Battery, Single Bus |
Actually,
That information came from a conversation that I had with Dynon's Tec.
When I asked him how do I monitor my oil pressure ect on startup he told me
about starting the engine on the backup battery.
So if you start the engine with the skyview attached to the system bus and
you get the electronic glitch that would reboot your system, by the time it
reboots and is able to give you an oil pressure reading you may have
toasted your engine. Are they just talking about the starting draw decreasing
the voltage to the point of resetting or the transients caused by starting
when they talk about the use of auxiliary power on startup. My understanding,
possibly wrong is that the dynon battery is automatically connected in the
case of low voltage. If low voltage is the case, does the switchover
happen quickly enough to prevent the reboot? If a transient situation does the
small aux battery have the capability to filter it out?
Additionally the installation/operation instructions for the ICOM A-200
(not really an ancient radio) state,
"Do not turn the power on until after the aircraft engines have been
started. This is important for the protection of the circuit."
If you are concerned about single point failure, nothing stops you from
having a duplicate avionics switch. I have duplicate fuel pump switches
(located in different places).
Rich
In a message dated 1/27/2015 9:50:01 A.M. Central Standard Time,
fransew(at)gmail.com writes:
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "user9253"
> TO MINIMIZE THE CHANCE OF THE SYSTEM RESETTING DURING ENGINE CRANKING,
THE OPTIONAL REDUNDANT (DIODE OR'D) POWER INPUTS MAY BE CONNECTED TO AN
AUXILIARY BATTERY . . .OR STABILIZED POWER INPUT. . .
The Garmin manual does not recommend using backup power during engine
start. It says that OPTIONAL backup power MAY be used.
Both Garmin and Dynon say that having optional backup power will prevent
rebooting during engine cranking, which I think is a good idea because
rebooting is annoying. But neither company says that not having backup power
will damage their units. And neither company recommends disconnecting their
units from the aircraft electrical system during engine starting.
The point that I am trying to make is that an avionics master switch to
protect avionics is unnecessary. Installing an avionics master switch
introduces a single point of failure. If that switch fails, avionics go dark.
Joe
--------
Joe Gores
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=437697#437697
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Dual Alternator, Dual Battery, Single Bus |
| From: | Justin Jones <jmjones2000(at)mindspring.com> |
I would be interested in looking at the circuitry of the standby battery fro
m dynon. Does anyone know if there is a diode that allows current to flow fr
om the standby battery to the dynon but not back into the battery?
Seems that you would either have a need for a replacement standby battery, o
r you would have a need to recharge the dynon battery somehow (if it were re
chargeable) when the standby battery dies.
Justin
> On Jan 27, 2015, at 12:44, ARGOLDMAN(at)aol.com wrote:
>
> Actually,
>
> That information came from a conversation that I had with Dynon's Tec. Wh
en I asked him how do I monitor my oil pressure ect on startup he told me ab
out starting the engine on the backup battery.
>
> So if you start the engine with the skyview attached to the system bus and
you get the electronic glitch that would reboot your system, by the time it
reboots and is able to give you an oil pressure reading you may have toaste
d your engine. Are they just talking about the starting draw decreasing the v
oltage to the point of resetting or the transients caused by starting when t
hey talk about the use of auxiliary power on startup. My understanding, poss
ibly wrong is that the dynon battery is automatically connected in the case o
f low voltage. If low voltage is the case, does the switchover happen quickl
y enough to prevent the reboot? If a transient situation does the small aux b
attery have the capability to filter it out?
>
> Additionally the installation/operation instructions for the ICOM A-200 (n
ot really an ancient radio) state,
>
> "Do not turn the power on until after the aircraft engines have been start
ed. This is important for the protection of the circuit."
>
> If you are concerned about single point failure, nothing stops you from ha
ving a duplicate avionics switch. I have duplicate fuel pump switches (locat
ed in different places).
>
> Rich
>
> In a message dated 1/27/2015 9:50:01 A.M. Central Standard Time, fransew@g
mail.com writes:
>
>
> > TO MINIMIZE THE CHANCE OF THE SYSTEM RESETTING DURING ENGINE CRANKING, T
HE OPTIONAL REDUNDANT (DIODE OR'D) POWER INPUTS MAY BE CONNECTED TO AN AUXIL
IARY BATTERY . . .OR STABILIZED POWER INPUT. . .
>
> The Garmin manual does not recommend using backup power during engine star
t. It says that OPTIONAL backup power MAY be used.
> Both Garmin and Dynon say that having optional backup power will prevent r
ebooting during engine cranking, which I think is a good idea because reboot
ing is annoying. But neither company says that not having backup power will
damage their units. And neither company recommends disconnecting their uni
ts from the aircraft electrical system during engine starting.
> The point that I am trying to make is that an avionics master switch to p
rotect avionics is unnecessary. Installing an avionics master switch introd
uces a single point of failure. If that switch fails, avionics go dark.
> Joe
>
> --------
> Joe Gores
>
>
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=437697#437697=====
==========================
===============
==========================
======= - MATRONICS WEB FORUMS ======
==========================
================ - List Contribut
ion Web Site sp; ============
==========================
============
>
>
>
>
>
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: | Kelly McMullen <kellym(at)aviating.com> |
December 24, 2014 - January 27, 2015
AeroElectric-Archive.digest.vol-mq