Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 05:09 AM - Wiring Help (Edward O'Connor)
2. 05:26 AM - Re: fuel pump on Battery Bus (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
3. 05:34 AM - Re: Z15B (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
4. 05:43 AM - Re: Wiring Help (David Carter)
5. 05:47 AM - Re: Battery Contactor - Location? (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
6. 05:57 AM - Re: Wiring Help (John Schroeder)
7. 05:58 AM - Re: Simple timer for low fuel warning . . . (Jon Finley)
8. 06:06 AM - Re: The Connection Z-13 questions (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
9. 06:53 AM - Re: Re: E.I. instruments need pampering? (Neville Kilford)
10. 07:13 AM - Makita Battery Charger (Eric M. Jones)
11. 08:00 AM - LVWM (Mark Phillips)
12. 08:10 AM - Re: Simple timer for low fuel warning . . . (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
13. 08:38 AM - Re: Re: E.I. instruments need pampering? (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
14. 08:40 AM - Re: Simple timer for low fuel warning . . . (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
15. 08:45 AM - Small Sealed Batteries (PTACKABURY@aol.com)
16. 09:13 AM - Re: Small Sealed Batteries (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
17. 10:06 AM - Re: Audio Hi-Lo (Charlie & Tupper England)
18. 10:08 AM - Re: The Connection Z-13 questions (LarryRobertHelming)
19. 10:17 AM - Hall Sensor Mounting (Jim Pack)
20. 10:28 AM - Re: The Connection Z-13 questions (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
21. 11:10 AM - Re: Battery Contactor - Location? (Jeffrey)
22. 11:44 AM - Re: Battery Contactor - Location? (Phil Birkelbach)
23. 12:00 PM - Re: Battery Contactor - Location? (Livingston John W Civ ASC/ENFD)
24. 12:28 PM - Re: Battery Contactor - Location? (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
25. 12:42 PM - Re: Audio Hi-Lo (DHPHKH@aol.com)
26. 01:11 PM - Re: Battery Contactor - Location? (Don Honabach)
27. 01:13 PM - Re: Battery Contactor - Location? (Scott Bilinski)
28. 02:31 PM - Z15B? (TimRhod@aol.com)
29. 02:49 PM - IEEE guide (Gilles.Thesee)
30. 02:59 PM - Re: Battery Contactor - Location? (John Schroeder)
31. 03:22 PM - Re: Re: E.I. instruments need pampering? "Jim Younkin" (David Carter)
32. 04:36 PM - Re: Battery Contactor - Location? (Jeffrey)
33. 04:53 PM - Re: Simple timer for low fuel warning . . . (John Loram)
34. 09:42 PM - Re: Battery Contactor - Location? (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
Message 1
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Edward O'Connor" <edwardoconnor@compuserve.com>
I am presently working on my system wiring and having a hard time figuring
out how to physically mount some fuse blocks and elect buses in my RV-8.
Would appreciate any one who may have some digital pictures of how you
installed Bob's back-up Alternator package E-mailing a picture or two. Type
A/C doesn't matter. I am specifically interested in the mpunting of the
Relay and OV Crowbar and the Capacator etc for the vacume Pad mounted Backup
Alt. I'm am basically using the All Ecectric on a budget diagram. Looking
for some compact way to do all of this. In addition, the installation of the
Bridge Rectifiers diodes Bob sells. What type of heat sinks and where did
you get heat sinks if you used them. Reply off line if you like. Thanks.
Ed O'Connor/RV-8/Sandy Creek Airpark
Panama City FL
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 |
|
| Subject: | Re: fuel pump on Battery Bus |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls@cox.net>
At 07:01 PM 4/29/2003 -0600, you wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Jim Pack" <jpack@igs3.com>
>
>In Z-14, what is the rational for putting the fuel pump connected to the
>"always hot" battery bus? Is there a reason it should not be on one of the
>switched bus's?
>
>- Jim
IF your engine is electrically dependent meaning that one
or more DC powered systems must be operating to keep the
engine running, then it is my suggestion that all such
support systems be powered from an always-hot battery bus.
When you walk up to a J-3 or Taylorcraft of old and flip
the mag switches up, the engine will run and depends on
no other powered systems for continued operation. I don't
see any reason why the most sophisticated FADEC fitted
machine should operate any differently. When you have
smoke in the cockpit, you may shut down ALL DC power control
switches and the engine continues to run. You have the option
reverting to systems-analyst mode and trying to figure out
what you CAN operate without having smoke return -or- whip
out the hand-helds from the flight bag and concentrate on
being a pilot.
Whatever choice you make, it is driven by conditions other
than stone silence from under the cowl.
Bob . . .
--------------------------------------------
( Knowing about a thing is different than )
( understanding it. One can know a lot )
( and still understand nothing. )
( C.F. Kettering )
--------------------------------------------
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 |
|
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls@cox.net>
At 04:20 AM 4/30/2003 -0400, you wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "LarryRobertHelming"
><lhelming@sigecom.net>
>
>What is Z15B? My book only has Z15.
Z15 is a two page drawing that has three views, A B and C.
Z15 View B suggests that the battery (-) terminal be the
tie point of two wires which is in error. The battery (-)
lead and ground lead extending to engine compartment aft
should come together at a fat brass bolt on the ground block.
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 |
|
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "David Carter" <dcarter@datarecall.net>
Hey, please do NOT "reply off line"! I'm close to the same stage and need
the info as much as you.
David
----- Original Message -----
From: "Edward O'Connor" <edwardoconnor@compuserve.com>
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Wiring Help
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Edward O'Connor"
<edwardoconnor@compuserve.com>
>
> I am presently working on my system wiring and having a hard time figuring
> out how to physically mount some fuse blocks and elect buses in my RV-8.
> Would appreciate any one who may have some digital pictures of how you
> installed Bob's back-up Alternator package E-mailing a picture or two.
Type
> A/C doesn't matter. I am specifically interested in the mpunting of the
> Relay and OV Crowbar and the Capacator etc for the vacume Pad mounted
Backup
> Alt. I'm am basically using the All Ecectric on a budget diagram.
Looking
> for some compact way to do all of this. In addition, the installation of
the
> Bridge Rectifiers diodes Bob sells. What type of heat sinks and where did
> you get heat sinks if you used them.
> Reply off line if you like. Thanks.
> Ed O'Connor/RV-8/Sandy Creek Airpark
> Panama City FL
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: Battery Contactor - Location? |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls@cox.net>
>Any way, while doing the diagram I started thinking that I'd like to put
>the battery contactor on or near the firewall. However, my battery is
>located just behind the seats so I was worried that since I've seen it
>mentioned that the battery contactor should be within 12 inches or so of
>the battery that I was violating some golden rule. However, the only
>reason I could find for placing the contactor so close to the battery
>was a possible safety issue of having a large current HOT wire running
>through half the plane.
>
>If this is so, how much of safety issue is it? Are there any other
>reasons for placing the contactor next to the battery?
I suppose there are folks who would endeavor to assign
qualifiers of magnitude on an answer, e.g. "Running
a 10' long always hot battery feeder to a remotely mounted
contactor is 15.9 times more likely to set your bunnies on
fire in a crash than a feeder that is 1 foot long".
Suppose I had a rational for such a statement, would
this have any useful meaning for you in making your
architecture decision? If I tossed a number out, how
would you select a decision-making value? 4.2 times more
likely? 7.3 times more likely?
It's an intuitive and inarguable fact that minimizing
both the number, lengths and potential for high fault
currents in always-hot feeders is a "good" thing to do. Bottom
line is that you need to evaluate your own perceptions of
goodness against perceptions of convenience. I wouldn't
do what you propose in my airplane. You wouldn't get
it certified in a Cessna either . . .
Bob . . .
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: John Schroeder <jschroeder@perigee.net>
Ed -
If you are using the B&C backup alternator, I believe you'll need a
regulator. The B&C regulators have crowbar OV built in.
> Would appreciate any one who may have some digital pictures of how you
> installed Bob's back-up Alternator package E-mailing a picture or two.
> Type A/C doesn't matter. I am specifically interested in the mpunting of
> the
> Relay and OV Crowbar and the Capacator etc for the vacume Pad mounted
> Backup Alt.
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: | Simple timer for low fuel warning . . . |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Jon Finley" <jon@finleyweb.net>
Thanks for the circuit Bob!
I'm a bit lost here. When I search for those part numbers (DigiKey) I
get multiple results (CD4093 = 9, IN4148 = 16). I really don't have a
clue which ones to order. Does it matter? Do I just pick any one of
them and go?
Jon "Clueless and Cold in Minneapolis" Finley
N90MG Q2 - Subaru EJ-22 DD - 440 Hrs. TT - 0 Hrs Engine
Apple Valley, Minnesota
http://www.FinleyWeb.net/default.asp?id=96
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On
> Behalf Of Robert L. Nuckolls, III
> Sent: Tuesday, April 29, 2003 2:12 PM
> To: aeroelectric-list@matronics.com
> Subject: AeroElectric-List: Simple timer for low fuel warning . . .
>
>
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III"
> --> <bob.nuckolls@cox.net>
>
> What you're looking for is more than a simple timer . . . and
> a brief look at the replies on this topic didn't pick up on
> what's needed.
>
> A "flicker filter" is easy to implement in a little
> micro-controller for the lowest parts count . . . but unless
> you have access to the programming hardware and skills this
> could a low-return-on-investment approach. A pure discrete
> component approach is illustrated at:
>
> http://216.55.140.222/temp/Flicker_Filter.pdf
>
> All the parts are available from Digikey. Timing
> for turn-on and turn-off response is set by the
> 470K/22uF resistor/capacitor pairs. The constants
> shown give you about 11 seconds of delay for uninterrupted
> switch closure to turn the light on and the same delay of
> uninterrupted switch opening to turn the light back out.
>
> Bob . . .
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 |
|
| Subject: | Re: The Connection Z-13 questions |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls@cox.net>
At 12:37 AM 4/30/2003 -0400, you wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Treff, Arthur"
><Arthur.Treff@Smartm.com>
>
>'Letric Bob and the list,
>
>I'm configuring my RV-8 as an "all electric plane on a budget". The
>battery will be aft mounted for weight and balance considerations. I have
>the following questions.
>
>1) What size current limiter and ammeter shunt is suggested for a 40 amp
>alternator, Z-13 shows the values for a 60 amp alt.
40A for both devices.
>2) When mounting the battery in the rear of a metal airplane, it was
>suggested to me by a friend to ground the battery (-) to a local stout
>longeron, then to reconnect to that same longeron for the firewall ground
>forest of fast on tabs. I am leaning towards a common ground and running
>a seperate 2awg wire forward to the firewall to avoid ground loops. Your
>thoughts?
Bringing all fat feeders to the common ground point
is never a bad decision electrically. It depends on how
much one agonizes over the weight of 8' of 2AWG at
4 oz per foot for a total of 2#.
History of electrical systems in aviation have suggested
that structural parts of the airplane are best designed
for holding the airplane together and depending on them
for electrical pathways too is problematical. To be sure
a couple hundred thousand airplanes HAVE used structural
members for electrical tasks but if one is weighing perceptions
of relative goodness between two choices, my personal
approach would be to keep electrical and structural systems
independent of each other as much as practical.
I would use local grounds for lights in wings, strobe
power supplies and pitot heaters. These are not high
current systems and they are neither strong antagonists
nor potential victims for noise issues.
>3) In looking at Z-13, it seems to me that mounting the battery relay up
>on the firewall, instead of back on the battery mount, it simplifies the
>connection of the standby alternator to the battery side of the relay if
>it is firewall mounted, and shouldn't really matter to the battery if it's
>rear or front mounted, right? As long as the wire leading up to it is
>sized correctly.
See earlier post today on same question . . .
Are you going to have a battery bus? If so, you'll need
to run some wires back to the battery location to accommodate
battery bus powered systems, one more wire for the
aux alternator isn't that big of a deal.
>4) I am planning on integrating the lo cost GPU connection from the
>Connection and for safety mounting the Piper type recepticle in the
>rear. If my assumption of #3 above is correct and I do mount the battery
>relay up front on the firewall, would it be OK to connect the output of
>the GPU solenoid to the battery (+) instead of running another large wire
>forward to the battery relay?
I wouldn't do that. Battery contactor goes in tail with
battery and the ground power contactor can sit right beside
the battery contactor.
>5) In Z-13, there is a fuse between the Battery bus and the E bus switch
>and an additional fuseable link between the switch and the e bus. Why both?
The wire between battery bus and e-bus can be powered from EITHER
end. The purest would deduce that some form of protection needs
to be applied at each end of the feedpath. Since the e-bus alternate
feed switch is relatively close to the e-bus, fault risks to the
e-bus end are low . . . I'd probably not put a fuse or fuselink in
at the e-bus end. I've had some builders assign one of the e-bus
fuse slots as an power INPUT connection for the alternate feedpath.
If you've got a fuse slot open, this wouldn't be a bad thing to
do. You install the same size fuse at the e-bus end as you do for
the battery bus end.
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: RE: E.I. instruments need pampering? |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Neville Kilford" <nkilford@etravel.org>
Hello Bob,
I was following this discussion with interest. It seems to have gone quiet
now, and I'm wondering if you ever had a satisfactory response from the guys
at EI.
I'm keen to install the EI engine monitor, but worried about their claim that
units have been damaged in normal use. Assuming they are telling the truth,
and have had units returned after being damaged, can you suggest a suitable
arrangement for filtering the kind of electric surges they discuss, or is it
better simply to put the thing on a switched supply, as they suggest?
Thanks in anticipation.
Kind regards.
Neville Kilford
----- Original Message -----
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls@cox.net>
Subject: AeroElectric-List: RE: E.I. instruments need pampering?
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III"
<bob.nuckolls@cox.net>
>
> At 01:28 PM 4/3/2003 -0800, you wrote:
> >Robert L Nukolis III
> >Cc: Aeroelectric
> >
> >Gentlemen:
> >
> >Electronics International Inc. has been manufacturing aircraft instruments
> >for over 20 years and all of our instruments meet and/or exceed the TSO
C43a
> >standards set by the FAA. The UBG-16 instrument has an operating range of
> >7.5 to 30 volts and a 3/10 amp draw.
> >
> >As in a great number of modern instruments and radios, we are using a
fairly
> >sophisticated power supply to drive the gas plasma display and the circuit
> >boards. Since the aviation industry has not adopted the auto industry
> >technique of isolating instruments and accessories from the starting
circuit
> >during an engine start, there is a possibility of voltage spikes in excess
> >of 200 volts through the main bus during the engine start sequence.
During
> >the start sequence, approximately 100-300 amps is required by the starter.
> >This current produces a significantly large magnetic field. When the
field
> >collapses, a series of voltage pulses (or ringing) will occur on the bus.
A
> >low battery or an engine that is hard to start can aggravate the
situation,
> >which is markedly different for each aircraft.
>
> Is this a condition which is not addressed by the testing
> recommendations in DO-160?
>
> > Over 40 years ago, the
> >automotive industry adopted a starter switch that turns off all electrical
> >instruments as the key is turned to the start position. The aircraft
> >industry adopted the "Radio Bus" or "Avionics Bus" that allows all
> >electrical equipment not required during the start sequence to be turned
off
> >or otherwise isolated. This is the reason for the "pampered avionics bus"
> >that is required by Garmin, King, Apollo, STEC, ARNAV, UPS and virtually
all
> >manufactures of aviation instruments.
>
> Required or recommended?
>
> >The "perfectly normal" operating
> >condition in a single engine aircraft is well within the UBG-16 operating
> >range, but the starting sequence can cause problems for most sophisticated
> >electronic instruments.
>
> I was at Cessna when the avionics master switch was born. This was
> in the days of 30v germanium power transistors just finding their
> way into the radios of the time. They were indeed fragile
> devices. This was before DO-160 came along to guide
> us in designing electronics that would withstand
> any normal operation of the airplane's electrical system.
> Since that time, DO-160 has been through several revisions.
> It has been expanded to the extent that we're now advised as to how
> to stand off effects of lightning strokes to the airframe.
>
>
> >Electronics International Inc. manufactures over 40 different instruments.
> >The UBG-16 is the most complex of the product line and the only one that
we
> >recommend be isolated from the starting sequence.
>
>
> >Note: If you are operating any sophisticated electrical equipment in your
> >aircraft, you need to have a bus that is able to be isolated.
>
> Please define "sophisticated". Without a doubt I can design
> some relatively simple circuits that would be vulnerable to
> the stresses of ordinary operation . . . how many and what
> kind of parts must be combined before the circuit becomes
sophisticated?
>
> > You can
> >simply connect an appropriate switch between the main bus and the breakers
> >that drive the selected equipment to allow that equipment to be turned of
> >during engine start.
> >
> >We certainly feel that we are a capable supplier and that there are not
any
> >shortcomings in the design or fabrication of any of our instruments. If
you
> >feel that we could improve in one area or another, please feel free to
make
> >specific constructive suggestions.
>
>
> Can you identify the magnitude, duration and energy content
> of the stress that is antagonistic to your products?
> May I presume that you've confirmed that the starter
> is indeed a source of dangerous stresses and that
> the normal course of testing to DO-160 and/or TSO
> fails to account for this stress?
>
> If you can quantify the character of the stress for which
> you're unable to guarantee operation, I can be of assistance
> in designing an interface suited to protection of
> your product.
>
>
> >Thank you,
> >
> >David Campbell
> >Electronics International Inc.
> >63296 Powell Butte Highway
> >Bend, OR 97701
> >Phone: (541) 318-6060
> >Fax: (541) 318-7575
> >Web: www.Buy-Ei.com
>
>
> Your's truly,
>
> Bob Nuckolls
>
>
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: | Makita Battery Charger |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Eric M. Jones" <emjones@charter.net>
The OCR 3.15 probably stands for over current relay. Maybe the charger is A-OK,
maybe the battery has a problem.But if Chris Stones' suggestions don't find a
cell problem I have two suggestions: 1) Call a local Makita service center, and
maybe (?) they will sell you just the part. Sometime it just depends on who
you get to talk to. Ask for the gray-beard. 2) Ebay has 90 Makita battery chargers
for sale cheap. Just grab one. Probably cost you less than messing around.
Later,
Eric M. Jones
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: Mark Phillips <ripsteel@edge.net>
Bob-
I purchased your LVWM (12 volt) with the incandescent bulb option prior
to converting to all LEDs for my annunciator & panel lighting, and would
like to use it with the following LED bar module from DigiKey:
http://rocky.digikey.com/scripts/ProductInfo.dll?Site=US&V=404&M=MU04-4101
This is an array of 3 superbright LEDs molded into a plastic block.
I've have one of the red arrays powered up and intentionally overdriven
at 50 mA, measured with a Fluke VOM (180 ohm res, LEDs in series) to
determine longevity at an acceptable brightness level. Still fine after
a week continuous, but the resistor (1 watt) is running about 150
degrees according to thermographic scanning. My calculations indicate
this should actually be a 390 for 20 mA operation, but it is just too
dim at that current level. Duty cycle on this array should not be a
factor, as I hope to rarely see it lit!
Can I simply install this arrangement wired to the appropriate LVWM
terminals in place of the incandescent?
Also- sorry to nag ya about this, but curious as to progress on the
Audio Isolation Amplifier........
Thanks!
Mark Phillips - RV-6A - spaghetti on the front burner......
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: | Re: Simple timer for low fuel warning . . . |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls@cox.net>
At 11:07 PM 4/29/2003 -0400, you wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Robert McCallum
><robert.mccallum2@sympatico.ca>
>
>"Robert L. Nuckolls, III" wrote:
>A pure discrete component approach is illustrated at:
>
> > http://216.55.140.222/temp/Flicker_Filter.pdf
> >
> > Timing for turn-on and turn-off response is set by the
> > 470K/22uF resistor/capacitor pairs. The constants
> > shown give you about 11 seconds of delay
>
> > Bob . . .
> >
>
>The drawing at the location above has 470K/10uF resistor/capacitor
>pairs shown. Does the eleven seconds derive from replacing the 470/10
>with 470/22 ? or from the 470/10 as shown in the drawing??
Opps. . . I was laying out a board for this diagram
and downsized from 22uF to 10uf to save some cost and
boardspace . . . this means that the resistors would have
to be INCREASED to about 1 meg to get timing in the 10
second range with 10uF caps. Thanks for the heads up.
Bob . . .
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: RE: E.I. instruments need pampering? |
"Jim Younkin" <info@trutrakflightsystems.com>
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls@cox.net>
At 02:55 PM 4/30/2003 +0100, you wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Neville Kilford"
><nkilford@etravel.org>
>
>Hello Bob,
>
>I was following this discussion with interest. It seems to have gone quiet
>now, and I'm wondering if you ever had a satisfactory response from the guys
>at EI.
>
>I'm keen to install the EI engine monitor, but worried about their claim that
>units have been damaged in normal use. Assuming they are telling the truth,
>and have had units returned after being damaged, can you suggest a suitable
>arrangement for filtering the kind of electric surges they discuss, or is it
>better simply to put the thing on a switched supply, as they suggest?
>
>Thanks in anticipation.
Nope, haven't heard a peep since I my last message to
David Campbell on 4/3. I've not heard from Jim Younkin either.
It's typical. I've asked dozens of engineers with various
manufacturers of avionics to cite a justification for
cautionary recommendations about powering their products.
In most cases, conversations by e-mail and/or snail-mail
just peter out . . . they ignore me an hope I'll go away.
I'm working on a letter that I plan to send to every manufacturer
of avionics I can find and explain that I'm researching the
validity of DO-160 in its current state. If their engineering
staff can point out any data which demonstrates that DO-160
testing does NOT adequately account for transients from
starters or any other source, would they please share this
information.
I'm going to write an article to publish the results
of this survey that will include any new information I can
confirm by repeatable experiment or critical review of
a published article. I think it's time to get these folks
to either put up or shut up. If DO-160 is inadequate, then
there are a whole lot of folks who need to know about it.
If DO-160 is adequate, then they need to dump the antiquated
dogma crafted in years gone by. There is no excuse for
a modern supplier to operate with their head in the sand
on this issue. There are no secrets but lots of un-verifiable
stories.
When the letter goes out, I'll publish the list of folks
who got the letter. I'll also solicit suggestions from
you folks for suppliers I've missed. All correspondence
will be published on my website. After a suitable period
of time, I'll see if someone like Light Plane Maintenance
is interested in a formal article addressing this issue.
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 |
|
| Subject: | Simple timer for low fuel warning . . . |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls@cox.net>
At 07:57 AM 4/30/2003 -0500, you wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Jon Finley" <jon@finleyweb.net>
>
>Thanks for the circuit Bob!
>
>I'm a bit lost here. When I search for those part numbers (DigiKey) I
>get multiple results (CD4093 = 9, IN4148 = 16). I really don't have a
>clue which ones to order. Does it matter? Do I just pick any one of
>them and go?
Variations on a part number speak to packages. Some may
be surface mount, or rated at different operating temperatures
etc. You need to check the part number you're considering
against the package you're prepared to work with.
I'm working a board layout to use surface mount parts . . .
it's going to be quite small.
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: | Small Sealed Batteries |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: PTACKABURY@aol.com
Listers: I am building an all electric Lancair IV and am planning on a
single alternator, two same sized sealed battery system ala fig 17-6 in THE
BOOK and doing an annual battery rotation. I would like to get the batteries
off the firewall (which is already very crowded) and put them in a friendler
environment, like under the floor boards. So I am looking for the SMALLEST
size (weight is less a concern) battery suitable for the task with greater
than 13ahs. I would also like a battery that will be available for a while
as I do not want to rebuild a customized battery box each time I need to
replace a battery. Right now the best I have found is the Panasonic
LC-RD1217 17ah which measures 6.6x7.2x3 inches. Anyone out there know of a
smaller alternative? thanks, paul
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 |
|
| Subject: | Re: Small Sealed Batteries |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls@cox.net>
At 11:44 AM 4/30/2003 -0400, you wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: PTACKABURY@aol.com
>
>Listers: I am building an all electric Lancair IV and am planning on a
>single alternator, two same sized sealed battery system ala fig 17-6 in THE
>BOOK and doing an annual battery rotation. I would like to get the batteries
>off the firewall (which is already very crowded) and put them in a friendler
>environment, like under the floor boards.
with a 3" thickness, can you lay a 17 a.h. down on its
side and tuck it under the floor? This sounds pretty good
to me . . .
> So I am looking for the SMALLEST
>size (weight is less a concern) battery suitable for the task with greater
>than 13ahs. I would also like a battery that will be available for a while
>as I do not want to rebuild a customized battery box each time I need to
>replace a battery.
Why built any battery box . . . these things are happier outside
of an enclosure. Strap them down in a tray and let 'em breathe . . .
> Right now the best I have found is the Panasonic
>LC-RD1217 17ah which measures 6.6x7.2x3 inches. Anyone out there know of a
>smaller alternative? thanks, paul
The only cranking battery smaller is a 10 a.h. device by B&C that
is a unique, single-source product. The 17 a.h. battery you've
cited above is made by LOTS of folks.
Bob . . .
Bob . . .
--------------------------------------------
( Knowing about a thing is different than )
( understanding it. One can know a lot )
( and still understand nothing. )
( C.F. Kettering )
--------------------------------------------
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: Charlie & Tupper England <cengland@netdoor.com>
DHPHKH@aol.com wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: DHPHKH@aol.com
>
>Gang,
> Can somebody please tell me about "Audio Hi" and "Audio Lo" connections
>on radios and intercoms? Why Hi and Lo, what is the difference, what purpose
>is served, etc?
>
>Thanks
>Dan Horton
>
Typically, 'hi' is the actual signal and 'lo' is the return or 'ground'
for that signal.
It's possible that manufacturers are avoiding using the term 'ground'
because installers with 'a little learning' might assume that since the
various 'lo's' are all 'grounds', they can be combined in any convenient
fashion. If this is done, the probability of noisy operation with hums,
buzzes, etc is greatly increased.
Charlie
Message 18
| 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: The Connection Z-13 questions |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "LarryRobertHelming" <lhelming@sigecom.net>
> >5) In Z-13, there is a fuse between the Battery bus and the E bus
switch
> >and an additional fuseable link between the switch and the e bus. Why
both?
>
> The wire between battery bus and e-bus can be powered from EITHER
> end. The purest would deduce that some form of protection needs
> to be applied at each end of the feedpath.
How can e-buss be powered from either direction. The diode Between e-buss
and main buss should see to that.
Please explain because I'm not understanding.
Thanks,
Larry in Indiana, RV7 Tip-up O-360 3XG reserved.
Working on Canopy of Finish Kit
----- Original Message -----
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls@cox.net>
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: The Connection Z-13 questions
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III"
<bob.nuckolls@cox.net>
>
> At 12:37 AM 4/30/2003 -0400, you wrote:
> >--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Treff, Arthur"
> ><Arthur.Treff@Smartm.com>
> >
> >'Letric Bob and the list,
> >
> >I'm configuring my RV-8 as an "all electric plane on a budget". The
> >battery will be aft mounted for weight and balance considerations. I
have
> >the following questions.
> >
> >1) What size current limiter and ammeter shunt is suggested for a 40 amp
> >alternator, Z-13 shows the values for a 60 amp alt.
>
> 40A for both devices.
>
>
> >2) When mounting the battery in the rear of a metal airplane, it was
> >suggested to me by a friend to ground the battery (-) to a local stout
> >longeron, then to reconnect to that same longeron for the firewall ground
> >forest of fast on tabs. I am leaning towards a common ground and running
> >a seperate 2awg wire forward to the firewall to avoid ground loops. Your
> >thoughts?
>
> Bringing all fat feeders to the common ground point
> is never a bad decision electrically. It depends on how
> much one agonizes over the weight of 8' of 2AWG at
> 4 oz per foot for a total of 2#.
>
> History of electrical systems in aviation have suggested
> that structural parts of the airplane are best designed
> for holding the airplane together and depending on them
> for electrical pathways too is problematical. To be sure
> a couple hundred thousand airplanes HAVE used structural
> members for electrical tasks but if one is weighing perceptions
> of relative goodness between two choices, my personal
> approach would be to keep electrical and structural systems
> independent of each other as much as practical.
>
> I would use local grounds for lights in wings, strobe
> power supplies and pitot heaters. These are not high
> current systems and they are neither strong antagonists
> nor potential victims for noise issues.
>
>
> >3) In looking at Z-13, it seems to me that mounting the battery relay
up
> >on the firewall, instead of back on the battery mount, it simplifies the
> >connection of the standby alternator to the battery side of the relay if
> >it is firewall mounted, and shouldn't really matter to the battery if
it's
> >rear or front mounted, right? As long as the wire leading up to it is
> >sized correctly.
>
> See earlier post today on same question . . .
>
> Are you going to have a battery bus? If so, you'll need
> to run some wires back to the battery location to accommodate
> battery bus powered systems, one more wire for the
> aux alternator isn't that big of a deal.
>
> >4) I am planning on integrating the lo cost GPU connection from the
> >Connection and for safety mounting the Piper type recepticle in the
> >rear. If my assumption of #3 above is correct and I do mount the battery
> >relay up front on the firewall, would it be OK to connect the output of
> >the GPU solenoid to the battery (+) instead of running another large
wire
> >forward to the battery relay?
>
> I wouldn't do that. Battery contactor goes in tail with
> battery and the ground power contactor can sit right beside
> the battery contactor.
>
> >5) In Z-13, there is a fuse between the Battery bus and the E bus
switch
> >and an additional fuseable link between the switch and the e bus. Why
both?
>
> The wire between battery bus and e-bus can be powered from EITHER
> end. The purest would deduce that some form of protection needs
> to be applied at each end of the feedpath. Since the e-bus alternate
> feed switch is relatively close to the e-bus, fault risks to the
> e-bus end are low . . . I'd probably not put a fuse or fuselink in
> at the e-bus end. I've had some builders assign one of the e-bus
> fuse slots as an power INPUT connection for the alternate feedpath.
> If you've got a fuse slot open, this wouldn't be a bad thing to
> do. You install the same size fuse at the e-bus end as you do for
> the battery bus end.
>
> Bob . . .
>
>
Message 19
| 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: | Hall Sensor Mounting |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Jim Pack" <jpack@igs3.com>
Does anyone have any pictures (or good explanations) of how they mounted
thier Hall Sensor? It looks like a dangling dounught and I want to make
sure it is secured well.
- Jim
Message 20
| 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: The Connection Z-13 questions |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls@cox.net>
At 12:07 AM 5/1/2003 -0400, you wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "LarryRobertHelming"
><lhelming@sigecom.net>
>
> > >5) In Z-13, there is a fuse between the Battery bus and the E bus
>switch
> > >and an additional fuseable link between the switch and the e bus. Why
>both?
> >
> > The wire between battery bus and e-bus can be powered from EITHER
> > end. The purest would deduce that some form of protection needs
> > to be applied at each end of the feedpath.
>
>How can e-buss be powered from either direction. The diode Between e-buss
>and main buss should see to that.
>
>Please explain because I'm not understanding.
The wire that runs from the battery bus through the
alternate feed switch and to the e-bus can get power
from EITHER the e-bus OR the battery. I.e., sourced from
either end. If you're going to protect this wire from
ALL potential faults to ground, you put protection in
BOTH ends . . .
Bob . . .
Message 21
| 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: Battery Contactor - Location? |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Jeffrey" <dump@relaypoint.net>
Are you suggesting that putting the batteries behind the seats is a bad
idea, because of the long wire runs, or putting the contactors on the
firewall with the batteries behind the seat is a bad idea??? A lot of
RV-8's with 200 horsepower engines I remember have to put batteries behind
the seats for ballast.
I don't envy the idea of doing something that is not sound.
Jeff
(RV-8 Wings)
----- Original Message -----
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls@cox.net>
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Battery Contactor - Location?
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III"
<bob.nuckolls@cox.net>
>
>
> >Any way, while doing the diagram I started thinking that I'd like to put
> >the battery contactor on or near the firewall. However, my battery is
> >located just behind the seats so I was worried that since I've seen it
> >mentioned that the battery contactor should be within 12 inches or so of
> >the battery that I was violating some golden rule. However, the only
> >reason I could find for placing the contactor so close to the battery
> >was a possible safety issue of having a large current HOT wire running
> >through half the plane.
> >
> >If this is so, how much of safety issue is it? Are there any other
> >reasons for placing the contactor next to the battery?
>
> I suppose there are folks who would endeavor to assign
> qualifiers of magnitude on an answer, e.g. "Running
> a 10' long always hot battery feeder to a remotely mounted
> contactor is 15.9 times more likely to set your bunnies on
> fire in a crash than a feeder that is 1 foot long".
> Suppose I had a rational for such a statement, would
> this have any useful meaning for you in making your
> architecture decision? If I tossed a number out, how
> would you select a decision-making value? 4.2 times more
> likely? 7.3 times more likely?
>
> It's an intuitive and inarguable fact that minimizing
> both the number, lengths and potential for high fault
> currents in always-hot feeders is a "good" thing to do. Bottom
> line is that you need to evaluate your own perceptions of
> goodness against perceptions of convenience. I wouldn't
> do what you propose in my airplane. You wouldn't get
> it certified in a Cessna either . . .
>
> Bob . . .
>
>
Message 22
| 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: Battery Contactor - Location? |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Phil Birkelbach" <phil@petrasoft.net>
The issue as I understand it (and take that for what it's worth) is that you
want to avoid long runs of wire from which you cannot remove power. If the
battery is behind the seat and the contactor is on the firewall then there
is a long wire that is always hot no matter what you do with the master
switch. If you put the contactor near the battery then when you turn the
master off you simply have a short fat wire that is hot but is easily
contained and has less chance of arcing on something and causing a fire
during / after a 'not-so-good' landing.
If it were me and I had to decide on a battery that was located behind me I
would make sure that it was very well secured because I want that thing to
stay put if I ever have one of those 'landings.' If it is on the firewall
it will be heading away from me if it comes loose, but behind the seat it
will be headed for me (or my passenger). Bolt it down solid, use an RG
battery that won't spill acid all over you and put the contactor as close as
possible to the battery and I can't think of any reason why having it in the
back would cause you any grief.
Godspeed,
Phil Birkelbach - Houston Texas
RV-7 N727WB (Reserved) - Fuselage
http://www.myrv7.com
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jeffrey" <dump@relaypoint.net>
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Battery Contactor - Location?
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Jeffrey" <dump@relaypoint.net>
>
> Are you suggesting that putting the batteries behind the seats is a bad
> idea, because of the long wire runs, or putting the contactors on the
> firewall with the batteries behind the seat is a bad idea??? A lot of
> RV-8's with 200 horsepower engines I remember have to put batteries behind
> the seats for ballast.
>
> I don't envy the idea of doing something that is not sound.
>
> Jeff
> (RV-8 Wings)
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls@cox.net>
> To: <aeroelectric-list@matronics.com>
> Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Battery Contactor - Location?
>
>
> > --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III"
> <bob.nuckolls@cox.net>
> >
> >
> > >Any way, while doing the diagram I started thinking that I'd like to
put
> > >the battery contactor on or near the firewall. However, my battery is
> > >located just behind the seats so I was worried that since I've seen it
> > >mentioned that the battery contactor should be within 12 inches or so
of
> > >the battery that I was violating some golden rule. However, the only
> > >reason I could find for placing the contactor so close to the battery
> > >was a possible safety issue of having a large current HOT wire running
> > >through half the plane.
> > >
> > >If this is so, how much of safety issue is it? Are there any other
> > >reasons for placing the contactor next to the battery?
> >
> > I suppose there are folks who would endeavor to assign
> > qualifiers of magnitude on an answer, e.g. "Running
> > a 10' long always hot battery feeder to a remotely mounted
> > contactor is 15.9 times more likely to set your bunnies on
> > fire in a crash than a feeder that is 1 foot long".
> > Suppose I had a rational for such a statement, would
> > this have any useful meaning for you in making your
> > architecture decision? If I tossed a number out, how
> > would you select a decision-making value? 4.2 times more
> > likely? 7.3 times more likely?
> >
> > It's an intuitive and inarguable fact that minimizing
> > both the number, lengths and potential for high fault
> > currents in always-hot feeders is a "good" thing to do. Bottom
> > line is that you need to evaluate your own perceptions of
> > goodness against perceptions of convenience. I wouldn't
> > do what you propose in my airplane. You wouldn't get
> > it certified in a Cessna either . . .
> >
> > Bob . . .
> >
> >
>
>
Message 23
| 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: | Battery Contactor - Location? |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Livingston John W Civ ASC/ENFD <John.Livingston@wpafb.af.mil>
As a rule of thumb one should design items in the fuselage to withstand at least
10 forward g's, (I'm not sure what the FAR's currently say) since this is a
very survivable load for a well belted pilot. So, for a 20lb battery withstanding
10 g's with a typical safety factor of 1.5, we have a load of 300 lbs. Not
hard to do, but very important if you want to walk away from a crash. Same goes
for anything in the fuselage, but most importantly for things behind you.
John
-----Original Message-----
From: Phil Birkelbach [mailto:phil@petrasoft.net]
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Battery Contactor - Location?
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Phil Birkelbach" <phil@petrasoft.net>
The issue as I understand it (and take that for what it's worth) is that you
want to avoid long runs of wire from which you cannot remove power. If the
battery is behind the seat and the contactor is on the firewall then there
is a long wire that is always hot no matter what you do with the master
switch. If you put the contactor near the battery then when you turn the
master off you simply have a short fat wire that is hot but is easily
contained and has less chance of arcing on something and causing a fire
during / after a 'not-so-good' landing.
If it were me and I had to decide on a battery that was located behind me I
would make sure that it was very well secured because I want that thing to
stay put if I ever have one of those 'landings.' If it is on the firewall
it will be heading away from me if it comes loose, but behind the seat it
will be headed for me (or my passenger). Bolt it down solid, use an RG
battery that won't spill acid all over you and put the contactor as close as
possible to the battery and I can't think of any reason why having it in the
back would cause you any grief.
Godspeed,
Phil Birkelbach - Houston Texas
RV-7 N727WB (Reserved) - Fuselage
http://www.myrv7.com
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jeffrey" <dump@relaypoint.net>
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Battery Contactor - Location?
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Jeffrey" <dump@relaypoint.net>
>
> Are you suggesting that putting the batteries behind the seats is a bad
> idea, because of the long wire runs, or putting the contactors on the
> firewall with the batteries behind the seat is a bad idea??? A lot of
> RV-8's with 200 horsepower engines I remember have to put batteries behind
> the seats for ballast.
>
> I don't envy the idea of doing something that is not sound.
>
> Jeff
> (RV-8 Wings)
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls@cox.net>
> To: <aeroelectric-list@matronics.com>
> Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Battery Contactor - Location?
>
>
> > --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III"
> <bob.nuckolls@cox.net>
> >
> >
> > >Any way, while doing the diagram I started thinking that I'd like to
put
> > >the battery contactor on or near the firewall. However, my battery is
> > >located just behind the seats so I was worried that since I've seen it
> > >mentioned that the battery contactor should be within 12 inches or so
of
> > >the battery that I was violating some golden rule. However, the only
> > >reason I could find for placing the contactor so close to the battery
> > >was a possible safety issue of having a large current HOT wire running
> > >through half the plane.
> > >
> > >If this is so, how much of safety issue is it? Are there any other
> > >reasons for placing the contactor next to the battery?
> >
> > I suppose there are folks who would endeavor to assign
> > qualifiers of magnitude on an answer, e.g. "Running
> > a 10' long always hot battery feeder to a remotely mounted
> > contactor is 15.9 times more likely to set your bunnies on
> > fire in a crash than a feeder that is 1 foot long".
> > Suppose I had a rational for such a statement, would
> > this have any useful meaning for you in making your
> > architecture decision? If I tossed a number out, how
> > would you select a decision-making value? 4.2 times more
> > likely? 7.3 times more likely?
> >
> > It's an intuitive and inarguable fact that minimizing
> > both the number, lengths and potential for high fault
> > currents in always-hot feeders is a "good" thing to do. Bottom
> > line is that you need to evaluate your own perceptions of
> > goodness against perceptions of convenience. I wouldn't
> > do what you propose in my airplane. You wouldn't get
> > it certified in a Cessna either . . .
> >
> > Bob . . .
> >
> >
>
>
Message 24
| 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: Battery Contactor - Location? |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls@cox.net>
At 11:09 AM 4/30/2003 -0700, you wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Jeffrey" <dump@relaypoint.net>
>
>Are you suggesting that putting the batteries behind the seats is a bad
>idea, because of the long wire runs, or putting the contactors on the
>firewall with the batteries behind the seat is a bad idea??? A lot of
>RV-8's with 200 horsepower engines I remember have to put batteries behind
>the seats for ballast.
>
>I don't envy the idea of doing something that is not sound.
Not at all . . . your question had to do with location
of battery contactor. You can mount the battery in any
location you like as dictated by volume, weight, available
structure to attach and weight/balance issues. Indeed,
batteries are found all over light aircraft. A friend
of mine has a BD-4 with large engine and constant speed
prop . . . his battery is literally inches in front of
leading edge of stabilizer.
Wherever the battery goes, battery contactor and battery
bus are best located nearby for greatest crash safety.
Consider also that a 15 pound battery needs to have tie-
down good for at least 10x weight or 150 lbs. A couple
of 1" web straps with 6" of over-lapped Velcro is a
mechanic friendly technique for holding the battery in
its tray.
Bob . . .
Message 25
| 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: DHPHKH@aol.com
<<Typically, 'hi' is the actual signal and 'lo' is the return or 'ground' for that
signal.>>
Which explains why some diagrams show shields connected to "Lo". Thanks Charlie.
Dan
Message 26
| 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: | Battery Contactor - Location? |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Don Honabach" <don@pcperfect.com>
Bob,
Thanks for the good information and explanation. I definitely appreciate
your efforts to not only answer questions but explain the reasons behind
the answers.
Regards,
Don
-----Original Message-----
From: Phil Birkelbach [mailto:phil@petrasoft.net]
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Battery Contactor - Location?
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Phil Birkelbach"
--> <phil@petrasoft.net>
The issue as I understand it (and take that for what it's worth) is that
you want to avoid long runs of wire from which you cannot remove power.
If the battery is behind the seat and the contactor is on the firewall
then there is a long wire that is always hot no matter what you do with
the master switch. If you put the contactor near the battery then when
you turn the master off you simply have a short fat wire that is hot but
is easily contained and has less chance of arcing on something and
causing a fire during / after a 'not-so-good' landing.
If it were me and I had to decide on a battery that was located behind
me I would make sure that it was very well secured because I want that
thing to stay put if I ever have one of those 'landings.' If it is on
the firewall it will be heading away from me if it comes loose, but
behind the seat it will be headed for me (or my passenger). Bolt it
down solid, use an RG battery that won't spill acid all over you and put
the contactor as close as possible to the battery and I can't think of
any reason why having it in the back would cause you any grief.
Godspeed,
Phil Birkelbach - Houston Texas
RV-7 N727WB (Reserved) - Fuselage
http://www.myrv7.com
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jeffrey" <dump@relaypoint.net>
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Battery Contactor - Location?
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Jeffrey"
> --> <dump@relaypoint.net>
>
> Are you suggesting that putting the batteries behind the seats is a
> bad idea, because of the long wire runs, or putting the contactors on
> the firewall with the batteries behind the seat is a bad idea??? A
> lot of RV-8's with 200 horsepower engines I remember have to put
> batteries behind the seats for ballast.
>
> I don't envy the idea of doing something that is not sound.
>
> Jeff
> (RV-8 Wings)
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls@cox.net>
> To: <aeroelectric-list@matronics.com>
> Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Battery Contactor - Location?
>
>
> > --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III"
> <bob.nuckolls@cox.net>
> >
> >
> > >Any way, while doing the diagram I started thinking that I'd like
> > >to
put
> > >the battery contactor on or near the firewall. However, my battery
> > >is located just behind the seats so I was worried that since I've
> > >seen it mentioned that the battery contactor should be within 12
> > >inches or so
of
> > >the battery that I was violating some golden rule. However, the
> > >only reason I could find for placing the contactor so close to the
> > >battery was a possible safety issue of having a large current HOT
> > >wire running through half the plane.
> > >
> > >If this is so, how much of safety issue is it? Are there any other
> > >reasons for placing the contactor next to the battery?
> >
> > I suppose there are folks who would endeavor to assign
> > qualifiers of magnitude on an answer, e.g. "Running
> > a 10' long always hot battery feeder to a remotely mounted
> > contactor is 15.9 times more likely to set your bunnies on
> > fire in a crash than a feeder that is 1 foot long".
> > Suppose I had a rational for such a statement, would
> > this have any useful meaning for you in making your
> > architecture decision? If I tossed a number out, how
> > would you select a decision-making value? 4.2 times more
> > likely? 7.3 times more likely?
> >
> > It's an intuitive and inarguable fact that minimizing
> > both the number, lengths and potential for high fault
> > currents in always-hot feeders is a "good" thing to do. Bottom
> > line is that you need to evaluate your own perceptions of
> > goodness against perceptions of convenience. I wouldn't
> > do what you propose in my airplane. You wouldn't get
> > it certified in a Cessna either . . .
> >
> > Bob . . .
> >
> >
>
>
direct advertising on the Matronics Forums.
Message 27
| 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: Battery Contactor - Location? |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Scott Bilinski <bilinski@kyocera-wireless.com>
I must agree that the battery MUST be held in place to with stand I would
think at least 15 G's if not 20. The last thing you want is that battery
breaking loose during an unfortunate off field landing/crash and then
turning into a projectile.
At 01:44 PM 4/30/03 -0500, you wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Phil Birkelbach"
<phil@petrasoft.net>
>
>The issue as I understand it (and take that for what it's worth) is that you
>want to avoid long runs of wire from which you cannot remove power. If the
>battery is behind the seat and the contactor is on the firewall then there
>is a long wire that is always hot no matter what you do with the master
>switch. If you put the contactor near the battery then when you turn the
>master off you simply have a short fat wire that is hot but is easily
>contained and has less chance of arcing on something and causing a fire
>during / after a 'not-so-good' landing.
>
>If it were me and I had to decide on a battery that was located behind me I
>would make sure that it was very well secured because I want that thing to
>stay put if I ever have one of those 'landings.' If it is on the firewall
>it will be heading away from me if it comes loose, but behind the seat it
>will be headed for me (or my passenger). Bolt it down solid, use an RG
>battery that won't spill acid all over you and put the contactor as close as
>possible to the battery and I can't think of any reason why having it in the
>back would cause you any grief.
>
>Godspeed,
>
>Phil Birkelbach - Houston Texas
>RV-7 N727WB (Reserved) - Fuselage
>http://www.myrv7.com
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "Jeffrey" <dump@relaypoint.net>
>To: <aeroelectric-list@matronics.com>
>Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Battery Contactor - Location?
>
>
>> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Jeffrey" <dump@relaypoint.net>
>>
>> Are you suggesting that putting the batteries behind the seats is a bad
>> idea, because of the long wire runs, or putting the contactors on the
>> firewall with the batteries behind the seat is a bad idea??? A lot of
>> RV-8's with 200 horsepower engines I remember have to put batteries behind
>> the seats for ballast.
>>
>> I don't envy the idea of doing something that is not sound.
>>
>> Jeff
>> (RV-8 Wings)
>>
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls@cox.net>
>> To: <aeroelectric-list@matronics.com>
>> Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Battery Contactor - Location?
>>
>>
>> > --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III"
>> <bob.nuckolls@cox.net>
>> >
>> >
>> > >Any way, while doing the diagram I started thinking that I'd like to
>put
>> > >the battery contactor on or near the firewall. However, my battery is
>> > >located just behind the seats so I was worried that since I've seen it
>> > >mentioned that the battery contactor should be within 12 inches or so
>of
>> > >the battery that I was violating some golden rule. However, the only
>> > >reason I could find for placing the contactor so close to the battery
>> > >was a possible safety issue of having a large current HOT wire running
>> > >through half the plane.
>> > >
>> > >If this is so, how much of safety issue is it? Are there any other
>> > >reasons for placing the contactor next to the battery?
>> >
>> > I suppose there are folks who would endeavor to assign
>> > qualifiers of magnitude on an answer, e.g. "Running
>> > a 10' long always hot battery feeder to a remotely mounted
>> > contactor is 15.9 times more likely to set your bunnies on
>> > fire in a crash than a feeder that is 1 foot long".
>> > Suppose I had a rational for such a statement, would
>> > this have any useful meaning for you in making your
>> > architecture decision? If I tossed a number out, how
>> > would you select a decision-making value? 4.2 times more
>> > likely? 7.3 times more likely?
>> >
>> > It's an intuitive and inarguable fact that minimizing
>> > both the number, lengths and potential for high fault
>> > currents in always-hot feeders is a "good" thing to do. Bottom
>> > line is that you need to evaluate your own perceptions of
>> > goodness against perceptions of convenience. I wouldn't
>> > do what you propose in my airplane. You wouldn't get
>> > it certified in a Cessna either . . .
>> >
>> > Bob . . .
>> >
>> >
>>
>>
>
>
Scott Bilinski
Eng dept 305
Phone (858) 657-2536
Pager (858) 502-5190
Message 28
| 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: TimRhod@aol.com
Bob Could you explain why Z15B is not a good Idea.=A0=A0=A0 That particular
architecture would work well for the velocity where the #2AWG runs in a duct
from firewall through canard bulkhead right to the batteries. A seperate #
4AWG could come from the panel ground block on the panel and to the batteries
via a different route.=A0 If you dont recommend this then I would have to cut
through the duct inside the cabin behind the panel run the #2 wire up to the
panel ground presumable on the panel and then back down into the duct to go
to the battery. It would be a lot of heavy wire inside the cabin and onto the
panel.=A0 Is there a better way I'm not seeing?=A0=A0=A0=A0 Thanks Tim
Z-15B is not a good idea and will be revised at next revision
=A0 to bring battery and 2AWG engine grounds together at the
=A0 ground bus.
Message 29
| 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: "Gilles.Thesee" <Gilles.Thesee@ac-grenoble.fr>
Bob and all,
A fellow builder just sent me a CD Rom with a copy of an 'IEEE guide for
aircraft electric systems' in pdf format.
Most interesting. a few pages missing though.
FWIW,
Regards
Gilles
Message 30
| 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: Battery Contactor - Location? |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: John Schroeder <jschroeder@perigee.net>
Jeff -
Bob has stated a number of times: Put the battery(ies) in the back if
needed for ballast. Or up front (canard) for ballast. Just put the
contactor for each battery very near to the battery. Just use 2AWG from the
batteries up to the firewall. Might get by with 4AWG if the battery
capacity/wire length compute out OK.
John
Lancair ES wi/ batteries way back in the tail.
> Are you suggesting that putting the batteries behind the seats is a bad
> idea, because of the long wire runs, or putting the contactors on the
> firewall with the batteries behind the seat is a bad idea??? A lot of
> RV-8's with 200 horsepower engines I remember have to put batteries
> behind
> the seats for ballast.
>
>
Message 31
| 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: E.I. instruments need pampering? "Jim Younkin" |
<info@trutrakflightsystems.com>
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "David Carter" <dcarter@datarecall.net>
Excellent plan, Bob. This effort will result in a mixture of good responses
and some silence from some corners, but overall, it is bound to generate
enough heat and pressure to do some good. I really like your intelligent
sense of initiative, responsibility, and integrity.
David Carter
----- Original Message -----
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls@cox.net>
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: RE: E.I. instruments need pampering? "Jim
Younkin" <info@trutrakflightsystems.com>
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III"
<bob.nuckolls@cox.net>
>
> At 02:55 PM 4/30/2003 +0100, you wrote:
> >--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Neville Kilford"
> ><nkilford@etravel.org>
> >
> >Hello Bob,
> >
> >I was following this discussion with interest. It seems to have gone
quiet
> >now, and I'm wondering if you ever had a satisfactory response from the
guys
> >at EI.
> >
> >I'm keen to install the EI engine monitor, but worried about their claim
that
> >units have been damaged in normal use. Assuming they are telling the
truth,
> >and have had units returned after being damaged, can you suggest a
suitable
> >arrangement for filtering the kind of electric surges they discuss, or is
it
> >better simply to put the thing on a switched supply, as they suggest?
> >
> >Thanks in anticipation.
>
> Nope, haven't heard a peep since I my last message to
> David Campbell on 4/3. I've not heard from Jim Younkin either.
>
> It's typical. I've asked dozens of engineers with various
> manufacturers of avionics to cite a justification for
> cautionary recommendations about powering their products.
> In most cases, conversations by e-mail and/or snail-mail
> just peter out . . . they ignore me an hope I'll go away.
>
> I'm working on a letter that I plan to send to every manufacturer
> of avionics I can find and explain that I'm researching the
> validity of DO-160 in its current state. If their engineering
> staff can point out any data which demonstrates that DO-160
> testing does NOT adequately account for transients from
> starters or any other source, would they please share this
> information.
>
> I'm going to write an article to publish the results
> of this survey that will include any new information I can
> confirm by repeatable experiment or critical review of
> a published article. I think it's time to get these folks
> to either put up or shut up. If DO-160 is inadequate, then
> there are a whole lot of folks who need to know about it.
>
> If DO-160 is adequate, then they need to dump the antiquated
> dogma crafted in years gone by. There is no excuse for
> a modern supplier to operate with their head in the sand
> on this issue. There are no secrets but lots of un-verifiable
> stories.
>
> When the letter goes out, I'll publish the list of folks
> who got the letter. I'll also solicit suggestions from
> you folks for suppliers I've missed. All correspondence
> will be published on my website. After a suitable period
> of time, I'll see if someone like Light Plane Maintenance
> is interested in a formal article addressing this issue.
>
> Bob . . .
>
Message 32
| 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: Battery Contactor - Location? |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Jeffrey" <dump@relaypoint.net>
Thanks everyone, that sure is re-assuring.
Jeff
(RV-8 Wings)
----- Original Message -----
From: "John Schroeder" <jschroeder@perigee.net>
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Battery Contactor - Location?
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: John Schroeder
<jschroeder@perigee.net>
>
> Jeff -
>
> Bob has stated a number of times: Put the battery(ies) in the back if
> needed for ballast. Or up front (canard) for ballast. Just put the
> contactor for each battery very near to the battery. Just use 2AWG from
the
> batteries up to the firewall. Might get by with 4AWG if the battery
> capacity/wire length compute out OK.
>
> John
> Lancair ES wi/ batteries way back in the tail.
>
>
> > Are you suggesting that putting the batteries behind the seats is a bad
> > idea, because of the long wire runs, or putting the contactors on the
> > firewall with the batteries behind the seat is a bad idea??? A lot of
> > RV-8's with 200 horsepower engines I remember have to put batteries
> > behind
> > the seats for ballast.
> >
> >
>
>
Message 33
| 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: | Simple timer for low fuel warning . . . |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: John Loram <johnl@loram.org>
Hi Jon; It's best to pick the cheapest one... It will be easier to explane
(pun?) to Pamela ;-)
Seriously, there may be some packaging/case differences which you'll want to
consider (usually designated by one or more letter following the main part
number). In some cases the temperature range over which the part may be used
is partly controlled by the packaging. You can go with the most limited
temperature range which is often designated 'P' or 'N' for plastic
packaging. For hand built stuff it's usually best to use "DIP" (Dual Inline
Plastic) packages rather than the tiny surface mount packages. So, using
your example; the CD4093B (the 'B' is part of the part number that is often
left off these days because the earlier 'A' model is no longer available) in
the DIP package/case from Texas Instruments is Digi-Key part number
296-2068-5-ND.
The 1N4148 (that's a leading number one (1) not I ('eye')) will be most
useful in the axial lead form so use the DO-35 packaging/case.
By the way, most all of these components are probably available at your
local Radio Shack store where you will be able to fondle them first, before
you buy. Then you be able to buy all the other stuff... perf-board or
copper-clad, terminal lugs, sockets, bits and pieces of the very small gauge
wire, rosin core solder, spaghetti (insulation), ... etc., etc., etc.
Regards, -john-
-----Original Message-----
From: Jon Finley [mailto:jon@finleyweb.net]
Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Simple timer for low fuel warning . . .
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Jon Finley" <jon@finleyweb.net>
Thanks for the circuit Bob!
I'm a bit lost here. When I search for those part numbers (DigiKey) I
get multiple results (CD4093 = 9, IN4148 = 16). I really don't have a
clue which ones to order. Does it matter? Do I just pick any one of
them and go?
Jon "Clueless and Cold in Minneapolis" Finley
N90MG Q2 - Subaru EJ-22 DD - 440 Hrs. TT - 0 Hrs Engine
Apple Valley, Minnesota
http://www.FinleyWeb.net/default.asp?id=96
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On
> Behalf Of Robert L. Nuckolls, III
> Sent: Tuesday, April 29, 2003 2:12 PM
> To: aeroelectric-list@matronics.com
> Subject: AeroElectric-List: Simple timer for low fuel warning . . .
>
>
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III"
> --> <bob.nuckolls@cox.net>
>
> What you're looking for is more than a simple timer . . . and
> a brief look at the replies on this topic didn't pick up on
> what's needed.
>
> A "flicker filter" is easy to implement in a little
> micro-controller for the lowest parts count . . . but unless
> you have access to the programming hardware and skills this
> could a low-return-on-investment approach. A pure discrete
> component approach is illustrated at:
>
> http://216.55.140.222/temp/Flicker_Filter.pdf
>
> All the parts are available from Digikey. Timing
> for turn-on and turn-off response is set by the
> 470K/22uF resistor/capacitor pairs. The constants
> shown give you about 11 seconds of delay for uninterrupted
> switch closure to turn the light on and the same delay of
> uninterrupted switch opening to turn the light back out.
>
> Bob . . .
Message 34
| 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: Battery Contactor - Location? |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls@cox.net>
At 01:13 PM 4/30/2003 -0700, you wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Scott Bilinski
><bilinski@kyocera-wireless.com>
>
>I must agree that the battery MUST be held in place to with stand I would
>think at least 15 G's if not 20. The last thing you want is that battery
>breaking loose during an unfortunate off field landing/crash and then
>turning into a projectile.
. . . there used to be a retired highway patrol officer
who managed to passed himself off as an expert in accident
analysis. After all, in 25+ years of service as a peace
officer, he had "investigated" plenty of accidents. I ran
across a number of his presentations over the years that
I worked in accident analysis with Ken Razak here in Wichita.
The officer acquired a nickname in the trade . . . "20G
Stackley". No matter how vehicles came together in the various
accidents, 20G's would show up in his calculations somewhere
on nearly every case . . . it seemed like a good round number,
why not make the best of it?
When you figure that your airplane weighs about 1000 pounds
and has to put 10,000 pounds of retarding force into the
mass to produce a 10G slowing acceleration . . . exactly
what part of your airplane would you expect to resist with
this 10,000 pound force?
As it turns out, the crumpling up of metal during a crash
has to occur because no part of the airplane can maintain
its shape with a 10,000 pound push . . . 20,000 pounds of
push are equally un-achievable.
For crash safety, DO-160 calls out qualifying your
attachment hardware and brackets to 10G and that
represents a conservative value . . . the vast majority
of airframe structure and internal components are never
subjected to anything approaching 10G in a survivable
crash. Now, drive your airplane into a mountainside
at 200kts and you can count on things seeing a lot
more than 10G . . . but it doesn't matter much. In that
case, if your battery doesn't kill you, the mountain
most certainly will.
Bob . . .
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! --
|