Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 06:12 AM - Re: Cont VS Bendix injection systems (Gary Casey)
2. 06:19 AM - Re: engine hot starting and more on batteries (Brian Lloyd)
3. 06:24 AM - Re: Automotive Landing Lights? (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
4. 06:47 AM - Re: Cont VS Bendix injection systems (Brian Lloyd)
5. 07:00 AM - Re: Cont VS Bendix injection systems (Brian Lloyd)
6. 07:03 AM - Re: Battery data and etc (Brian Lloyd)
7. 07:03 AM - Re: Battery data and etc (Brian Lloyd)
8. 07:05 AM - Re: engine hot starting and more on (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
9. 07:10 AM - Re: wiring security (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
10. 07:49 AM - Heat tolerance of batteries (Jerry2DT@aol.com)
11. 08:28 AM - Re: Heat tolerance of batteries (Ralph E. Capen)
12. 08:29 AM - Re: Automotive Landing Lights? (Rob Housman)
13. 09:04 AM - Re: Heat tolerance of batteries (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
14. 09:21 AM - Noise problems with JPI EDM-900 and autopilot (Jeff Hildebrand)
15. 09:22 AM - OV Module going bad? (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
16. 10:23 AM - Z-14 Dual Alternators - Shunts & ANL's (John Schroeder)
17. 11:02 AM - Re: Noise problems with JPI EDM-900 and autopilot (Trampas)
18. 01:28 PM - Re: wiring security (erie)
19. 01:48 PM - Re: Noise problems with JPI EDM-900 and autopilot (Jeff Hildebrand)
20. 04:42 PM - Low voltage on Main Bus (Charlie)
21. 05:06 PM - Re: Low voltage on Main Bus pts rule name description ---- ---------------------- ------------------------------------------- (Ralph E. Capen)
22. 05:16 PM - Re: Automotive Landing Lights? (Benford2@aol.com)
23. 05:18 PM - Re: Low voltage on Main Bus pts rule name description ---- ---------------------- ------------------------------------------- (Jerzy Krasinski)
24. 08:16 PM - Re: Automotive Landing Lights? (Rob Housman)
25. 09:12 PM - Re: Automotive Landing Lights? (Joemotis@aol.com)
26. 09:32 PM - Re: Automotive Landing Lights? (BobsV35B@aol.com)
27. 11:11 PM - ND Alternator repair (David Chalmers)
Message 1
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Cont VS Bendix injection systems |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Gary Casey" <glcasey@adelphia.net>
I feel the need to comment on some of Paul's observations regarding the
Continental vs. "Bendix" fuel injection systems. There is no electrical
content here, so pardon us:
<<The engine driven pump is a Positive displacement pump and is able to use
an
Aux pump with no change in performance. (no concern about HI or LOW pump
setting or changes in mixture with aux on or off)
The pump output pressure is independent of altitude or ambient air
conditions.>>
I believe the opposite is true - the fuel flow in the Bendix system is
independent of inlet pressure until it is insufficient for full flow (about
15 psi), while the flow in the Continental system is sensitive to inlet
pressure and there have been accidents caused by the pilot incorrectly
choosing between high and low boost pump settings. In fact, if the mixture
is observed to change when the boost pump is turned on it should be
considered a defect. One important difference - the fuel flow rate in the
Continental system is also independent of another thing - the air flow into
the engine. The fuel flow in the Bendix system is inherently proportional
to air flow and independent of engine speed and inlet pressure. The
Continental system (unless the altitude-compensated version is used) does
not compensate for air density, while the fuel flow in the Bendix system is
proportional to the square root of inlet air density, essentially half
correcting for altitude and inlet air temperature. And the idle fuel flow
control is essentially the same in both systems, being a function of
throttle position, not air flow.
<<The pump has a built in bypass as well as a built-in Vapor separator and
fuel
return to the tank requirement. The aux pump can flush and replace hot fuel
with cool fuel.
Bendix system cannot flush the fuel past the firewall as there is no fuel
return setup. In a hot start condition a significant amount of fuel must be
purged from the system and out the exhaust before the engine can run.
In the Cont system the aux pump can purge all the fuel except the small
amount in the line to and the lines from the flow divider. This is estimated
to be 80% or more of the total fuel in the engine compartment (there is
really only a very small amount of fuel in the non purgable part of the
system). Thus the Cont design greatly reduces the amount of hot fuel that
must be disposed of in a hot start.>>
True, except that the Continental system doesn't purge fuel all the way to
the spider, but to the fuel control valve. The Bendix system relies on
pressure being maintained between the pump and within the fuel control servo
to prevent boiling in that area. If the pressure bleeds off after shutdown
there is a problem in the fuel pump that should be corrected. And hot fuel
doesn't cause the problem - it is the fuel vapor that is the issue. In both
systems it can be assumed that all the fuel in the spider is boiled out, and
the residual fuel from the distributor back to the fuel control valve may or
may not be partially vapor.
And I think Paul mistyped - all Continental engines have the Continental
system except for those where the customer insisted on the Bendix system (I
think the Beech Duke is one of those). I don't know of a single case where
a Lycoming buyer selected the Continental system even though the Bendix
system, now manufactured by Precision Airmotive, has no corporate ties to
Lycoming. Yes, the venturi in the Bendix system does cause a manifold
pressure drop, but I don't know of any data that shows the system is more
prone to icing because of it.
<<I have extensive experience in the two systems and I would never, by
choice
fly with an engine, using the Bendix system or at least as described above.
"Paul Messinger">>
While the hot starting issue may be an area where the Continental has an
advantage, I don't think there have been any fatalities caused by hot start
problems. There have been fatalities caused by improper boost pump
operation in aircraft equipped with the Continental system. That, and the
fact that the Bendix system is at least partially compensated for air
density, are the reasons I prefer the Bendix system.
Gary Casey
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: engine hot starting and more on batteries |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Brian Lloyd <brianl@lloyd.com>
Paul Messinger wrote:
> At 25C and 12 months the panasonic has LOST 36% of its charge. Odyssey
> states at 25C it can be stored for 2 YEARS before needinmg to be recharged.
> I do not remember the data on the Optima but its at least a year.
>
> I did a test on one of my Odyssey batterys and it needed 15 min at one amp
> after 9 months to tpo off using their recommended charger. The next day the
> battery indicated 100% charge per their resting V table using a 0.025%
> accurate meter.
>
> A Panasonic needed over 12 hours to fully charge with the same charger etc.
>
> Not needing to use a float charger is nice! WHY do it if its not required
> and really does nothing much. Warm feeling a suppose :-)
The Odyssey sounds like a good battery, no doubt about it.
But none of what I have posted has been an attempt to justify any particular brand
of battery. My whole point has been to show the differences between various
battery *types*, the differences in charge voltage, and the difference caused
by temperature.
> Yes, but for the Nth time you have failed to respond with ANY facts in
> regard to how much longer or how much better. Longer and better are not
> enough for ANY informed decision. If it makes a 8 year battery into a 10
> year one I could care less. If it makes a 3 year battery into a 1/2 year
> battery I am interested. I suspect its the former and demonstrability not
> the latter.
I do not have those figures and I am not equipped to do the long term research.
I do have anecdotal evidence (from several places) that improper charging causes
batteries to fail and I have the admonitions of the need for proper charge
voltage and temperature compensation from at least two battery manufacturers.
I have experienced the problem with sealed VRLA batteries in stationary, marine,
and aviation uses so I *KNOW* there is a problem using standard voltage
regulators. This anecdotal information is supported by documentation from battery
manufacturers who provide complete information. I point to the failure of
Concorde batteries in very short periods of time and I suspect they would have
lasted just fine if charged properly. I had to replace the four 2-year-old
AGMs on my boat when I got it because the batteries were totally destroyed.
Two would not hold a charge nor would they draw any charge current. One had a
shorted cell but otherwise would hold a charge and o
perate at about 1/2 of rated capacity. The forth had all its cells functional
but had only about 1/2 capacity. Since I have replaced the batteries and built
a proper charge and distribution system there have been no more problems.
I just completed a capacity cycle with my now almost 2-years-old "new" batteries.
Capacity was about 96% of rated capacity when discharged to the manufacturer's
specified endpoint of 1.75V per cell or 10.5V for a 12V battery at very close
to the 20 hour rate. Granted this is only a single data point and not statistically
valid but it does suggest that there is an issue. Abused the batteries
died a quick death (and I would suggest that those batteries had failed
LONG before I got them) and properly cared for they are showing almost-new characteristics.
Here is another data point. Battery manufacturers have a vested interest in reducing
warranty returns. Charging abuse causes early returns. This implies to
me that proper treatment allows them to greatly reduce in-warranty returns.
Given that battery warranties are not 8 years long this suggests that it will
have an effect within a relatively short period of time.
Clearly you are going to argue until the cows come home. Feel free. I have presented
information I consider to be significant. Hopefully people will make
up their own minds about this.
>>Perhaps. OTOH, it is the main battery that gets all the use.
>
>
> Yes and if the backup battery has "lost its will to live" and lets you down
> when you need it, what then.
Before putting the older battery back into use I would certainly expect that someone
would have done a capacity test. That certainly implies that it is likely
to perform reasonably well.
One can also consider the "bathtub" reliability curve. The older battery will
have passed the point of infant mortality and is very possibly the more reliable
of the two batteries. But I can't prove it without long-term, large-sample
failure tests.
> A backup is worse than useless if its not
> reliable. MY position is if its not good enough for prime time its not
> anything I want as backup. This is a general comment but in my case the
> backup is really in use all the time as I have a electrically dependent
> engine and both systems must be on and ready for instant prime time. Some
> what different than mag powered VFR day flying.
Well, best of luck with your system. I think you should do what makes you most
comfortable.
I must admit, I am getting tired of this exchange as we keep saying the same things.
I stand by my statements and suggest that the people on the list do their
own research in order to satisfy themselves that their chosen design meets
their comfort level for reliability.
--
Brian Lloyd 6501 Red Hook Plaza
brianl@lloyd.com Suite 201
http://www.lloyd.com St. Thomas, VI 00802
+1.340.998.9447 (voice) +1.360.838.9669 (fax)
There is a time to laud one's country and a time to protest.
A good citizen is prepared to do either as the need arises.
Message 3
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Automotive Landing Lights? |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls@cox.net>
At 11:14 PM 6/21/2004 -0500, you wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Bordelon, Greg" <gbordelon@hess.com>
>
>My panel space is limited and I wish to eliminate installing a switch
>for the taxi light. I plan to wire up the low beam element with the high
>beam element (in parallel) together.
This will double the power dissipation for each lamp
assembly. It's doubtful that the lamp designer intended
for this product to be operated with both filaments lit.
Life could be spectacularly short.
>I want to install one switch, off
>in down position, wig wag in middle position, and lights on in up
>position.
>
>The manufacture states the high beam element is 55 watts and the low
>beam element is 45 watts. This is 100 watts collectively. Ohms law says
>that 100 watts divided by 14 volts is about 7 amps of current flow.
>Since I want to install two lamps, this will give a total current flow
>of 14 amps. I see no problem with this. In my car, the elements seem to
>go for years. My concern was running both elements simultaneously would
>reduce the life to a few hours. I guess I will have to attach one to my
>battery and battery charger and let it glow for a few days to conduct a
>test.
good idea . . .
>Of the five different lights I bought (and returned), I found that just
>because two lamps are round it does not mean their lighting pattern will
>be the same. Minor differences in the reflector shape plays a major role
>in light pattern. I found these to work very well, especially when you
>replace the 55 watt bulb with a 100 watt bulb.
>http://www.autoanything.com/products/product_sp.aspx?p_id=1333&se=hella_
>light_optilux_2500_angel_eye_kit
>
>Also check out http://www.piaa.com/Bulbs/Bulbs-H4.html
>
>So, is there anyone out there that has ganged the elements together?
Why the quest for so much power? I have Kitfox builders that installed
a 25w halogen flood in each wing tip . . . pointed mostly down but slightly
forward and outboard. The visual clues that REALLY help you put the
wheels on the ground gracefully are what's visible under the wings.
Dual filament lamps are attractive to me mostly because they offer
a "spare" lamp in each assembly . . . a back up to the main lamp. While
low beam filaments don't put the light into the same places as high
beam, they're better light than no light if you have only one, high
power, external light and plan to fly a lot.
I wouldn't discourage you from pursuing your operational goals
but given the logarithmic response characteristics of the human
eye and other variabilities in the system, doubling the power expended
in the effort does not translate into twice the visibility, safety,
utility, reliability etc. In fact, doubling the power probably
translates to reduced reliability simply because parts are stressed
harder and you've not taken advantage of the dual filament bulbs as
having built-in backups.
I once took a customer for a ride one evening in my J-3 using a
fisherman's hand-held, 6v lantern as the sole source of lighting
for the excursion. 6V a 0.5A was 3 WATTS of total energy expended.
The device was quite adequate for the intended task.
Bob . . .
Message 4
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Cont VS Bendix injection systems |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Brian Lloyd <brianl@lloyd.com>
Paul Messinger wrote:
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Paul Messinger" <paulm@olypen.com>
>
> I can hardly ask others to be specific when I am not; so here are the
> details on the two specific injection systems and why one is so much better
> in hot starting.
Yes, the Continental system is easier to start when hot. No question about it.
And I am aware of the differences in the design.
Hot starting is a very small part of the operating envelope of the injection system
and I certainly do not choose to select my injection system purely on the
basis of its hot-starting characteristics.
> This from a 1971 version of the A&P Powerplant Handbook.
>
> I recognize that not all, in fact most (many?) Cont engines used the Bendix
> system.
I didn't know that any of the Continental engines used the Bendix RSA fuel injection
system.
> My S35 used the Cont system :-)
> My MK21 Exec had the Bendix system :-(
It was powered by a Lycoming engine.
<several paragraphs removed>
> Hot start problems made the Bendix system unacceptable to me.
>
> I sometimes wonder why so many just assume its part of the beast and do not
> rise up and insist it be fixed.
>
> Having experenced both I cannot understand how its put up with.
That is fine. It takes many horses to make up a horse race. I happen to like
the fact that the Bendix fuel servo measures mass airflow and adjusts fuel flow
accordingly. This keeps mixture relatively constant during climb and descent.
The servo also compensates for variations in fuel pressure thus accommodating
normal variation between fuel pumps without requiring adjustment.
Continental's injection system is simpler. There is a lot to be said for simple.
The fuel return line is required because the fuel pump is a positive displacement
pump. The volume of output is purely a function of RPM, not fuel requirement.
A bypass valve is required to set the fuel pressure. Then you have
the issue of where to plumb the fuel return line. Either you make the fuel selector
much more complex in order to plumb the return line to the tank from which
fuel is being drawn (lots of extra complexity) or you have the return line
go to one specific tank and accept that you must burn from that tank first before
burning fuel from any other tank lest you start pumping fuel overboard.
Of course you can opt for the header tank approach but then you have to get fuel
to the header tank.
But most of this is a moot point. If you opt for a Continental engine you are
going to get what comes with the engine. Likewise with Lycoming.
As for the Lycoming hot-starting problem, I have seen a simple hack that solves
the problem for the Bendix RSA injection system. I saw a homebuilt where the
builder installed an extra line and a two-way valve between the fuel servo and
the flow divider and plumbed the line back to one of the tanks. During a hot
start he just needed to open the valve to divert the fuel to the return line,
turn on the boost pump, and open the mixture control. Fuel would then flow
through the fuel pump, the fuel servo, and the line to the flow divider. This
would purge the vapor and cool all the components. Now his hot starts were
a breeze. Isn't it nice to be able to deal with this things in OBAM aircraft?
--
Brian Lloyd 6501 Red Hook Plaza
brianl@lloyd.com Suite 201
http://www.lloyd.com St. Thomas, VI 00802
+1.340.998.9447 (voice) +1.360.838.9669 (fax)
There is a time to laud one's country and a time to protest.
A good citizen is prepared to do either as the need arises.
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: Cont VS Bendix injection systems |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Brian Lloyd <brianl@lloyd.com>
Paul Messinger wrote:
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Paul Messinger" <paulm@olypen.com>
>
> I can hardly ask others to be specific when I am not; so here are the
> details on the two specific injection systems and why one is so much better
> in hot starting.
Yes, the Continental system is easier to start when hot. No question about it.
And I am aware of the differences in the design.
Hot starting is a very small part of the operating envelope of the injection system
and I certainly do not choose to select my injection system purely on the
basis of its hot-starting characteristics.
> This from a 1971 version of the A&P Powerplant Handbook.
>
> I recognize that not all, in fact most (many?) Cont engines used the Bendix
> system.
I didn't know that any of the Continental engines used the Bendix RSA fuel injection
system.
> My S35 used the Cont system :-)
> My MK21 Exec had the Bendix system :-(
It was powered by a Lycoming engine.
<several paragraphs removed>
> Hot start problems made the Bendix system unacceptable to me.
>
> I sometimes wonder why so many just assume its part of the beast and do not
> rise up and insist it be fixed.
>
> Having experenced both I cannot understand how its put up with.
That is fine. It takes many horses to make up a horse race. I happen to like
the fact that the Bendix fuel servo measures mass airflow and adjusts fuel flow
accordingly. This keeps mixture relatively constant during climb and descent.
The servo also compensates for variations in fuel pressure thus accommodating
normal variation between fuel pumps without requiring adjustment.
Continental's injection system is simpler. There is a lot to be said for simple.
The fuel return line is required because the fuel pump is a positive displacement
pump. The volume of output is purely a function of RPM, not fuel requirement.
A bypass valve is required to set the fuel pressure. Then you have
the issue of where to plumb the fuel return line. Either you make the fuel selector
much more complex in order to plumb the return line to the tank from which
fuel is being drawn (lots of extra complexity) or you have the return line
go to one specific tank and accept that you must burn from that tank first before
burning fuel from any other tank lest you start pumping fuel overboard.
Of course you can opt for the header tank approach but then you have to get fuel
to the header tank.
But most of this is a moot point. If you opt for a Continental engine you are
going to get what comes with the engine. Likewise with Lycoming.
As for the Lycoming hot-starting problem, I have seen a simple hack that solves
the problem for the Bendix RSA injection system. I saw a homebuilt where the
builder installed an extra line and a two-way valve between the fuel servo and
the flow divider and plumbed the line back to one of the tanks. During a hot
start he just needed to open the valve to divert the fuel to the return line,
turn on the boost pump, and open the mixture control. Fuel would then flow
through the fuel pump, the fuel servo, and the line to the flow divider. This
would purge the vapor and cool all the components. Now his hot starts were
a breeze. OTOH this introduces another single-point-of-failure. Isn't it nice
to be able to deal with this things in OBAM aircraft?
And I happen to like Lycoming engines. The O-320/360/540 series (parallel valve)
engines usually make or pass TBO. They seem very reliable to me, enough so
that I was willing to do two ocean crossings behind one.
The Continental IO-520 and IO-550 engines seem to need a top overhaul halfway
through the TBO run. LOP operation may change this for the Continental engines
but I suspect we need to hear from the GAMI folks on this. OTOH, if it improves
the longevity of the Continental engines, what will it do for the Lycoming
engines that are already typically making it to TBO?
But all of this is supposition on my part. I have many thousands of hours flying
behind Lycoming engines and relatively few flying behind Continental engines
(almost all of it in the C-182 and early C-310s). I also have about 1000 hours
flying behind the Chinese Huosai 285 hp radial engine which beats them all
on reliability. :-) I just know what my experiences are. YMMV.
--
Brian Lloyd 6501 Red Hook Plaza
brianl@lloyd.com Suite 201
http://www.lloyd.com St. Thomas, VI 00802
+1.340.998.9447 (voice) +1.360.838.9669 (fax)
There is a time to laud one's country and a time to protest.
A good citizen is prepared to do either as the need arises.
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 |
|
| Subject: | Re: Battery data and etc |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Brian Lloyd <brianl@lloyd.com>
Paul Messinger wrote:
>>Well, getting all pissy at each other doesn't really solve anything, does
>
> it. Drinking beer after a day of flying or playing with airplanes is far
> more pleasant.
>
> I Guess I cannot win no matter what I do.
>
> I was being complimentary to your nice reply.
So was I. I was agreeing that getting pissy in previous exchanges wasn't getting
us anywhere and that sitting down over a beer would be much more pleasant.
I apologize if I wasn't being clear.
--
Brian Lloyd 6501 Red Hook Plaza
brianl@lloyd.com Suite 201
http://www.lloyd.com St. Thomas, VI 00802
+1.340.998.9447 (voice) +1.360.838.9669 (fax)
There is a time to laud one's country and a time to protest.
A good citizen is prepared to do either as the need arises.
Message 7
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Battery data and etc |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Brian Lloyd <brianl@lloyd.com>
Paul Messinger wrote:
>>Well, getting all pissy at each other doesn't really solve anything, does
>
> it. Drinking beer after a day of flying or playing with airplanes is far
> more pleasant.
>
> I Guess I cannot win no matter what I do.
>
> I was being complimentary to your nice reply.
So was I. I was agreeing that getting pissy in previous exchanges wasn't getting
us anywhere and that sitting down over a beer would be much more pleasant.
I apologize if I wasn't being clear.
BTW, the beer offer still stands.
--
Brian Lloyd 6501 Red Hook Plaza
brianl@lloyd.com Suite 201
http://www.lloyd.com St. Thomas, VI 00802
+1.340.998.9447 (voice) +1.360.838.9669 (fax)
There is a time to laud one's country and a time to protest.
A good citizen is prepared to do either as the need arises.
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: engine hot starting and more on |
batteries
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls@cox.net>
batteries
At 06:45 PM 6/21/2004 -0700, you wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Paul Messinger" <paulm@olypen.com>
>
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "Brian Lloyd" <brianl@lloyd.com>
> > > I am not pushing Odyessy, but they only cost around double the Panasonic
>and
> > > still well under $100 delivered and have the ability to sit around with
>NO
> > > need for a float charger to keep it topped off like the Panasonic does.
I don't know of anyone who has found it necessary to keep
a float charger on a Panasonic battery to achieve satisfactory
service . . . and there are many hundreds of Panasonic batteries
flying in airplanes.
> > All batteries have some level of self discharge. The lead alloy can
>reduce that to some extent but you can't eliminate that. The warmer the
>battery, the faster the level of self discharge. Keeping a battery on a
>proper float charge is a safe thing to do. YMMV.
>
> Look at the self discharg times for the Panasonic vs the good ones. Sure
>its temp dependent but we are looking at nearly a order of magnitude lower
>self discharge rate; one that eleminates in most cases, any need for battery
>float chargers that the Panasonic types require.
>
>At 25C and 12 months the panasonic has LOST 36% of its charge. Odyssey
>states at 25C it can be stored for 2 YEARS before needinmg to be recharged.
>I do not remember the data on the Optima but its at least a year.
>
>I did a test on one of my Odyssey batterys and it needed 15 min at one amp
>after 9 months to tpo off using their recommended charger. The next day the
>battery indicated 100% charge per their resting V table using a 0.025%
>accurate meter.
>
>A Panasonic needed over 12 hours to fully charge with the same charger etc.
>
>Not needing to use a float charger is nice! WHY do it if its not required
>and really does nothing much. Warm feeling a suppose :-)
Why is this even a concern? The AVERAGE use of an SE lightplane
is 50 hrs/year or 4 hrs/month. Unless you're going to do ALL your
flying in two days out of every year, why are self-discharge
characteristics even a part of your value added considerations?
I just spent several tens of thousands of $ of RACs money looking
at batteries for what must be the umpteenth time batteries have
been studied at Beech/RAC over the past 50 years. I've walked through
the $high$ and $low$ battery factories and sifted their respective
marketing hypes. My anticipated presentation to RAC engineering,
customer service groups and purchasing is not going to be much
different than for the OBAM aircraft community.
Yes, there are some design features that produce striking
differences in details of performance between the various
products offered . . . but when considering product with
a 2:1 or greater price difference, how does the lowly consumer
make a considered judgement for return on investment?
IF your planned operating mode requires your battery to have
a minimum capacity to back up engine driven power sources,
then you are going to have to replace an otherwise perfectly
good battery long before it quits cranking the
engine. In this case, the difference in performance between
the $high$ and $low$ products does not seem to justify the cost. If
you add in the time it takes to do periodic capacity tests
so that you can wring the last few months of service out
of a $high$ battery, then you've driven the cost of ownership
for the already $high$ battery still higher because you've added
maintenance labor to the equation. This same situation
arose in the heavy iron airplanes on flooded ni-cads . . .
they were stellar performers when they worked but required
MUCH more hands-on support that drove their already-high
cost of ownership out the roof.
If you have multiple engine driven power sources and battery
capacity is not an issue, then you can run the battery until
it won't crank the engine any more. I don't have any hard
field data on this situation (our heavy iron driving brethren
are not allowed to explore this operating scenario). However,
it's still not clear to me that one can expect to get 2 times
the SERVICE LIFE from a 2x dollars battery.
Don't get me wrong . . . the Enersys (Hawker) line of batteries
are among the "best" if not the very best batteries you can
buy with respect to some characteristics. The REAL question
to be asked and answered is, "What is my investment in time
and dollars to use Enersys or any other product to achieve
the REAL LIFE operating qualities I need from my airplane?"
The answer goes far beyond the marketing hype that claims
"my self discharge rate is a fraction of their self discharge
rate". That may well be true but should I care?
For my time and dollars, I think an all-electric system on
a budget that gets a new el-cheepo RG battery installed
every fall represents about a 50 cents per flight hour
cost of ownership adder for achieving stellar system
reliability. That could be reduced further by running
the battery until it doesn't crank any more. But then
I'm at-risk for doing a battery replacement at some unhandy
time with a high probability of it being away from the
home field.
Given all other costs of owning and operating an airplane,
the yearly replacement of a low-cost battery seems to offer
the lowest cost of ownership while maintaining a very high
level of SYSTEM reliability. Under this scenario, concerns
for self-discharge characteristics and/or selecting the
right "float" charger are not even on the radar much less
a serious point of consideration.
The folks behind a booth at OSH would like to paint the
whole OBAM aircraft community with the same broad brush
loaded with the same color of paint. As informed
system designers, we have an opportunity to maximize
the efficiency of our efforts in ways that don't necessarily
match their rational for considering their product over
anyone else's.
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: wiring security |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls@cox.net>
At 05:10 PM 6/21/2004 -0500, you wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Larry McFarland"
><larrymc@qconline.com>
>
>
>Hi guys,
>
>On advice, I began the task of progressively redoing tie-ties that have
>put both singular or grouped wires directly against metal. This typically
>required cutting one and replacing it with 3 tie-ties to make two grips
>and a standoff. It looked good, but seems to offer more motion to the
>wires thru engine vibration acting against the wires. One has to consider
>which is worse, "movement and fatigue" or "wear by tie-tie clamping wires
>against a surface and cutting insulation". I've not seen much discussion
>of this on the Matronics pages.
>
>
>If there are opinions or "rules" on these considerations beyond the usual
>Adel clamps, etc
>
>I'd be interested to hear about this area where wires traverse the smooth
>boundarys of the motor mount and firewall.
Potential for damage due to rubbing is several orders of
magnitude higher than damage due to flexing. The fine stranding
we insist on for high vibration environments all but completly
negates flexing issues . . . but you can do a rub-through in
a few tens of hours of operation. If the plastic tye-wrap was
considered suited to the particular task, then plastic band-clamps
might be more attractive.
Bob . . .
Message 10
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Heat tolerance of batteries |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Jerry2DT@aol.com
List,
I have the option of installing my Odyssey PC680 in the cabin next to the
firewall in my RV6a, or under the cowling on the firewall like the RV7a. I'm
wondering about how the heat would affect it with those oven-like temps. Thanks
for any and all ideas.
Jerry Cochran
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 |
|
| Subject: | Re: Heat tolerance of batteries |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Ralph E. Capen" <recapen@earthlink.net>
I put mine just aft of the firewall using the Vans battery box - it fits nicely
in between the stiffeners right under the cutout for the oil filter stuff.
Photo's - zap me directly.....
-----Original Message-----
From: Jerry2DT@aol.com
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Heat tolerance of batteries
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Jerry2DT@aol.com
List,
I have the option of installing my Odyssey PC680 in the cabin next to the
firewall in my RV6a, or under the cowling on the firewall like the RV7a. I'm
wondering about how the heat would affect it with those oven-like temps. Thanks
for any and all ideas.
Jerry Cochran
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: | Automotive Landing Lights? |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Rob Housman" <RobH@hyperion-ef.com>
The lens tells you almost nothing about the beam pattern. What you need is
a reflector that is an accurate parabolic shape in order to deliver a narrow
(i. e., focused) beam of light. The lens merely scatters (more or less,
depending on its design) the light bounced off the reflector surface. The
reflectors in such systems as the very bright lights (see:
http://www.spectrolab.com/DataSheets/SX16/ILS_SX-16.pdf) used on police
helicopters, for example, are relatively deep electroformed nickel parabolic
shapes with coatings to enhance the reflectivity, and these can deliver
(with a xenon short arc lamp) a beam spread of less than 5 degrees.
Automotive headlamps are never going to match that kind of performance, but
as Bob has said, 3 watts from a cheap lantern can do the job.
Best regards,
Rob Housman
Europa XS Tri-Gear A070
Airframe complete
Irvine, CA
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com]On Behalf Of
Benford2@aol.com
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Automotive Landing Lights?
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Benford2@aol.com
In a message dated 6/21/2004 4:02:42 PM Mountain Daylight Time,
gbordelon@hess.com writes:
>
> I want to add more landing/taxi lighting to my aircraft. I went down to
> Pep Boys and purchased several auto headlights, driving lights, and fog
> lights. I conducted some experiments at night and found there is huge
> difference in illumination pattern among the lights I purchased. I also
> found that using a combination high & low beam head light worked very
> well when BOTH elements were turned on. Anyone on the list have any
> experience using high/low beam simultaneously? I'm a bit concerned that
> having both elements glowing will significantly shorten the life of the
> bulb to only a few hours. Any experiences out there? Thx
Naw. The bulb will last a long time but you will be pulling some serious
amps
to run them both at the same time. You want to use spot bulbs for the
landing
light and fog/driving lights for taxi lights. All ya got to do is look at
the
lens, that determines the light pattern.
Ben Haas N801BH.
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: Heat tolerance of batteries |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls@cox.net>
At 10:49 AM 6/22/2004 -0400, you wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Jerry2DT@aol.com
>
>List,
>
>I have the option of installing my Odyssey PC680 in the cabin next to the
>firewall in my RV6a, or under the cowling on the firewall like the RV7a. I'm
>wondering about how the heat would affect it with those oven-like temps.
>Thanks
>for any and all ideas.
Batteries are thermally massive and do not respond quickly
to transient ambient temperature excursions. While there
are intervals of extra-ordinary ambient temps that occur under a
cowl, they're not terribly significant to care and feeding
of your battery. Primary mode of heat energy transfer from
engine to ambient in flight is radiated . . . I've seen
plastic parts melt due to radiated heat from stacks while
the ambient air temps around the parts was relatively benign.
Short durations of temperature spiking during after-shutdown
temperature rise do not significantly affect a battery.
Batteries have lived quite happily on both sides of the
firewall on many aircraft for decades. Pick a best location based
on performance (weight and balance) or maintenance convenience.
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: | Noise problems with JPI EDM-900 and autopilot |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Jeff Hildebrand" <jhildebrand@crownequip.com>
We are having noise problems with our Lancair ES.
When we have the JPI EDM-900 engine analyzer and the STEC 55x autopilot
on at the same time, we get a static noise in our headsets. When I turn
off either one, the noise will go away.
It seems to be coming from the EDM-900, because when I have the
autopilot on already and I start the EDM it gives a little bit of static
on the startup sequence, then it is consistent after this.
When I have the EDM on already, and I turn on the autopilot, the static
is there immediately.
This noise is there when the engine is on or off.
Where do I go from here? How do I diagnose the problem and fix it?
Thanks,
Jeff Hildebrand
Lancair ES C-GSPH
www.lancaires.com <http://www.lancaires.com/>
Message 15
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | OV Module going bad? |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls@cox.net>
>Comments/Questions: Good morning, Bob. About 4 years ago, I installed
>your overvoltage protection package in a Kitfox with a two-stroke Rotax
>engine. As you probably know, Rotax uses a permanent magnet
>alternator. The setup I got from you includes the module and a relay.
>On my last flight (yesterday) indications of no charge kept popping up
>(voltmeter reading 12 and ammeter reading negative) but by turning the
>master off and on I was able to get the system charging again. This
>happened five or six times in the course of 1 1/2 hours. The time between
>failures was getting shorter and shorter.
Are you certain that the ov protection system is not properly doing its
job?
What are the voltage readings just before the system shuts off?
>I suspect that the relay is going. If you agree, I'd like to buy another
>one asap. If not, I'd be very interested in what you think the problem
>might be and what you suggest for diagnosing it.
Connect a multimeter into the system and make certain that
your voltage regulator is not mis-behaving. How old is
your battery? If it's getting soggy, the voltage regulator
may be mis-behaving due to loss of battery performance.
The system is very simple and there are few failures of
the OV protection system that would produce the symptoms
you cite. It seems probable that it's reacting to a real
OV condition that requires adjustment/replacement of a
regulator.
If push comes to shove, your existing OV module is
repairable . . . drop it to me in the mail and I'll take
a look at it.
Bob . . .
-----------------------------------------
( Experience and common sense cannot be )
( replaced with policy and procedures. )
( R. L. Nuckolls III )
-----------------------------------------
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: | Z-14 Dual Alternators - Shunts & ANL's |
pts rule name description
---- ---------------------- -------------------------------------------
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: John Schroeder <jschroeder@perigee.net>
Bob -
We have a 70 amp alternator and will put a B&C SD-20 on the vacuum pad for
the second system of the Z-14. The questions are shunts and ANL current
limiters.
1. Since B&C does not carry a 70 amp shunt, we ordered a 75 amp. Is this
OK?
2. Since B&C does not have a 20 or a 70 amp ANL, we ordered a 40 to use
on the 20 amp alternator and a 60 to use for the 70 amp alternator. Are
these OK?
3. Or should we try to obtain them elsewhere?
4. Are there any operational cautions to bear in mind using these
mismatches in components for the alternators?
Many thanks,
John
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 |
|
| Subject: | Noise problems with JPI EDM-900 and autopilot |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Trampas" <tstern@nc.rr.com>
Well the noise is either coming from power bus or from some sort of radiated
noise.
To see if radiated power intercom from separate power supply, like an
automotive "jump box". If noise is still there it is a radiated noise from
RF or magnetic fields. This is most likely not the problem.
The more likely problem is that the units are generating noise on power bus.
To check this take one of the units and power it from the "jump box" while
keeping the unit grounds connected. If noise goes away, you most likely have
a unit which generates noise on power bus. Sometimes electronic devices have
power supplies which produce noise spikes on power bus. If the device is
doing this often placing a diode inline with the device will remove the
noise. Other times the device draws large amounts of power for brief periods
which generates noise on power bus. In these cases placing an
inductor/capacitor filter as Bob has outlined fixes the problem.
Either way I would personally recommend an inductor/cap filter on the
intercom power as that power supply noise is really common.
Regards,
Trampas
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Jeff
Hildebrand
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Noise problems with JPI EDM-900 and autopilot
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Jeff Hildebrand"
<jhildebrand@crownequip.com>
We are having noise problems with our Lancair ES.
When we have the JPI EDM-900 engine analyzer and the STEC 55x autopilot
on at the same time, we get a static noise in our headsets. When I turn
off either one, the noise will go away.
It seems to be coming from the EDM-900, because when I have the
autopilot on already and I start the EDM it gives a little bit of static
on the startup sequence, then it is consistent after this.
When I have the EDM on already, and I turn on the autopilot, the static
is there immediately.
This noise is there when the engine is on or off.
Where do I go from here? How do I diagnose the problem and fix it?
Thanks,
Jeff Hildebrand
Lancair ES C-GSPH
www.lancaires.com <http://www.lancaires.com/>
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: wiring security |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: erie <erie@shelbyvilledesign.com>
Am I the only one that seems perturbed at the manufacturers use of wire
ties??? with the average
certified plane's age reaching 30+ years, the damn things get brittle
and fall off (usually first requiring a minor blood sacrifice...)
. On every plane my partner and I rebuild, I spend anywhere from 10-30
hours retieing the harness, at least then I know the
next person to work on it won't have scarred up hands from the cut ends
of the wire ties, though I've had a lot of people comment
that they haven't seen a tied harness in years and wish more people
would do it.
erie
Robert L. Nuckolls, III wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls@cox.net>
>
>At 05:10 PM 6/21/2004 -0500, you wrote:
>
>
>>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Larry McFarland"
>><larrymc@qconline.com>
>>
>>
>>Hi guys,
>>
>>On advice, I began the task of progressively redoing tie-ties that have
>>put both singular or grouped wires directly against metal. This typically
>>required cutting one and replacing it with 3 tie-ties to make two grips
>>and a standoff. It looked good, but seems to offer more motion to the
>>wires thru engine vibration acting against the wires. One has to consider
>>which is worse, "movement and fatigue" or "wear by tie-tie clamping wires
>>against a surface and cutting insulation". I've not seen much discussion
>>of this on the Matronics pages.
>>
>>
>>If there are opinions or "rules" on these considerations beyond the usual
>>Adel clamps, etc
>>
>>I'd be interested to hear about this area where wires traverse the smooth
>>boundarys of the motor mount and firewall.
>>
>>
>
> Potential for damage due to rubbing is several orders of
> magnitude higher than damage due to flexing. The fine stranding
> we insist on for high vibration environments all but completly
> negates flexing issues . . . but you can do a rub-through in
> a few tens of hours of operation. If the plastic tye-wrap was
> considered suited to the particular task, then plastic band-clamps
> might be more attractive.
>
> 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: | Noise problems with JPI EDM-900 and autopilot |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Jeff Hildebrand" <jhildebrand@crownequip.com>
Sounds good, I will give it a try.
Thanks,
Jeff Hildebrand
Lancair ES C-GSPH
www.lancaires.com
Do not archive
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of
Trampas
Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Noise problems with JPI EDM-900 and
autopilot
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Trampas" <tstern@nc.rr.com>
Well the noise is either coming from power bus or from some sort of
radiated
noise.
To see if radiated power intercom from separate power supply, like an
automotive "jump box". If noise is still there it is a radiated noise
from
RF or magnetic fields. This is most likely not the problem.
The more likely problem is that the units are generating noise on power
bus.
To check this take one of the units and power it from the "jump box"
while
keeping the unit grounds connected. If noise goes away, you most likely
have
a unit which generates noise on power bus. Sometimes electronic devices
have
power supplies which produce noise spikes on power bus. If the device is
doing this often placing a diode inline with the device will remove the
noise. Other times the device draws large amounts of power for brief
periods
which generates noise on power bus. In these cases placing an
inductor/capacitor filter as Bob has outlined fixes the problem.
Either way I would personally recommend an inductor/cap filter on the
intercom power as that power supply noise is really common.
Regards,
Trampas
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Jeff
Hildebrand
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Noise problems with JPI EDM-900 and
autopilot
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Jeff Hildebrand"
<jhildebrand@crownequip.com>
We are having noise problems with our Lancair ES.
When we have the JPI EDM-900 engine analyzer and the STEC 55x autopilot
on at the same time, we get a static noise in our headsets. When I turn
off either one, the noise will go away.
It seems to be coming from the EDM-900, because when I have the
autopilot on already and I start the EDM it gives a little bit of static
on the startup sequence, then it is consistent after this.
When I have the EDM on already, and I turn on the autopilot, the static
is there immediately.
This noise is there when the engine is on or off.
Where do I go from here? How do I diagnose the problem and fix it?
Thanks,
Jeff Hildebrand
Lancair ES C-GSPH
www.lancaires.com <http://www.lancaires.com/>
==
==
==
==
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: | Low voltage on Main Bus |
pts rule name description
---- ---------------------- -------------------------------------------
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Charlie <charleyb@earthlink.net>
Bob, et.al.,
I'm not sure I even have a problem. But I don't have a clue as to how to
justify my situation, trouble shoot it, or solve it. I haven't run the
engine yet so can't guess what the alternator on line will produce. But...
My PC 680 battery is newly charged and reads 13.27 volts at the battery
terminals. My external power supply produces 13.65 volts measured at the
leads where they connect to my alternator lead and the airframe (ground.)
My panel installed voltmeter (VM-1000) reads voltage from the essential
bus. Using battery power only and switched to Essential (Endurance) bus
only, the voltage reads 13.1 volts - pretty much as it should be - a .17
volt drop. With the battery contactor closed and using battery power
only, the VM-1000 voltage reads 12.4 volts - a drop of .87 volts.
Turning the power supply on brings the voltage up to 12.9 volts - a drop
of .75 volts. The ammeter shows only .1 amp being used from the power
supply while on the main bus - that seems a bit low even with only the
VM-1000, the fuel gage system and a few other low power systems powered up.
I've wired things up IAW Bob's Z-13 scheme (All Elec On A Budget.) The
system is installed in an RV-6 with 4 AWG battery leads less than 10
inches long.
Is my voltage drop on the main system something to be worried about? If
so, how does one go about trouble shooting it or solving the problem?
Can the diode between the main and essential busses be the cause of the
big drop?
Charlie
RV-6A N11CB
San Antonio
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: Low voltage on Main Bus pts rule name |
description ---- ---------------------- -------------------------------------------
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Ralph E. Capen" <recapen@earthlink.net>
My identical configuration and experience.
I have also purchased a Schottky (from perihelion...) and expect a smaller
drop - although everyone says with the engine running and the alternator
moving trons it won't matter. I wanna see for myself.
There was a major set of discussions over this topic very recently so check
the archives
Ralph
----- Original Message -----
From: "Charlie" <charleyb@earthlink.net>
description ---- ---------------------- ------------------------------------
-------
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Charlie <charleyb@earthlink.net>
>
> Bob, et.al.,
>
> I'm not sure I even have a problem. But I don't have a clue as to how to
> justify my situation, trouble shoot it, or solve it. I haven't run the
> engine yet so can't guess what the alternator on line will produce. But...
>
> My PC 680 battery is newly charged and reads 13.27 volts at the battery
> terminals. My external power supply produces 13.65 volts measured at the
> leads where they connect to my alternator lead and the airframe (ground.)
>
> My panel installed voltmeter (VM-1000) reads voltage from the essential
> bus. Using battery power only and switched to Essential (Endurance) bus
> only, the voltage reads 13.1 volts - pretty much as it should be - a .17
> volt drop. With the battery contactor closed and using battery power
> only, the VM-1000 voltage reads 12.4 volts - a drop of .87 volts.
> Turning the power supply on brings the voltage up to 12.9 volts - a drop
> of .75 volts. The ammeter shows only .1 amp being used from the power
> supply while on the main bus - that seems a bit low even with only the
> VM-1000, the fuel gage system and a few other low power systems powered
up.
>
> I've wired things up IAW Bob's Z-13 scheme (All Elec On A Budget.) The
> system is installed in an RV-6 with 4 AWG battery leads less than 10
> inches long.
>
> Is my voltage drop on the main system something to be worried about? If
> so, how does one go about trouble shooting it or solving the problem?
> Can the diode between the main and essential busses be the cause of the
> big drop?
>
> Charlie
> RV-6A N11CB
> San Antonio
>
>
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: Automotive Landing Lights? |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Benford2@aol.com
In a message dated 6/22/2004 9:30:14 AM Mountain Daylight Time,
RobH@hyperion-ef.com writes:
>
>
> The lens tells you almost nothing about the beam pattern. What you need is
> a reflector that is an accurate parabolic shape in order to deliver a narrow
> (i. e., focused) beam of light. The lens merely scatters (more or less,
> depending on its design) the light bounced off the reflector surface. The
> reflectors in such systems as the very bright lights (see
Bull Shit, you can have a perfect parabolic reflector and projecting it
through a very diffusing lens will scatter the light as the lens was designed.
You
answered your question in your first paragraph. So maybe you might want NOT
to say "The lens tells you nothing about the beam pattern"
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: | Re: Low voltage on Main Bus pts rule name |
description ---- ---------------------- -------------------------------------------
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Jerzy Krasinski" <krasinski@provalue.net>
Charlie,
Your essential bus is connected to the main bus through a diode, and the
voltage drop between the battery and the essential bus is exactly what is
supposed to be in the presence of the diode.
Jerzy
----- Original Message -----
From: "Charlie" <charleyb@earthlink.net>
description ---- ---------------------- ------------------------------------
-------
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Charlie <charleyb@earthlink.net>
>
> Bob, et.al.,
>
> I'm not sure I even have a problem. But I don't have a clue as to how to
> justify my situation, trouble shoot it, or solve it. I haven't run the
> engine yet so can't guess what the alternator on line will produce. But...
>
> My PC 680 battery is newly charged and reads 13.27 volts at the battery
> terminals. My external power supply produces 13.65 volts measured at the
> leads where they connect to my alternator lead and the airframe (ground.)
>
> My panel installed voltmeter (VM-1000) reads voltage from the essential
> bus. Using battery power only and switched to Essential (Endurance) bus
> only, the voltage reads 13.1 volts - pretty much as it should be - a .17
> volt drop. With the battery contactor closed and using battery power
> only, the VM-1000 voltage reads 12.4 volts - a drop of .87 volts.
> Turning the power supply on brings the voltage up to 12.9 volts - a drop
> of .75 volts. The ammeter shows only .1 amp being used from the power
> supply while on the main bus - that seems a bit low even with only the
> VM-1000, the fuel gage system and a few other low power systems powered
up.
>
> I've wired things up IAW Bob's Z-13 scheme (All Elec On A Budget.) The
> system is installed in an RV-6 with 4 AWG battery leads less than 10
> inches long.
>
> Is my voltage drop on the main system something to be worried about? If
> so, how does one go about trouble shooting it or solving the problem?
> Can the diode between the main and essential busses be the cause of the
> big drop?
>
> Charlie
> RV-6A N11CB
> San Antonio
>
>
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: | Automotive Landing Lights? |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Rob Housman" <RobH@hyperion-ef.com>
When you learn to read (I did say "almost nothing") and when you learn a few
things about lighting systems, and you can magically identify the function
of lens elements simply by glancing at the lens, and can identify the
mathematical curve of the reflector (again just by looking at it), then post
something knowledgeable on the subject. Meanwhile, don't accuse others of
propagating bull shit.
You are correct, however, that a diffusing lens will scatter the beam, which
is exactly the wrong thing to do when you are trying to focus a narrow beam
of light.
What I did not say in my original post was that not all of the light from
the lamp is focused by the reflector. I'll leave it as an exercise for the
student to determine where that light goes. Hint: it will help you see the
runway edges.
Best regards,
Rob Housman
Europa XS Tri-Gear A070
Airframe complete
Irvine, CA
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com]On Behalf Of
Benford2@aol.com
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Automotive Landing Lights?
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Benford2@aol.com
In a message dated 6/22/2004 9:30:14 AM Mountain Daylight Time,
RobH@hyperion-ef.com writes:
>
>
> The lens tells you almost nothing about the beam pattern. What you need
is
> a reflector that is an accurate parabolic shape in order to deliver a
narrow
> (i. e., focused) beam of light. The lens merely scatters (more or less,
> depending on its design) the light bounced off the reflector surface. The
> reflectors in such systems as the very bright lights (see
Bull Shit, you can have a perfect parabolic reflector and projecting it
through a very diffusing lens will scatter the light as the lens was
designed. You
answered your question in your first paragraph. So maybe you might want NOT
to say "The lens tells you nothing about the beam pattern"
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 |
|
| Subject: | Re: Automotive Landing Lights? |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Joemotis@aol.com
I, for one, continue to appreciate all of the listers (mostly everyone) that
disseminate their difference of opinions without the use of vulgarities.
Thank You
Joe Motis
601XL
33 years in the trades
and not real religious
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: | Re: Automotive Landing Lights? |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: BobsV35B@aol.com
In a message dated 6/22/04 11:13:51 PM Central Daylight Time,
Joemotis@aol.com writes:
I, for one, continue to appreciate all of the listers (mostly everyone) that
disseminate their difference of opinions without the use of vulgarities.
Thank You
Joe Motis
Very well put!
I wish I'd said that.
Do Not Archive
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
AKA
Bob Siegfried
Ancient Aviator
Stearman N3977A
Brookeridge Airpark LL22
Downers Grove, IL 60516
630 985-8502
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: | ND Alternator repair |
pts rule name description
---- ---------------------- -------------------------------------------
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "David Chalmers" <David@ChalmersFamily.com>
I just removed my failed ND alternator part number 100211-1411. I assume the regulator
or diodes have failed. Where can I get replacement parts? Is this an easy
repair or should I take it to a pro? Any advice appreciated.
Dave Chalmers
Redmond, WA
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! --
|