---------------------------------------------------------- AeroElectric-List Digest Archive --- Total Messages Posted Sun 04/13/03: 33 ---------------------------------------------------------- Today's Message Index: ---------------------- 1. 01:01 AM - Ammeter connection (Gianni Zuliani) 2. 02:16 AM - Re: Mechanical Latching Battery Disconnect (Piers Herbert) 3. 02:49 AM - Re: Ammeter connection (Piers Herbert) 4. 04:24 AM - Nice connectors wanted, for in cabin accessories (Ian Scott) 5. 06:20 AM - IFR Certification of ABEA (BAKEROCB@aol.com) 6. 06:20 AM - Small Battery Solutions (BAKEROCB@aol.com) 7. 07:06 AM - Re: FS: UPSAT stack, new and cheap (richard@riley.net) 8. 08:11 AM - Power sources - please clarify (Fergus Kyle) 9. 08:24 AM - Re: RGbattery (DAVID REEL) 10. 09:20 AM - Re: Power sources - please clarify (Ed Holyoke) 11. 09:41 AM - Re: RGbattery (Robert L. Nuckolls, III) 12. 09:52 AM - plug/socket convention (Dan Checkoway) 13. 10:15 AM - Re: plug/socket convention (Charlie & Tupper England) 14. 10:17 AM - Re: RGbattery (John) 15. 10:18 AM - Re: Ammeter connection (Robert L. Nuckolls, III) 16. 11:02 AM - Re: Herding Spikes . . . (Robert L. Nuckolls, III) 17. 11:23 AM - Re: Delta Alternator - Stratus/Subaru EA 81 (Robert L. Nuckolls, III) 18. 11:25 AM - Re: plug/socket convention (Robert L. Nuckolls, III) 19. 11:27 AM - Re: Power sources - please clarify (Robert L. Nuckolls, III) 20. 11:37 AM - Redundant Ignitions (Jerry2DT@aol.com) 21. 11:49 AM - Re: List of current consumption figures (Robert L. Nuckolls, III) 22. 03:06 PM - Re: Delta Alternator - Stratus/Subaru EA 81 (Don Honabach) 23. 03:11 PM - Master Switch (William Bernard) 24. 03:54 PM - Re: Master Switch (Gilles.Thesee) 25. 06:48 PM - Re: Nice connectors wanted, for in cabin accessories (Charlie & Tupper England) 26. 07:43 PM - Re: Need so help (Robert L. Nuckolls, III) 27. 07:46 PM - Re: Master Switch (Robert L. Nuckolls, III) 28. 07:58 PM - Re: Delta Alternator - Stratus/Subaru EA 81 (Robert L. Nuckolls, III) 29. 07:59 PM - dual power and ground wires (John Slade) 30. 08:05 PM - Re: RGbattery (Robert L. Nuckolls, III) 31. 08:08 PM - Re: Redundant Ignitions (Robert L. Nuckolls, III) 32. 08:40 PM - Re: 110V Ball switch (TSaccio@aol.com) 33. 09:17 PM - Re: dual power and ground wires (Robert L. Nuckolls, III) ________________________________ Message 1 _____________________________________ Time: 01:01:09 AM PST US From: "Gianni Zuliani" Subject: AeroElectric-List: Ammeter connection --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Gianni Zuliani" This may be an already beaten subject, but I'm now to decide how to connect my ammeter on my single bat, single alt system. I'm wondering which is its best use: a. to read battery flow (except starter's current of course)? b. to read system's total load? c. to read alternator's output? I would be for solution a., like I find on some G.A. certified production models, but I see on Bob's schematics that they are mostly used in configuration c. And configuration b. seems to be the most useful whe you have to track a single user's malfunction. Any comment? Thanks. Gianni Zuliani ________________________________ Message 2 _____________________________________ Time: 02:16:55 AM PST US From: "Piers Herbert" Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Mechanical Latching Battery Disconnect --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Piers Herbert" Hi, Bob wrote: > > > This is what I'd have to do to sell this or a > > > similar system to the FAA . . . it has to do > > > with crash safety. Always hot wires from the > > > battery are either pilot controllable or > > > limited to 5A or less. I presume this comes from FAR 23.1361. It seems that loads essential to continued operation of the engine may be in addition to this 5 amp limit but I suppose this would only be relevant if the battery were firewall forward? However it does appear that an e bus essential feed, if not controlled by a relay, would be limited by this rule to a 5 amp fuse near the battery. If the rule were written with a 28V system in mind, then perhaps (in spark energy terms) you could argue that a 7 amp fuse would be at least as safe in a 12V system? Nevertheless, the 20 AWG fuse link as shown in Z1 would (presumably) not meet the requirement? I think I can limit my e bus needs to less than 5 amps and thus protect the alternate feed wire with a 5 amp in line fuse. Circuits coming off the e bus would be protected by their own fuses in the e bus fuse block, but it is hard to come by blade fuses less than 3 amps. My question is, if I get a ground fault in one of the e bus circuits when the alternate feed is in use, could I be sure the 3 amp fuse in the fuse block would blow before the 5 amp fuse in the feed line, thus leaving other e bus services operational? Piers RV-8 ________________________________ Message 3 _____________________________________ Time: 02:49:41 AM PST US From: "Piers Herbert" Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Ammeter connection --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Piers Herbert" I'm wondering which is its best use: > a. to read battery flow (except starter's current of course)? > b. to read system's total load? > c. to read alternator's output? > I would be for solution a., like I find on some G.A. certified production models, but I see on Bob's schematics that they are mostly used in configuration c. And configuration b. seems to be the most useful whe you have to track a single user's malfunction. I have still to decide on this, so will be very interested in the responses you get. I suppose one issue is where are you going to get your ammeter. Most ammeters in the aviation catalogs seem to be designed for option a, i.e with 0 in the center. For option b or c you really need 0 at the left of the scale. With option a, if you have an e bus alternate feed, you can not include that feed in the battery discharge reading without also including the starter current (which you don't want). Piers ________________________________ Message 4 _____________________________________ Time: 04:24:10 AM PST US From: "Ian Scott" Subject: AeroElectric-List: Nice connectors wanted, for in cabin accessories --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Ian Scott" HI all, I have a number of things that I wish to power in the plane, Sat phone CDMA phone Hand held radio Minidisk player Handheld GPS Ipaq And a few others, I am looking for nice low voltage, maximum 2 amp connectors that exist in both panel mount and inline (so I can splice the OEM power wiring to most of these things, and plug them into the panel and also plug them into the normal wall transformer at home). Phone ---------()-----------Transformer (original lead with 2 inline connectors) Phone ---------()Panel---[7805 voltage regulator or similar]---acc bus (original lead with panel mount connector) Thanks Ian ________________________________ Message 5 _____________________________________ Time: 06:20:33 AM PST US From: BAKEROCB@aol.com Subject: AeroElectric-List: IFR Certification of ABEA --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: BAKEROCB@aol.com AeroElectric-List message previously posted by: Geoff Evans <<.....skip......I plan to equip it (it's an RV-8, by the way) for day/night VFR at this time, with the potential for IFR certification sometime down the road a ways.....skip......Geoff>> 4/13/2003 Hello Geoff, It always puzzles and concerns me when people building an ABEA (Amateur Built Experimental Aircraft) that presumably already has an altimeter, a transponder, and an encoder talk about equipping it for "IFR certification". Who is going to certify what? What is the process of certification? What does the certificate say? The Operating Limitations for your specific aircraft should have some words in it that read something like "After completion of Phase I flight testing, unless appropriately equipped for night and/or instument flight in accordance with 91.205, this aircraft is to be operated under VFR, day only." That means that once your aircraft is "appropriately equipped" and you have the transponder, encoder, and altimeter inspections required for IFR operations (and repeated every two years) you are good to go -- no "IFR certification" regarding the avionics equipment installed is involved**. The EAA has some writings on this subject (Equipping a Homebuilt for IFR Operations) that will further elaborate. You can probably obtain a copy from Charlie Becker <>. I would appreciate a response to the above from you to the entire list just in case there are any unresolved questions / issues. Many thanks. 'OC' Baker, Builder of KIS TR-1 #116 4/14/97 - ?/?/? **PS: I should note that having these inspections done and entered into the aircraft maintenance records is frequently referred to as an "IFR cert" , but these inspections deal with the performance of these three items. See FAR 91.411 and 91.413. ________________________________ Message 6 _____________________________________ Time: 06:20:33 AM PST US From: BAKEROCB@aol.com Subject: AeroElectric-List: Small Battery Solutions --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: BAKEROCB@aol.com AeroElectric-List message previously posted by: TimRhod@aol.com on FADEC BRownout <> 4/13/2003 Hello Tim, You have some precedence for this concept in the certificated airplane community. Back when Diamond Aircraft and Teledyne Continental Motors were still struggling for years with difficult engine starting problems with the TCM IO-240 B3B engine in the DA20-C2 Katana airplane they switched magnetos. They went from two impulse coupled magnetos to one direct drive magneto and one retard breaker magneto. The retard breaker magneto of course required a starting vibrator ("shower of sparks"). That really didn't solve the starting problem so they came to the conclusion that the starting vibrator was not getting high enough voltage during cranking so they kluged up the installation of a small, and I do mean small, computer battery to separately feed the starting vibrator. The airplane starts great now, but my personal conclusion is that the starting problems were really caused by lack of priming fuel caused by improperly designed cylinder induction port drain connectors. Once that design flaw was corrected the starting problem was solved. I guess the moral of the story is "Be sure what the cause of the problem is before you start changing things to solve it". 'OC' Baker, Builder of KIS TR-1 #116 4/14/97 - ?/?/? ________________________________ Message 7 _____________________________________ Time: 07:06:45 AM PST US From: richard@riley.net Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: FS: UPSAT stack, new and cheap --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: richard@riley.net The full warrantee applies, I'm an OEM with them. I'm really looking to sell the whole stack. At 02:38 AM 4/13/03 -0400, you wrote: >--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: TimRhod@aol.com > >Richard I would be interested interested in the SL30. I already have a quote >of $3000 brand new and yours already has six months of the warrantee gone. I >read thier warrentee on thier web sight and there may not even be a warrentee >for a secondary sale. I could offer $2650. If you would be interested you >can email me back. Timrhod@aol.com > > ________________________________ Message 8 _____________________________________ Time: 08:11:37 AM PST US From: "Fergus Kyle" Subject: AeroElectric-List: Power sources - please clarify --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Fergus Kyle" Bob, Geoff Evans' query regarding the alternator-battery choices and your reply was a perfect example of the true value of this net! It set me to comparing two of the choices evidenced. On one hand Geoff is questioning the relative security of a second alternator and you were considering 'three sources'. It occurs to me that two batteries are more reliable than two alternators for the simple reason that an engine failure (and vets have all suffered that scenario - much more commonly than an aletrnator or battery failure - I've lost two engines but never a battery nor an alternator in 50 years) causes the loss of two of the sources immediately. Whereas 2 batteries and one alternator will seldom see the failure of 2 of 3 power sources - and really, not predominantly immediate. Perhaps that's not simple enough, but I see an engine quitting as losing 2 of 3 sources instantly, whereas a battery failure generally means the loss of one over an interval. The truth is I can't install a second alternator on my engine............. Your thoughts? Ferg Europa A064 ________________________________ Message 9 _____________________________________ Time: 08:24:04 AM PST US From: "DAVID REEL" Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: RGbattery --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "DAVID REEL" The Panasonic RG battery specs a 12 mohm internal resistance. The book examples analyzing starter system performance assume a 4 mohm internal resistance. This would translate into a voltage drop of 1.6v at 200amps which seems an excessive penalty to pay for an inexpensive battery. I've been wondering for some time what battery prompted Bob to use the 4 mohm figure in the book. The Concorde? I'm putting my battery behind the aft baggage compartment of my RV8A so I'm concerned with electrical efficiency. In addition, an extra 10 pounds will just shift my center of gravity back to the center of the acceptable range so weight is not a big issue with me. Dave Reel - RV8A ________________________________ Message 10 ____________________________________ Time: 09:20:59 AM PST US From: "Ed Holyoke" Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Power sources - please clarify --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Ed Holyoke" Ferg, Seems to me that, if you lose your only engine, endurance of the electrical system is moot. You'll be landing long before you can drain your battery or batteries. If you can't install a second alternator, and you've got dual electronic ignitions, a second battery sounds like a good idea to me. I think that Geoff's choice, (and mine as well) is whether or not two batteries are needed solely to support dual electronic ignitions. I'm leaning toward dual alternators and one battery. I'd probably separate the ignition feeds - one at the battery terminal and one at the battery bus just for kicks. It wouldn't be too difficult to add a small battery for ignition support, if I start feeling uneasy about it. Pax, Ed Holyoke RV-6 qb > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:owner- > aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Fergus Kyle > Sent: Sunday, April 13, 2003 8:09 AM > To: aeroelectric-list@matronics.com > Subject: AeroElectric-List: Power sources - please clarify > > --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Fergus Kyle" > > Bob, > Geoff Evans' query regarding the alternator-battery choices > and > your reply was a perfect example of the true value of this net! > It set me to comparing two of the choices evidenced. On one > hand > Geoff is questioning the relative security of a second alternator and you > were considering 'three sources'. It occurs to me that two batteries are > more reliable than two alternators for the simple reason that an engine > failure (and vets have all suffered that scenario - much more commonly > than > an aletrnator or battery failure - I've lost two engines but never a > battery > nor an alternator in 50 years) causes the loss of two of the sources > immediately. Whereas 2 batteries and one alternator will seldom see the > failure of 2 of 3 power sources - and really, not predominantly immediate. > Perhaps that's not simple enough, but I see an engine quitting > as losing 2 of 3 sources instantly, whereas a battery failure generally > means the loss of one over an interval. > The truth is I can't install a second alternator on my > engine............. > Your thoughts? > Ferg > Europa A064 > > > > > > ________________________________ Message 11 ____________________________________ Time: 09:41:37 AM PST US From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: RGbattery --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" At 10:38 AM 4/13/2003 -0400, you wrote: >--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "DAVID REEL" > >The Panasonic RG battery specs a 12 mohm internal resistance. The book >examples analyzing starter system performance assume a 4 mohm internal >resistance. This would translate into a voltage drop of 1.6v at 200amps >which seems an excessive penalty to pay for an inexpensive battery. I've >been wondering for some time what battery prompted Bob to use the 4 mohm >figure in the book. The Concorde? I'm putting my battery behind the aft >baggage compartment of my RV8A so I'm concerned with electrical >efficiency. In addition, an extra 10 pounds will just shift my center of >gravity back to the center of the acceptable range so weight is not a big >issue with me. I think that 12 mohm is an end-of-service-life max. New batteries I've tested run 5-7 mohms with a 600A load. I have several RV-8 builders flying the 17 a.h. Panasonic or clones behind the seat. 4 mhoms is typical of a larger battery (24 to 32 a.h.) when new. However, if you NEED ballast, then make is USEFUL ballast. I went out to look at a Long-Ez at OSH a few years ago. The builder had an itty- bitty flooded motor cycle battery up front with about 20# of lead shot packed around it. We sold him a new Sonnenschein battery at the show. Bob . . . ________________________________ Message 12 ____________________________________ Time: 09:52:07 AM PST US From: "Dan Checkoway" Subject: AeroElectric-List: plug/socket convention --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Dan Checkoway" This may sound like a ridiculous question, but is there any sort of convention for plug/socket connectors, specifically which side goes where? i.e. the plug connector always goes on the device side, socket always goes on the bus side. I know it doesn't matter, but if there's a convention I figure I'll follow it. )_( Dan RV-7 N714D (finish) http://www.rvproject.com ________________________________ Message 13 ____________________________________ Time: 10:15:13 AM PST US From: Charlie & Tupper England Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: plug/socket convention --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Charlie & Tupper England Dan Checkoway wrote: >--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Dan Checkoway" > >This may sound like a ridiculous question, but is there any sort of >convention for plug/socket connectors, specifically which side goes where? >i.e. the plug connector always goes on the device side, socket always goes >on the bus side. I know it doesn't matter, but if there's a convention I >figure I'll follow it. > >)_( Dan >RV-7 N714D (finish) >http://www.rvproject.com > Sensible question. Convention (except for low current DC applications like things using 'wall wart' transformers) is to make the power source the protected terminal. This is typically the 'female' connector. Think about devices using house current. the plug with exposed terminals has no energy on its terminals until it is inserted into the protected terminals of the wall outlet. If you decide to use concentric barrel type connectors (wall wart connectors), use the outer, exposed barrel as the negative or ground. Charlie ________________________________ Message 14 ____________________________________ Time: 10:17:25 AM PST US From: John Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: RGbattery --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: John I'm using the Optima, which is spec'd at 3 mohms, 56AH. ; they're pretty heavy (38#), but I'd need ballast in the nose anyway (Velocity) so it worked fine for me - there is now a slightly smaller one (CCI group 75/35) with 44AH and 30#, so maybe you could use that - $109 at PepBoys. -John R. DAVID REEL wrote: >--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "DAVID REEL" > >The Panasonic RG battery specs a 12 mohm internal resistance. The book examples analyzing starter system performance assume a 4 mohm internal resistance. This would translate into a voltage drop of 1.6v at 200amps which seems an excessive penalty to pay for an inexpensive battery. I've been wondering for some time what battery prompted Bob to use the 4 mohm figure in the book. The Concorde? I'm putting my battery behind the aft baggage compartment of my RV8A so I'm concerned with electrical efficiency. In addition, an extra 10 pounds will just shift my center of gravity back to the center of the acceptable range so weight is not a big issue with me. > >Dave Reel - RV8A > > > > ________________________________ Message 15 ____________________________________ Time: 10:18:35 AM PST US From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Ammeter connection --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" At 10:45 AM 4/13/2003 +0100, you wrote: >--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Piers Herbert" > > >I'm wondering which is its best use: > > a. to read battery flow (except starter's current of course)? > > b. to read system's total load? > > c. to read alternator's output? How do any of these features differ from each other that makes one preferable over the other? > > I would be for solution a., like I find on some G.A. certified production >models, but I see on Bob's schematics that they are mostly used in >configuration c. And configuration b. seems to be the most useful whe you >have to track a single user's malfunction. > >I have still to decide on this, so will be very interested in the responses >you get. > >I suppose one issue is where are you going to get your ammeter. Most >ammeters in the aviation catalogs seem to be designed for option a, i.e with >0 in the center. > >For option b or c you really need 0 at the left of the scale. > >With option a, if you have an e bus alternate feed, you can not include that >feed in the battery discharge reading without also including the starter >current (which you don't want). Ammeters and voltmeters of all varieties are TROUBLESHOOTING aids. 99.9% of the times you look at any of them, they tell you exactly what they said last time you looked . . . the system is operating normally. I.e., information gained is not useful for getting from point A to point B. An ammeter or voltmeter of ANY style can help you figure out what's going on when things are NOT working, but since you're only supposed to do this on the ground with your toolbox out, then there are lots of options for the application of additional test equipment to help figure out and fix root cause. It's not that the battery ammeter is any more or less useful. Forsaking the traditional battery ammeter allows your alternator to drive the system from the starter contactor out on the firewall instead of coming inside to the bus. I don't show it on drawings (and will eliminate it from the next revision to instrumentation chapter) because the battery ammeter drives system architecture in undesirable ways. If you're intent on having good OPERATIONAL instrumentation, the low voltage warning light is about all you need. If the light is out, things are okay and you don't have to keep looking at it to confirm something that's true most of the time. When the light comes on, it's time to go to plan-b IRRESPECTIVE OF ANY REASON why the light may be on. Therefore, I suggest that voltmeters and ammeters are good things to plug holes in the instrument panel but are of little interest to you as a pilot. Bob . . . ________________________________ Message 16 ____________________________________ Time: 11:02:44 AM PST US From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" Subject: AeroElectric-List: Re: Herding Spikes . . . --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" At 07:00 AM 4/12/2003 -0700, you wrote: >--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Gary Casey" >Oh, and for adding Transorbs at the breaker position. I submit that it >would be much more effective to put them right at the end user. Reason is >that the Transorb, or any other shunting protection device, needs an >"upstream" resistance to work against or it will have to protect the whole >system, which it probably can't. Putting it at the radio end of the wire >allows it to use the resistance of the wire as it's lever. Of course, the >device in question almost certainly has the same supply voltage transient >protection internally, so the externally mounted Transorb is probably >redundant. You are correct that energy traps work best when the source impedance of the transient is raised to the highest possible value. Limitations to propagation of transients has a profound effect on how hard it is to deal with them. For the VERY short pulses (shorter than 200 ns), even if they contained much energy (very high voltage) the ability of this this half-sine equivalent of 50 Megahertz pulse to travel down a piece of wire with any efficiency is poor to zip. The folks who would sell us any form of transient protection device seldom mention this in their sales literature. They'll be happy to tell you about all the gremlins and gobblins that are no match for their ultimate solution. You often have to dig out their application notes and dig trough the system analysis to truly quantify risk and solution. Spike mitigation is just another form of RFI/EMI engineering. As I outlined in the chapter on noise, the first task is to it's best to fix/filter the antagonist or break/modify the propagation mode. It the case of very short spikes, propagation is severely limited by the fact that several feet of wire exist between antagonist and victim. Many times, a simple high quality capacitor across the supply line runs the transient to ground. Most appliances will include some form of input bypass capacitor with just such instances in mind. From the perspective of an OEM supplying an accessory to the aviation industry, you have no control over the system design or architecture or maintenance so you do your duty as a responsible supplier and put whatever protection on your product's input/output leads to meet your stated performance specifications. This may or may not dictate the use of transorbs but they ARE indeed handy gizmos and work as advertised. From a SYSTEMS designer perspective, I'm equally obligated to observe the lessons learned as outlined in DO-160. If there is any potential for a particular piece of my system to be an antagonist, then I should have figured out which one it is and take the simple steps required to (1) encourage the supplier of such device to clean up his product or (2) add protection based on the repeatable experiment to make MY system tolerant of HIS product. Over the years, I've had quite a few builders worrying over the unknown . . . which is perfectly understandable. That which we are ignorant of is the most unsettling . . . especially when described in the non-quantified and unsubstantiated claims of popular folklore. On at least two occasions, I have supplied killer transorbs to builders (and recommended them to others) to be installed as shown in: http://216.55.140.222/temp/SpikeTrap.gif This wires a transorb right to the main bus where it can be the guardian of ALL devices that take power from the bus. If you get an ov condition or surge from the alternator, you may open the fuse and the event is annunciated by illumination of your SPIKE CATCHER warning lamp. This is unlikely for 18V devices start conduction at 20-22 volts . . . your ov system should take the alternator off line long before you push the bus that high. For all other cases of transients, the transorb takes care of anything else. So if anyone is staying awake at night worrying about this, I have a bunch of 5KP18A (only 5KW devices but certainly adequate) that folks are welcome to add to their system . . . they're $5 each postage paid to anywhere in the world. See: http://216.55.140.222/temp/5kp.pdf The truck I wanted to 'scope isn't running. I'm still on safari hunting the elusive starter spike. Bob . . . ________________________________ Message 17 ____________________________________ Time: 11:23:25 AM PST US From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Delta Alternator - Stratus/Subaru EA 81 --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" At 08:34 PM 4/10/2003 -0700, you wrote: >--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Don Honabach" > >Hey Guys, > >In regard to an earlier post where I thought my alternator was dead, I >got a reply back from Stratus that indicates that the suggested wiring >they provided with the engine will/may not work properly. > >In short, the alternator has a built-in regulator and has 4 connection >points of concern. The first is a sizeable positive cable that is feed >back into the electrical system/battery 12V positive side. The ground is >implied via the crankcase. There are then 2 other connectors. The first >is labeled 'L' and is meant to be connected to a normal style 'idiot' >light for if the alternator fails and to provide a load for reasons >unknown (the manual is very specific though in noting that if the light >isn't hooked up, the alternator will fail). The final connector is >labeled '+' and in the original wiring diagram, Stratus suggests hooking >this wiring up the so that it is supplied with 12V positive when the >engine starter is engaged. > >My concern is that Stratus has sent an e-mail that indicates that this >last connector (i.e. '+') needs to be re-wired to a constant 12V source >to ensure that the alternator kicks in and starts the major electron >parade. Since I haven't been able to fully understand the alternator and >how everything works (still a black box for me), I was worried that >having a constant 12V source to the alternator when the engine isn't >running might be a bad thing, and hooking up an only active 12V that is >only active when the engine is running would most likely violate my KIS >design principles. > >I went ahead and included Stratus' comments below. Any >comments/suggestions are appreciated and if this is a really basic >questions, my apologies in advance :) I think you got a poor explanation for a fix on this. I'm surprised that your alternator depends on any connection through the idiot light circuit . . . this was common 15-20 years ago but I thought it had gone away. If it were my airplane, I'd connect the "L" terminal to the (+) terminal via a 150 ohm, 2W resistor to mimic a lamp bulb. Then treat the (+) lead as a control input and wire it as suggested in Figure Z-24 of http://www.aeroelectric.com/articles/Rev10/z10.pdf In this case, "F" on my drawing is (+) on your alternator combined with the resistor-fed "L" terminal. Bob . . . ________________________________ Message 18 ____________________________________ Time: 11:25:21 AM PST US From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: plug/socket convention --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" At 09:49 AM 4/13/2003 -0700, you wrote: >--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Dan Checkoway" > >This may sound like a ridiculous question, but is there any sort of >convention for plug/socket connectors, specifically which side goes where? >i.e. the plug connector always goes on the device side, socket always goes >on the bus side. I know it doesn't matter, but if there's a convention I >figure I'll follow it. There's a LOOSE convention that suggests you put power sources on female pins to minimize possibility of faulting a source on an unmated connector. Likelihood of this is low in every case, and impossible with many connector designs. I wouldn't worry about it. Bob . . . ________________________________ Message 19 ____________________________________ Time: 11:27:20 AM PST US From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Power sources - please clarify --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" At 11:09 AM 4/13/2003 -0400, you wrote: >--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Fergus Kyle" > >Bob, > Geoff Evans' query regarding the alternator-battery choices and >your reply was a perfect example of the true value of this net! > It set me to comparing two of the choices evidenced. On one hand >Geoff is questioning the relative security of a second alternator and you >were considering 'three sources'. It occurs to me that two batteries are >more reliable than two alternators for the simple reason that an engine >failure (and vets have all suffered that scenario - much more commonly than >an aletrnator or battery failure - I've lost two engines but never a battery >nor an alternator in 50 years) causes the loss of two of the sources >immediately. Whereas 2 batteries and one alternator will seldom see the >failure of 2 of 3 power sources - and really, not predominantly immediate. > Perhaps that's not simple enough, but I see an engine quitting >as losing 2 of 3 sources instantly, whereas a battery failure generally >means the loss of one over an interval. If you loose the engine, then battery life beyond 5-10 minutes isn't much of an issue. > The truth is I can't install a second alternator on my >engine............. That's a good reason for two batteries . . . Bob . . . ________________________________ Message 20 ____________________________________ Time: 11:37:03 AM PST US From: Jerry2DT@aol.com Subject: AeroElectric-List: Redundant Ignitions --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Jerry2DT@aol.com Geoff & Bob... I am planning on an XP-360 for my RV6a and my thinking is that for the best redundancy I will go with Electronic Ignition on one side and a magneto on the other. The engine will then run with no electric power to it at all. It "seems" to me that this is every bit as safe as dual E.I.'s/dual batteries and/or alternators, and will be lighter overall. Is this idea screwy somehow? If so, please have at me... :) Jerry Cochran In a message dated 4/12/03 10:56:17 PM, aeroelectric-list-digest@matronics.com writes: << I'm trying not to throw other variables into this equation, but you asked about my planned use of the airplane... I plan to equip it (it's an RV-8, by the way) for day/night VFR at this time, with the potential for IFR certification sometime down the road a ways. I'm planning no vacuum system, a Blue Mountain EFIS/Lite, a VM-1000 engine monitor, a GPS/Comm, and a couple of backup pitot-static instruments. I'm having the engine built up by AeroSport Power, so equiping it with dual electronic ignitions seems to make more sense than having them bolt a magneto on it. Thanks again for your help and advice. We all REALLY appreciate the time and effort you put in here. -Geoff P.S. My high-dollar B&C order will definitely be forthcoming when I reach that stage of my project. >> ________________________________ Message 21 ____________________________________ Time: 11:49:20 AM PST US From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: List of current consumption figures --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" At 07:51 PM 4/12/2003 +0100, you wrote: >--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Neville Kilford" > > >I seem to remember someone asking about the amount of current consumed by >various bits of equipment. > >I've just stumbled upon this page: > >http://aircraftexpense.com/eloadindex.htm > >which contains a *very* comprehensive list of aeroplane equipment and its >current consumption. Too bad folks who took considerable time to compile this list didn't include running current values along with the peak current values. Running current is what's needed for load analysis, peak current often just sizes wire and fuses. Bottom line is, get out your volt-ammeter (you all DO have one of these . . . no?) and confirm ANY data you might get from printed literature after your system is up and running. Bob . . . ________________________________ Message 22 ____________________________________ Time: 03:06:57 PM PST US Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Delta Alternator - Stratus/Subaru EA 81 From: "Don Honabach" --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Don Honabach" Bob, Thanks for input - makes perfect sense as does the diagram. You should seriously consider charging $5 dollars for every question you answer as I think you'd be one of the few people that could say if I had a nickle for every ... Thanks! Don Do not archive -----Original Message----- From: Robert L. Nuckolls, III [mailto:bob.nuckolls@cox.net] Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Delta Alternator - Stratus/Subaru EA 81 --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" --> At 08:34 PM 4/10/2003 -0700, you wrote: >--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Don Honabach" >--> > >Hey Guys, > >In regard to an earlier post where I thought my alternator was dead, I >got a reply back from Stratus that indicates that the suggested wiring >they provided with the engine will/may not work properly. > >In short, the alternator has a built-in regulator and has 4 connection >points of concern. The first is a sizeable positive cable that is feed >back into the electrical system/battery 12V positive side. The ground >is implied via the crankcase. There are then 2 other connectors. The >first is labeled 'L' and is meant to be connected to a normal style >'idiot' light for if the alternator fails and to provide a load for >reasons unknown (the manual is very specific though in noting that if >the light isn't hooked up, the alternator will fail). The final >connector is labeled '+' and in the original wiring diagram, Stratus >suggests hooking this wiring up the so that it is supplied with 12V >positive when the engine starter is engaged. > >My concern is that Stratus has sent an e-mail that indicates that this >last connector (i.e. '+') needs to be re-wired to a constant 12V source >to ensure that the alternator kicks in and starts the major electron >parade. Since I haven't been able to fully understand the alternator >and how everything works (still a black box for me), I was worried that >having a constant 12V source to the alternator when the engine isn't >running might be a bad thing, and hooking up an only active 12V that is >only active when the engine is running would most likely violate my KIS >design principles. > >I went ahead and included Stratus' comments below. Any >comments/suggestions are appreciated and if this is a really basic >questions, my apologies in advance :) I think you got a poor explanation for a fix on this. I'm surprised that your alternator depends on any connection through the idiot light circuit . . . this was common 15-20 years ago but I thought it had gone away. If it were my airplane, I'd connect the "L" terminal to the (+) terminal via a 150 ohm, 2W resistor to mimic a lamp bulb. Then treat the (+) lead as a control input and wire it as suggested in Figure Z-24 of http://www.aeroelectric.com/articles/Rev10/z10.pdf In this case, "F" on my drawing is (+) on your alternator combined with the resistor-fed "L" terminal. Bob . . . direct advertising on the Matronics Forums. ________________________________ Message 23 ____________________________________ Time: 03:11:04 PM PST US From: "William Bernard" Subject: AeroElectric-List: Master Switch --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "William Bernard" I'm working on the wiring and things have proceeded with no smoke so far. I do have one question however. I'm wiring the battery to the main buss. I used the B&C S701-1 contactor and a 2-10 switch for the master switch. The switch is wired as shown in Z-13: pin 1 connects to ground; pin 2 connects to the contact on the contactor; pin 4 connects to the main buss and pin 5 connects to the LR3-C voltage regulator (or will). Pins 3 and 6 are not used. The numbering scheme is that shown in Bob's book on page11-16. The question is how is this supposed to work? When I move the toggle up to the center position, there is no connection: no voltage on the buss and the contactor does not pull in. When the switch is moved all the way up, then the contactor pulls in and there is 12+ volts on the main buss and to the regulator. Moving the switch down to the center position kills the voltage on the buss. My understanding was that the center position would give the battery only and the top would give the battery + alternator. Is there a jumper required between some of the terminals on the switch or is this the way it should work? For what it's worth, on the other side of the switch from the '2-10' mark, it says "Carling cMexico 0305" Thanks for the help. Bill ________________________________ Message 24 ____________________________________ Time: 03:54:06 PM PST US From: "Gilles.Thesee" Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Master Switch --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Gilles.Thesee" > I'm wiring the battery to the main buss. I used the B&C S701-1 contactor and a 2-10 switch for the master switch. The switch is wired as shown in Z-13: pin 1 connects to ground; pin 2 connects to the contact on the contactor; pin 4 connects to the main buss and pin 5 connects to the LR3-C voltage regulator (or will). Pins 3 and 6 are not used. The numbering scheme is that shown in Bob's book on page11-16. > ..................... > My understanding was that the center position would give the battery only and the top would give the battery + alternator. Is there a jumper required between some of the terminals on the switch or is this the way it should work? > > For what it's worth, on the other side of the switch from the '2-10' mark, it says "Carling cMexico 0305" > > Thanks for the help. > Hi Bill, Just received my 2-10 switch. It seems the correct pin numbering is as follows : 3 6 2 5 1 4 when viewed from the rear of the switch, with the keyway up. Hope this helps, Gilles ________________________________ Message 25 ____________________________________ Time: 06:48:05 PM PST US From: Charlie & Tupper England Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Nice connectors wanted, for in cabin accessories --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Charlie & Tupper England Ian Scott wrote: >--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Ian Scott" > >HI all, > >I have a number of things that I wish to power in the plane, > >Sat phone >CDMA phone >Hand held radio >Minidisk player >Handheld GPS >Ipaq > >And a few others, > >I am looking for nice low voltage, maximum 2 amp connectors that exist >in both panel mount and inline (so I can splice the OEM power wiring to >most of these things, and plug them into the panel and also plug them >into the normal wall transformer at home). > > >Phone ---------()-----------Transformer (original lead with 2 inline >connectors) > >Phone ---------()Panel---[7805 voltage regulator or similar]---acc bus >(original lead with panel mount connector) > > >Thanks Ian > Try: http://www.rst-engr.com/rst/magazine/index.html & look at the Karmic Standards articles. Charlie ________________________________ Message 26 ____________________________________ Time: 07:43:40 PM PST US From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" Subject: AeroElectric-List: Re: Need so help --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" At 08:01 PM 4/13/2003 -0400, you wrote: >Bob, I purchased your Aero Electric Connection manual from an aviation house >I believe in Colorado. Am I entitled to your updates? How do I obtain them? They can be down loaded from my website at http://www.aeroelectric.com > My aircraft engine has a 40 amp alternator with a built in voltage >regulator. Which crowbar o/v relay should I order for it? OVM-14 and S702-1 > The Apollo Radio >and Transponder I purchased recommended using RG142B antenna cable which I >have purchased. Your chart figure 13-17 does not show this cable. How dose >it compare with those on your chart? Its comparable to RG400 but has a solid center conductor as opposed to stranded. Either is fine. > Do you have a source for connectors for >this antenna cable? See connectors at http://www.aeroelectric.com/Catalog/antenna/antenna.html which can be ordered at http://www.aeroelectric.com/Catalog/BCcatalog.html > I will need a connector for a hand held (with two right >angles?) a com antenna a transponder antenna. That's what I do . . . a pair of RA adapters brings the cockpit coax right down the back of the radio. > I would prefer not to have to >buy tools to assemble these connectors. Are the screw together type >electronically as efficient as the crimp type? I purchase a good radio and >do not want to degrade it with poor connectors. Screw-on connectors are really sorry. You could go the solder and clamp route but unless you've done enough of these to be reasonably good at it, crimp is the way to go. Can you sell a crimp tool to another builder after you're done with it. The tool is only $40 http://www.aeroelectric.com/Catalog/tools/rct-2.jpg Here's instructions on how to use it http://216.55.140.222/articles/bnccrimp.pdf you can also order the tool at http://www.aeroelectric.com/Catalog/BCcatalog.html > My last question (*at least >for the moment) is should I tin the 22 gage wire before I crimp it in the >connector terminal? Thanks Nope. See http://www.aeroelectric.com/articles/terminal.pdf and http://www.aeroelectric.com/articles/rules/review.html Bob . . . -------------------------------------------- ( Knowing about a thing is different than ) ( understanding it. One can know a lot ) ( and still understand nothing. ) ( C.F. Kettering ) -------------------------------------------- ________________________________ Message 27 ____________________________________ Time: 07:46:47 PM PST US From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Master Switch --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" At 12:51 AM 4/14/2003 +0200, you wrote: >--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Gilles.Thesee" > > > > > I'm wiring the battery to the main buss. I used the B&C S701-1 contactor >and a 2-10 switch for the master switch. The switch is wired as shown in >Z-13: pin 1 connects to ground; pin 2 connects to the contact on the >contactor; pin 4 connects to the main buss and pin 5 connects to the LR3-C >voltage regulator (or will). Pins 3 and 6 are not used. The numbering scheme >is that shown in Bob's book on page11-16. > > >..................... > > My understanding was that the center position would give the battery only >and the top would give the battery + alternator. Is there a jumper required >between some of the terminals on the switch or is this the way it should >work? > > > > For what it's worth, on the other side of the switch from the '2-10' mark, >it says "Carling cMexico 0305" > > > > Thanks for the help. > > > Hi Bill, >Just received my 2-10 switch. >It seems the correct pin numbering is as follows : >3 6 >2 5 >1 4 >when viewed from the rear of the switch, with the keyway up. >Hope this helps, I published a note on this some time back and crafted a benchmark document published at http://www.aeroelectric.com/articles/Carling_Micro/Carling_Micro.pdf that explains how the various drawings published over the years have two different pin call-outs for the progressive transfer switches. ________________________________ Message 28 ____________________________________ Time: 07:58:41 PM PST US From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Delta Alternator - Stratus/Subaru EA 81 --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" At 03:04 PM 4/13/2003 -0700, you wrote: >--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Don Honabach" > >Bob, > >Thanks for input - makes perfect sense as does the diagram. > >You should seriously consider charging $5 dollars for every question you >answer as I think you'd be one of the few people that could say if I had >a nickle for every ... > >Thanks! >Don I appreciate your kind words. If it wasn't fun, I couldn't do it . . . There will come a time in the not terribly distant future where I'll need to consider my "retirement" posture. Turned 60 a couple of weeks ago. One facet of the business model being considered is to convert my activities on the AeroElectric List to a subscriber based list on my server for some nominal fee. Not sure how it's all going to come together and it's not going to happen next week or even next year. Dee needs to finish her dissertation before I can even begin to consider operating out from under the RAC umbrella. Bob . . . ________________________________ Message 29 ____________________________________ Time: 07:59:30 PM PST US From: "John Slade" Subject: AeroElectric-List: dual power and ground wires --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "John Slade" The instructions for my Icom A-200 say that I should run two 20awg wires for the power and two for the ground. Why would I do that? John Slade Cozy IV ________________________________ Message 30 ____________________________________ Time: 08:05:59 PM PST US From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: RGbattery --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" At 12:58 PM 4/13/2003 -0500, you wrote: >--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: John > >I'm using the Optima, which is spec'd at 3 mohms, 56AH. ; they're pretty >heavy (38#), but I'd need ballast in the nose anyway (Velocity) so it >worked fine for me - there is now a slightly smaller one (CCI group >75/35) with 44AH and 30#, so maybe you could use that - $109 at PepBoys. Yup, those are direct descendants of the original 25 a.h. jelly-roll RG batteries pioneered by Gates over 30 years ago. They have evolved into a real flame thrower. You don't want to get your Spidel wrist watch band or wedding ring shorted across that hummer . . . makes you say loud embarrassing words and some of your body parts stink really bad too . . . Bob . . . ________________________________ Message 31 ____________________________________ Time: 08:08:26 PM PST US From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Redundant Ignitions --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" At 02:34 PM 4/13/2003 -0400, you wrote: >--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Jerry2DT@aol.com > >Geoff & Bob... > >I am planning on an XP-360 for my RV6a and my thinking is that for the best >redundancy I will go with Electronic Ignition on one side and a magneto on >the other. The engine will then run with no electric power to it at all. It >"seems" to me that this is every bit as safe as dual E.I.'s/dual batteries >and/or alternators, and will be lighter overall. Is this idea screwy somehow? >If so, please have at me... :) Not at all. Consider that when you buy an engine it it generally supplied with mags and priced accordingly. If one could get $1500 deducted off the price of the engine by removing the mags, neato keeno deal . . . but it's not likely to happen in our lifetimes. Sooooo . . . if you want to get 95% of everything all electronic ignition will do for you. Take off one mag and put on electronic ignition. Run the first mag 'til it croaks and then put the second mag back on. When it croaks, the cost of a new mag is about the same as an electronic ignition, so you might as well go all the way. Then you might consider adding a second battery if you're not already all-electric with two alternators. Bob . . . ________________________________ Message 32 ____________________________________ Time: 08:40:00 PM PST US From: TSaccio@aol.com Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: 110V Ball switch --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: TSaccio@aol.com I realize that this is off the beaten path but maybe some could help me. I'm looking for a 110 V ball switch that I could mount on a Bifold door. It's function would be to turn a light on and off in a closet by opening and closing the door. If you know where a switch like this could be found please let me know. Already tried Mouser, Digi-key, MPJA and McMaster-Carr. Thanks, Tom Saccio tsaccio@aol.com ________________________________ Message 33 ____________________________________ Time: 09:17:15 PM PST US From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: dual power and ground wires --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" At 10:56 PM 4/13/2003 -0400, you wrote: >--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "John Slade" > >The instructions for my Icom A-200 say that I should run two 20awg wires for >the power and two for the ground. Why would I do that? >John Slade >Cozy IV Yeah, the Microair guys are asking for that too. I wrote to them and asked for an explanation with no response yet. 20AWG is 10 milliohms per foot. The average feeder from bus to radio is probably no more than 4' for 40 mohms total. A second lead in parallel is going to drop it to 20 . . . ???? Beats me . . . Somebody might have some notions about "reliability" but if you have one wire come loose, how will you know that you've now reduced your wiring reliability by a factor of two? We wired a lot of radios with a single power supply and ground wire over the years. Maybe there's some heretofore ignored reason for doing it but nothing I can deduce. I'll ask around some more. I'll bet somebody did it, others noticed, everybody worried about not being hip with the latest good-thing-to-do; so another handful of floobydust has been stirred into the fertile ground of folklore. Bob . . .