Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 06:29 AM - Re: Fuselinks for main bus and e-Bus? (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
2. 06:33 AM - Re: EXPBUS (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
3. 06:50 AM - Re: Re: EXPBUS and Eggenfellner (BUCK AND GLORIA BUCHANAN)
4. 06:53 AM - Re: Re: Crowbar Device (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
5. 07:38 AM - Re: Fuselinks for main bus and e-Bus? (DHPHKH@aol.com)
6. 07:46 AM - Questions (N823ms@aol.com)
7. 08:41 AM - Re: avionics masters redux (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
8. 08:53 AM - Re: Questions (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
9. 08:56 AM - Re: Fuselinks for main bus and e-Bus? (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
10. 09:33 AM - Re: EXPBUS and Eggenfellner (William Yamokoski)
11. 02:17 PM - Controllers (N823ms@aol.com)
12. 05:05 PM - OV circuit breaker tripping (John Karnes)
13. 06:23 PM - Re: OV circuit breaker tripping (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
14. 06:32 PM - Re: Controllers (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
15. 06:37 PM - OV Protection for Internally Regulated "One Wire" Alternator? ()
16. 08:14 PM - Re: Controllers (N823ms@aol.com)
17. 08:49 PM - VR166Pinout (DAVID REEL)
Message 1
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Fuselinks for main bus and e-Bus? |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls@cox.net>
At 08:58 PM 2/12/2003 -0800, you wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Michel Therrien <mtherr@yahoo.com>
>
>Bob,
>
>I reviewed my electrical diagram this evening with an
>electronic technician who made me notice a few areas
>of risk with my diagram. The same features can be
>noticed on the Z-11 and Z-12 diagrams.
>
>Should the wire between the contactor and the main bus
>be protected via a fuselink or ANL?
Fat feeders in light aircraft have traditionally
been installed with 'extra care' and attention
to clearances and potential hazards. Several
hundred thousand airplanes have amassed millions
of flight hours with no incidents suggesting
that this was a bad idea.
>Should the wire between the e-Bus and the e-Bus
>Alternate Feed switch be protected (at the e-Bus end)?
> In this particular case, he showed me that if the
>wire was to hang free from the no.1 terminal of the
>switch, I'd get a lot of current trying to go down the
>path through the diode and the 16AWG wire. He also
>told me that diodes can fail in both open and closed
>position... so I can't rely on the diode to act like a
>fuse.
Get out your hammer, saw and crowbar
and deduce what potential hazard in your
airplane will produce the fault you are concerned
about. Then see if it is practical to eliminate
the hazard as opposed to protecting the wire against
it. For example, the same 200,000 airplanes have exposed
bus bars that run across the back of their breakers.
They're largely left hanging out in the breezes because
there is nothing in immediate proximity that presents
a potential hazard. It's sorta like your propeller . . .
you don't put a safety cage around it because of the
environment in which it is operated reduces hazards
to a level that doesn't require extra-ordinary
safety measures.
Some builders using fuse block battery and e-busses
have used a fuse slot at each end of the alternate
feed path to effect these connections. If you got
plenty of spare slots in your e-bus block, this wouldn't
be a bad idea.
For most installations, the length of wire between
e-bus and alternate feed switch is relatively short
and in well protected wire bundles. I wouldn't loose
any sleep over it but if one wanted to put a fuse
at both ends, it's easy to do . . . you could use
a fusible link too.
Bob . . .
>Michel
>
>
>=====
>----------------------------
>Michel Therrien CH601-HD
> http://mthobby.pcperfect.com/ch601
> http://www.zenithair.com/bldrlist/profiles/mthobby
> http://pages.infinit.net/mthobby
>
>
Bob . . .
|-------------------------------------------------------|
| The man who does not read good books has no advantage |
| over the man who cannot read them. |
| - Mark Twain |
|-------------------------------------------------------|
Message 2
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls@cox.net>
At 08:24 PM 2/12/2003 -0500, you wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Miller Robert
><rmiller3@earthlink.net>
>
>
>"Robert L. Nuckolls, III" wrote: To start with, how about sending me
>copies of the
>
> > pertinent pages from the manual so I can familiarize myself
> > with any special requirements for this engine.
> >
> > Bob . . .
> >
> > 6936 Bainbridge Road
> > Wichita, KS 67226-1008
>
>Bob:
>Would love to see a well-developed system that does not use the EXPBus for
>the Eggenfellner
>Subaru.
>I intend to use this engine package, but have never gotten quite
>comfortable with the
>EXPBUS, in spite of the well-thought out circuit design given by Gary.
>The redundancy presently built into the electrical system, as shown in the
>manual, must be
>retained....
>(electrically dependent engine, after all).
>The beautifully done installation manual can be downloaded from Jan's site.
>I look forward to the possibility of a robust off-the-shelf electrical
>package that does it
>all., without the EXPBUS
Not a big deal. I'm certain that some variation
on a theme from the architectures already published
can be modified to meet the needs of this engine.
I've got Jan's data . . . he uses pictographic
wiring diagrams which may "simplify" one's needs
to know where the wires go but it makes understanding
how the system works VERY difficult. I'm going
to have to convert his data to schematics so that
the current operational philosophy can be deduced
and analyzed.
Bob . . .
Message 3
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: EXPBUS and Eggenfellner |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "BUCK AND GLORIA BUCHANAN" <glastar@3rivers.net>
Bob and Robert,
I have an Eggenfellner Sube and was planning to go EXBUS only because I'm
quite challenged electrically. I would certainly like a more robust system
that would fulfill the same mission.
Bob, I have your book but it hasn't completely read itself to me yet ;>)
Best regards, Buck Buchanan, Valier, MT
>Just wanted to add my two cents on this. I have a Glastar with the
>Egfgenfellner package. I do not use the EXPBUS. It was quite easy to
>adapt one of Bob's drawings to accomodate the all-electric,
>fuel-injected engine's needs.
> One of the goals that Jan Eggenfellner has espoused is to offer a very
>complete package....something that really appealed to this novice. As
>such, he sees an advantage to having all of his customers using the same
>parts, be it electrical or plumbing or whatever. Makes his job of
>supporting his customers less complicated. I haven't been a
>particitant in his user's group for a while, but when I was there he
>never discouraged the use of alternative electrical approaches. He just
>re-iterated that he couldn't (and shouldn't) answer too many questions
>on systems he didn't design. Maybe that has changed in the past few
>weeks...I don't know.
> As to the warranty, isn't just about every warranty filled with
>loopholes if you alter the product in any way?
>Bill Yamokoski
>very happy with my non-EXPBUS Glastar
Bill, did you document your approach in a way
that's easy to share? I'd like to see what you
did and then perhaps add a figure to the 'Connection
that's unique to the needs of the Eggenfellner
system.
I've looked over his installation manual briefly . . .
mostly good stuff but I think we can help him out
a little here. Let's put our heads together and
see what the elegant solution looks like.
Anyone else out flying the Eggenfellner package
with a non-EXPBUS architecture?
Bob . . .
Message 4
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: re: Crowbar Device |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls@cox.net>
At 10:10 PM 2/11/2003 -0600, you wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Paul McAllister"
><paul.mcallister@qia.net>
>
>Bob,
>
>
> > The multi-meter recorded voltages of 35 to 40 volts depending on
> > rpm, so I shut down the engine.
>
>I am a Europa builder and I intend to fit a 912S. I am curious to see the
>report of over voltages this high. I was under the impression that the
>permanment magnet alternator did not have enough "grunt" to generate a
>significant overvoltage when a battery is connected to the system. Am I
>mistaken in this assumption and should I seriously consider installing a
>crowbar protection device ?
The AC output of these alternators with no load on them can be
on the order of 30-40 volts AC . . . I believe the incident
in question was with the battery switched off. When he sent
me his diagram, it showed that he had wired per Rotax suggestions
with separate battery and alternator switches . . . in my
never humble opinion, a BAD idea.
In subsequent tests, his rectifier/regulator seemed to be
okay but he ordered a new one anyhow and is sending me
his ov module for testing and possible repair (not sure
why he thinks it got toasted . . . but we'll see when
it gets here).
He is going to rewire per Z-16 and include ov protection.
ANY alternator is capable of dangerous voltages on the bus
depending on condition of battery. I wouldn't run without
ov protection on any size alternator.
Bob . . .
Message 5
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Fuselinks for main bus and e-Bus? |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: DHPHKH@aol.com
Bob writes:
<<if one wanted to put a fuse at both ends, it's easy to do . . . you could
use a fusible link too.>>
Assume you are protecting an e-bus alternate feed, or an electronic
ignition battery feed, or some other feed where near absolute reliablity is
desired. Would a fusible link be a better choice than a blade fuse or a
breaker, on the grounds that it would be more resistant to short duration
overload (nusiance, inrush, etc), and more resistant to vibration?
Dan
Message 6
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: N823ms@aol.com
Bob:
After the Nashville seminar, I ready to begin acquiring some items.
First some questions:
I will be doing the Z-14. Do you recommend the new ABMM for this
electrical system?
I have already installed one embedded antenna in my Lancair ES wing
tip using RG-58. The wing tip is removable for maintenance, but not close
enough to disconnect the RG-58. Is it OK and will it help if I splice RG-400
to about 2 feet of RG-58? If yes what BNC connectors should I order?
I was not lucky enough to win a PIDG Crimp tool at Nashville, because
you ran out. Could you let me know what order number of that is along with
the pins I need?
Since I will have an alternators of 60/20amps. do I have to match them
up with the correct shunt? I currently have an EI Volt/AMP gauge which came
with a 100 amp/50millivolt.
Concerning switches. What switch can I order that simply is an ON/OFF
switch? I will have a LT/RT taxi lights, cabin fan, landing light, etc. And,
should I have single throw switches for NAV, POS, Strobes lights?
I will be utilizing the fuse blocks. 20=#1 POWER DISTRIBUTION, 10=#2
POWER DISTRIBUTION, (2) 6'S FOR MAIN AND AUX BAT BUS. What size ring fits
2AWG, 4AWG wire to connect to these boxes?
Moving Forward,
Ed Silvanic
Message 7
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: avionics masters redux |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls@cox.net>
>
>Comments/Questions: I was lucky enough to attend your Nashville
>Seminar. I sometimes do presentations and want to compliment you on your
>handling of the shuttle loss. You addressed it, worked into your topic
>and moved on. Very skillful. I'm envious.
I wasn't aware of expending any special effort at the
time. It can be a tough call . . . the gravity of such
events certainly underscore risks associated with
leading-edge exploration. One needs only to read
the stories of people like Scott and Shackleton
to understand how close some of us venture to the
edge of death in our quest for knowledge.
Should it be my misfortune to experience
an untimely demise, I hope that people take
note . . . not so much about what just happened
but what has gone on before. It's more important
to me that others carry on from where I leave off.
I bet all of those aboard Columbia were of a
similar mind set.
Further, our time together in Nashville
was limited. Everyone had paid the toll and was
entitled to the best I could deliver in the time
allotted . . .
>I familiar with your ideas on avionics master switches and agree that
>radios should be able to handle transients. I recently ran across an
>article by someone in the avionics biz that took a different
>position. It's at - http://www.avweb.com/news/avionics/182015-1.html
>This gentleman doesn't go into the depth that you do. In fact, he doesn't
>go into any detail at all, other than to note the av master switch is a
>single point of failure in the system.
>
>I'd appreciate your thoughts on his article. (By the way, an answer of
>"Reread my article" is perfectly acceptable.)
I've seen this article and several others in the
same vein. As you have observed, they are
remarkable for their lack of data. These writers
are propagandists, no more than living echoes of
ancient dogma.
As a PhD, Mr Rogers is OBLIGATED to expand
on understanding based on data . . . this guy
might just as well be writing ad copy for
breakfast cereal.
If I were to launch a campaign in favor of
the avionics master switch, I would search out
and identify antagonist components. One
then quantifies and qualifies the hazardous
energy and evaluates it against the ability
of a potential victim to withstand the stress.
Of course, once an antagonist is identified,
it seems more practical to filter off the
hazard at the source as opposed to building a
PILOT OPERATED fire-wall between it and
victims.
I have NEVER seen this done in a newsstand
journal . . . and very seldom have I seen
a critical review of the data in a professional
publication.
If you study articles that grace the
pages of aviation journals, it's
easy to see that EVERY article is a rehash
of hundreds that have appeared in
print over the last 50-60 years. I would
hate a job as editor of an aviation
magazine . . . it's impossible to maintain
a flow of truly new material in a marketplace
paralyzed by over-regulation. I hope Av-Web
didn't pay much for Mr. Rogers' article.
If one wants to keep up with the leading
edge of aviation development, it's all happening
on the lists at matronics.com . . .
Bob . . .
|-------------------------------------------------------|
| The man who does not read good books has no advantage |
| over the man who cannot read them. |
| - Mark Twain |
|-------------------------------------------------------|
Message 8
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls@cox.net>
At 10:44 AM 2/13/2003 -0500, you wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: N823ms@aol.com
>
>Bob:
>
> After the Nashville seminar, I ready to begin acquiring some items.
>First some questions:
>
> I will be doing the Z-14. Do you recommend the new ABMM for this
>electrical system?
If you use B&C alternator controllers, low voltage warning
and ov protection for both busses is built in. You don't need
the aux battery management feature. If you use generic regulators,
you'll need to add ov protection and lv warning for both systems.
> I have already installed one embedded antenna in my Lancair ES wing
>tip using RG-58. The wing tip is removable for maintenance, but not close
>enough to disconnect the RG-58. Is it OK and will it help if I splice RG-400
>to about 2 feet of RG-58? If yes what BNC connectors should I order?
Go ahead and run the RG-58 . . . there will be no observable
difference in performance. Differences in longevity will
not be apparent until after you have sold the airplane. If you
want to extend the stub with RG-400, you can do it with
a cable-male/cable-female connectors at:
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Catalog/antenna/antenna.html#s605cf
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Catalog/antenna/antenna.html#s605cm
installed with tool at:
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Catalog/tools/tools.html#rct-2
> I was not lucky enough to win a PIDG Crimp tool at Nashville, because
>you ran out. Could you let me know what order number of that is along with
>the pins I need?
The PIDG tool is for ring and fast-on terminals using technology
described in
http://www.aeroelectric.com/articles/terminal.pdf
PIDG technology terminals are offered by B&C and others.
B&C offerings are at:
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Catalog/BCcatalog.html
> Since I will have an alternators of 60/20amps. do I have to match
> them
>up with the correct shunt? I currently have an EI Volt/AMP gauge which came
>with a 100 amp/50millivolt.
That instrument is calibrated to read out directly in
amps with a full scale range of 100.0 . . . to use that
instrument with Z-14, you'll need to stay with 100A
shunts and keep in mind that the readings are in output
load in amps and not percentage of alternator rating.
You'll need a second 100A shunt for the auxiliary alternator.
> Concerning switches. What switch can I order that simply is an ON/OFF
>switch? I will have a LT/RT taxi lights, cabin fan, landing light, etc. And,
>should I have single throw switches for NAV, POS, Strobes lights?
Use the S700-1-3 or similar. The "extra" terminal is simply
ignored.
> I will be utilizing the fuse blocks. 20=#1 POWER DISTRIBUTION, 10=#2
>POWER DISTRIBUTION, (2) 6'S FOR MAIN AND AUX BAT BUS. What size ring fits
>2AWG, 4AWG wire to connect to these boxes?
The terminal posts on the fuse blocks are 10-32 thread.
Bob . . .
Message 9
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Fuselinks for main bus and e-Bus? |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls@cox.net>
At 10:36 AM 2/13/2003 -0500, you wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: DHPHKH@aol.com
>
>Bob writes:
><<if one wanted to put a fuse at both ends, it's easy to do . . . you could
>use a fusible link too.>>
>
> Assume you are protecting an e-bus alternate feed, or an electronic
>ignition battery feed, or some other feed where near absolute reliablity is
>desired. Would a fusible link be a better choice than a blade fuse or a
>breaker, on the grounds that it would be more resistant to short duration
>overload (nusiance, inrush, etc), and more resistant to vibration?
>
>Dan
The fusible link is indeed a VERY robust device. But given
that all critical systems are by definition, backed up . . .
risks to comfortable completion of flight are not notably
greater for having run such devices through the plug in
fuses.
If it were my airplane, I'd use the fuse blocks where ever
practical and fusible links where shown on the Z-drawings.
Bob . . .
Message 10
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: EXPBUS and Eggenfellner |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "William Yamokoski" <yamokosk@lmc.cc.mi.us>
Hi Bob,
I have a hand drawing of my schematic that I scanned into a file.
It's not pretty but you should be able to decipher it. I'll attach it
to an email direct to you.
Bill Yamokoski
Message 11
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: N823ms@aol.com
Bob:
I will be doing the Z-14. Do you recommend the new ABMM for this
>electrical system?
If you use B&C alternator controllers, low voltage warning
and ov protection for both busses is built in. You don't need
the aux battery management feature. If you use generic regulators,
you'll need to add ov protection and lv warning for both systems.
Alternator controllers: meaning the two LR3's
Since I will have an alternators of 60/20amps. do I have to match
> them
>up with the correct shunt? I currently have an EI Volt/AMP gauge which came
>with a 100 amp/50millivolt.
That instrument is calibrated to read out directly in
amps with a full scale range of 100.0 . . . to use that
instrument with Z-14, you'll need to stay with 100A
shunts and keep in mind that the readings are in output
load in amps and not percentage of alternator rating.
You'll need a second 100A shunt for the auxiliary alternator.
They asked me what shunt I wanted. Read an article months ago about
shunts. I thought from this article that a 100 amp shunt was recommended.
This EI Volt/AMP gauge does not come with any specific shunt, so when they
asked, I said the 100/50 shunt. Your Z-14 shows the 60/50, & 20/50 shunt's
respectively. Are you saying the shunt has to match the alternator and the
gauge? Have not really looked at the gauge close enough to know.
Thanks,
Ed Silvanic
N823MS@aol.com
Lancair ES
Message 12
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | OV circuit breaker tripping |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "John Karnes" <jpkarnes@charter.net>
Bob,
After a new ov module (yellow lead) and new (rebuilt) alternator, the
OV circuit breaker continues to trip right after the engine starts. My
plane is wired per Z-2, only I have an auto type ignition instead of
magnetos. Please help...I'm desperate. I am about to tear everything out
and start from scratch...
John Karnes
Port Orchard, WA
Message 13
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: OV circuit breaker tripping |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls@cox.net>
At 05:03 PM 2/13/2003 -0800, you wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "John Karnes" <jpkarnes@charter.net>
>
>Bob,
> After a new ov module (yellow lead) and new (rebuilt) alternator, the
>OV circuit breaker continues to trip right after the engine starts. My
>plane is wired per Z-2, only I have an auto type ignition instead of
>magnetos. Please help...I'm desperate. I am about to tear everything out
>and start from scratch...
Are you sure you don't have an ov condition? Do you have a voltmeter
in the airplane? Try disconnecting the ov module, turn off all radios,
start engine with alternator switch OFF and engine at ramp idle.
With then turn on all heavy loads like landing lights, taxi lights,
pitot heat, and THEN turn on alternator while watching the voltmeter.
If it goes above 15 volts, under these conditions, you have a problem
with the alternator . . shut down immediately. If it doesn't go above
15 volts, then increase RPM to about 2000 while watching voltmeter.
Again, if it goes above 15 volts, you've got an alternator problem -
shut down immediately. If the voltage is still okay, start switching
off the loads one at a time while watching voltmeter. If you get down to
no loads and the bus voltage is still normal (13.8 to 14.6 volts) then
we've confirmed that the alternator is okay.
Do you have the alternator ON while cranking or do you turn it on
after the engine is running?
Bob . . .
Message 14
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls@cox.net>
At 05:16 PM 2/13/2003 -0500, you wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: N823ms@aol.com
>
>Bob:
>
> I will be doing the Z-14. Do you recommend the new ABMM for this
> >electrical system?
>
> If you use B&C alternator controllers, low voltage warning
> and ov protection for both busses is built in. You don't need
> the aux battery management feature. If you use generic regulators,
> you'll need to add ov protection and lv warning for both systems.
>
>
> Alternator controllers: meaning the two LR3's
yes . . .
> They asked me what shunt I wanted. Read an article months ago about
>shunts. I thought from this article that a 100 amp shunt was recommended.
>This EI Volt/AMP gauge does not come with any specific shunt, so when they
>asked, I said the 100/50 shunt. Your Z-14 shows the 60/50, & 20/50 shunt's
>respectively. Are you saying the shunt has to match the alternator and the
>gauge? Have not really looked at the gauge close enough to know.
if you have a "loadmeter" calibrated in percent of alternator output
such as the one we used to sell, then the shunt has to be sized to
the alternator . . . I.e. a 20A alternator needs a shunt that delivers
50 m.v. to an instrument that reads full scale with 50 m.v. applied.
In the case of your ammeter, it reads out in absolute amps . . .
therefore the shunt has to be size to the full scale capability
of the instrument. If you're going to switch the single instrument
between two different alternators, then the instrument's scale
needs to be fixed . . . in this case, 100A full scale . . . and
the same size shunt would be used with both alternators.
So, when reading output of the main alternator, you need to know that
60A is 100% of full output, and full output of the aux alternator
is 20A . . . you would do percentage of full capability mentally.
Bob . . .
Message 15
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | OV Protection for Internally Regulated "One Wire" Alternator? |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: <315@cox.net>
I acquired an RV6A with a 4.3 L Chevy V6 engine on Tuesday. On Wednesday I was
flying when the voltmeter began indicating 16 volts. It appeared pegged out.
While heading back to the airport I sensed the battery acid smell. Got on the
ground removed and had the alternator tested at O'Reilly's and it is putting
out 25 volts...
I have been reviewing Bob's diagram for OV protection on an internally regulated
alternator
http://216.55.140.222/articles/bleadov.pdf
and am wondering if I can adapt this idea of utilizing a contactor for OV protection
by running a contactor across the "One" wire coming off the alternator so
that it can be either manually isolated or possibly tied to a Crow-bar Over
Voltage Protection Module.
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Catalog/alterntr/alterntr.html
I already checked with the manufacture, PowereMaster, and they tell me it is not
possible for them to make this alternator an externally regulated model. They
will replace the regulator under warranty. I do think that this is the same
unit that B&C modifies for external regulation. But before spending the extra
$$ on the B&C model I would like to see if I can provide OV protection on this
model (model 8172 5.68 lbs).
http://www.powermastermotorsports.com/Racing/Denso_Alternators/denso_alternators.html
What do you think?
Thanks,
Ned
Message 16
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: N823ms@aol.com
Bob:
Thank for explaining the volt/amps vs types of shunts. You explained
that very well, the light went on.
Thanks,
Ed Silvanic
Lancir ES
Message 17
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "DAVID REEL" <dreel@cox.net>
I have a VR166 voltage regulator which I intend to use to control Van's 35 amp
alternator. However, It has no pin markings & I need to figure out how to connect
it. My VR166 has a pin I'll call pin number 1, on the far left, followed
by a big space to the right, followed by three pins, separated by smaller but
equal spaces, that I'll call pin number 2, 3, and 4 continuing to the right.
Can anyone look at their successful installation and tell me which pin is which?
According to figure Z-23 of Bob's book,
F goes to alternator field terminal
A goes to the + voltage source
S is connected to A
I is not connected to anything
but, these are equally spaced on the figure so you can't tell which pin is which.
Dave Reel, dreel@cox.net
RV8A
Other Matronics Email List Services
These Email List Services are sponsored solely by Matronics and through the generous Contributions of its members.
-- Please support this service by making your Contribution today! --
|