Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 05:50 AM - Re: Crimping 22AWG PIDG terminals (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
2. 05:55 AM - Re: Locking female fast-ons (Charlie Kuss)
3. 05:59 AM - Re: Transformer (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
4. 06:03 AM - Re: Re: OVM disconnect relay 'tween alternator (Ken)
5. 06:18 AM - Re: Locking female fast-ons (Charlie Kuss)
6. 06:44 AM - Dual Alternator/Bat Crossfeed? (Malcolm Thomson)
7. 07:15 AM - Re: Transformer (Ron Koyich)
8. 07:22 AM - Re: Locking female fast-ons (David Carter)
9. 07:36 AM - Simplification-reducing elec load so can use 35amp PM alternator [ was Re: Re: OVM disconnect relay 'tween alternator & VR ] (David Carter)
10. 08:03 AM - Re: Transformer (Brian Lloyd)
11. 08:17 AM - Re: [subaruaircraft] Digest Number 1262 (Glaeser, Dennis A)
12. 09:05 AM - Re: Re: [subaruaircraft] Digest Number 1262 (Brian Lloyd)
13. 11:06 AM - Re: Locking female fast-ons (Ken)
14. 04:37 PM - Re: Locking female fast-ons on juliet (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
15. 04:39 PM - Re: 35amp PM alternator (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
16. 04:44 PM - Re: Dual Alternator/Bat Crossfeed? (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
17. 07:32 PM - Re: Locking female fast-ons on juliet (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
18. 07:34 PM - Re: Transformer (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
19. 07:38 PM - Re: Solid state contactors, OVP (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
20. 08:56 PM - Re: Re: 35amp PM alternator (David Carter)
21. 09:07 PM - Re: Solid state contactors, OVP (David Carter)
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: Crimping 22AWG PIDG terminals |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <b.nuckolls@cox.net>
At 09:11 AM 8/30/2004 -0400, you wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "DAVID REEL" <dreel@cox.net>
>
>Everybody should try the following experiment in crimping. It's a great
>confidence builder, only takes 15 minutes, and removes any uncertainty
>over the compatibility of crimp tool and terminal.
>
>After my failure with Cleveland's WTC380 tool, I borrowed an Ideal crimper
>with a 30-579 die for PIDG terminals from OC Baker and crimped a 22 awg
>wire onto one of the red terminals. Then I clipped the wire off where it
>exited the terminal, removed the red plastic from the barrel & started
>grinding away the barrel using my belt sander. Examining the ground end
>periodically, I could see how the die had reformed the barrel gripping the
>insulation tighter and tighter until I reached the wire only part of the
>joint. The small gap previously occupied by insulation gradually
>disappeared until the whole thing looked like one solid piece of metal as
>I neared the point of maximum crimp. Bob's article on crimping shows
>pictures of this but because of variations in crimpers and terminals, one
>doesn't really know if a crimper will do the job on the terminals in one's
>parts bin until they try it.
>
>Dave Reel - RV8A
Let's hear it for the repeatable experiment . . .
I'd still like to get my hands on and example of the WTC380 . . .
if those folks are selling a poorly performing tool, they
need to know about it.
Bob . . .
---
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: Locking female fast-ons |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Charlie Kuss <chaztuna@adelphia.net>
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: <bakerocb@cox.net>
>
>AeroElectric-List message previously posted by: Charlie Kuss
><chaztuna@adelphia.net>
>
>Listers, I recently purchased several Bosch (automotive style) relays and the
>related sockets for my RV-8A flap circuit. I purchased these items from
>Waytek Wire. Nice folks with brand name stuff at good prices. The
>sockets for these relays use a variant of the common 1/4" female fast ons.
>These are open barrel, rather than PIDG items. They also have a locking tang,
>to secure the connector into the socket body. Anyone familiar with
>automotive connectors has seen these.My question is, I need to find a part
>number and source for these connectors designed for 22/18 AWG wire. Waytek
>has these connectors
>for 16/14 AWG, but not for the 22/18 AWG. I know that these things are
>actually quite common. I've tried finding them in Allied Electronics
>paper catalog and their web site. However, I don't know the manufacturer or
>the proper terminology these items are known by. Because of this, I have
>not been able to locate what I need. Can anyone help?
>The relay sockets and connectors can be seen here:
>http://order.waytekwire.com/IMAGES/M37/catalog/216_54
>I'm using the #75280 style sockets. These are modular. You can stack
>them together. The connectors are part # 31073, also seen on the above web
>page. Charlie Kuss RV-8A cockpit wiring & systems>>
>
>8/25/2004
>
>Hello Charlie, Why wouldnt an Avikrimp female .250 push on terminal work?
>You can get them in either insulated (AA-8140) or uninsulated (AA-1140F)
>configuration. (Also fully insulated, but you dont want that here).Just do
>a google search.
>
>Yes they are the high quality complete surround PIDG crimp on type
>terminals, not open barrel, and the lock on feature may not be a perfect
>match with the lock on built into the socket body, but Ill bet they
>wouldnt come loose from the male terminal inside the socket body.
>
>I use the Avikrimp fully insulated male and female terminals as in-line
>connectors in much of my wiring. One draw back is that when I want to
>separate them it takes holding the inner shell with a pliers and twisting
>a broad blade screwdriver between the side of the pliers and the end of
>the outer shell to separate them. The make positive connection.
>
>OC
OC
Yes, they will work, but it would defeat part of the reason for using the
sockets in the first place. (Retaining all the terminals in place in the
socket) If I could find PIDG fast ons with the locking tab, they would
work great. It's no big deal. I was just hoping someone on the list might
know where to find what I was looking for.
Charlie
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" <rnuckolls@aeroelectric.com>
At 09:12 AM 8/30/2004 +0800, you wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Ron Koyich" <Ron@Koyich.com>
>
>I just have to ask: why are folks are still using transformers for audio
>distribution in aircraft (or ??)
They're simple. Don't require power supplies. I one of the
design goals is to break every potential "ground loop", a
transformer's input-to-output isolation is unequaled.
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: OVM disconnect relay 'tween alternator |
& VR
on juliet
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Ken <klehman@albedo.net>
David
Your pdf displayed just fine for me after I patched the link in your e-mail.
I didn't know there was a 40amp JD alternator. While
there are automotive relays supposedly rated at 40 amp they usually have
push on connectors and in the past Bob has recommended not exceeding 20
amps for push on connectors. I ended up purchasing a battery master
contactor for the ov circuit on my main 40 amp ND alternator. I couldn't
find anything else that was affordable, rated for continuous duty, and
had bolt on connections.
FWIW I elected to try a smaller than 5 amp breaker to feed the ov relay.
Ken
David Carter wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "David Carter"
<dcarter@datarecall.net>
>
>Ken (and rest of list, especially "Lectric Bob" for any comments),
>
>I'll be using the 35 (or 40) amp John Deere alternator. Wonder if
your idea
>of an auto relay rated at around 20 amps is enough of a rating.
>
>20 amp rating will probably will be OK, since the (OV disconnect) relay
>contacts will close during engine start as soon as there is enough
voltage
>for relay coils to close the relay - no heavy electrical load at that
moment
>(almost no load - battery is supplying all the juice for engine
ignition &
>fuel inj) so not going to be any "stressing" arcs when contacts
close. On
>shut down, with most/all items turned off (except engine stuff on battery
>bus), and with the engine and alternator at idle rpm & dropping during
>shutdown, not going to be much output and therefore, again, not much
arcing
>when relay drops off-line as voltage drops during engine wind-down and
relay
>coils let go the "Normally Open" contacts.
>
>I just got my pdf version of my modified Z-13 to show up on my web site
>"Builder's Log" at
>http://www.datarecall.net/~dcarter/Builder's%20Log.html
>
>Tomorrow I hope to mod Z-13 to show the 2 contact relay between the PM
>alternator & the VR, etc. I haven't yet learned how to insert the
>electrical symbols in the "blocks" section of Autocad "Explorer" - will
>study "Help" and figure it out.
>
>David
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 |
|
AeroElectric List <aeroelectric-list@matronics.com>
| Subject: | Re: Locking female fast-ons |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Charlie Kuss <chaztuna@adelphia.net>
David
Thanks for your efforts on my behalf. However, push ons are not what I'm
looking for. What I WANT, is called "push to lock". These are a variant of
the more common "push ons" you refer to below. The "push to lock" females
have a U shaped area cut from the back (flat) side of the terminal's
contact area. This area is bent out. When pushed into a matching socket,
the terminal is trapped in the socket by this tab. See
http://order.waytekwire.com/IMAGES/M37/catalog/216_54
Look carefully at terminal 31073 & you can see the "cut out" I'm referring
to. You may have to "zoom in" to see this. If I can't find the 18/22 AWG
size terminals, I'll just double the wire back and use the 16/14 AWG terminals.
Thanks for trying
Charlie
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "David Carter"
><dcarter@datarecall.net>
>
>The link didn't work. I went to www.waytekwire.com , clicked top left
>"Products" link, scrolled way down to "Select a catagory", scrolled down to
>"Terminals, push on", got listing of 6 items and clicked first item, "Fully
>Insulated Female", scrolled to bottom and clicked the red text "22-18 GA
>FEMALE PUSH-ON RED NYLON INS W/EXTRA SLEEVE" and got info but no size, and
>looked at lower rt corner and clicked "...view the catalog" and got the full
>info on full range of selections, including 1/4" insulated and non-insulated
>pushons. The fully insultated should be good for use with the male blades
>on the auto relays.
>
>I called - they are coated with bright tin. The option of "extra sleeve" is
>for strain relief to grip the insulation - you crimp them twice, once for
>electrical connection on bare end of wire, 2nd on insulated wire, just like
>we like. The 1/4" female fully insulated with extra sleeve for 22-18ga was
>p/n 30713.
>
>Min order is about 50 he said. Sounds like we need to get A/C Spruce and
>Wicks to stock these beauties.
>
>David
>snipped
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: | Dual Alternator/Bat Crossfeed? |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Malcolm Thomson" <mdthomson@attglobal.net>
Is there any reason to not leave the Crossfeed switch in the ON position
all the time? I know it is used for starting power and for "backup"
power but would it be OK to leave on during normal operations. What
would be the pro/cons for doing so?
Thanks
Malcolm.
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 |
|
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Ron Koyich" <Ron@Koyich.com>
>> Don't require power supplies. I one of the design goals is to break
every potential "ground loop", a transformer's input-to-output isolation
is unequaled.<<
No arguments with either of those statements, Bob.
But a simple pad will match a 23 Watt car stereo amplifier to an intercom
music input better than a 500 mW 8 ohm to 500 ohm transformer, without
danger of smoking the little transformer. If a bigger transformer were
used, I believe it would weigh more than the attenuator.
Ron
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: Locking female fast-ons |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "David Carter" <dcarter@datarecall.net>
Charlie,
You are right - I overlooked the essential thing you were looking for - the
"lock in connector shell" tab. I got to play with those things when
extending my Whelen tail/strobe light harness.
Well, if "the industry" simply doesn't punch any of the 1/4" push-ons for
22-18awg, then I'll bet it wouldn't be too hard to make a little punch that
would do the job in your shop. Trace the shape of the U tab, then use small
file and/or rotary tool with cutting wheel and shape the end of a 1/8" dia
steel rod or big nail. Maybe make a matching female "die" with sloped
depression to punch the back of push-on down into with the rod-tool.
Then you could rent out the new tools!
David
----- Original Message -----
From: "Charlie Kuss" <chaztuna@adelphia.net>
<aeroelectric-list@matronics.com>
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Locking female fast-ons
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Charlie Kuss
<chaztuna@adelphia.net>
>
> David
> Thanks for your efforts on my behalf. However, push ons are not what I'm
> looking for. What I WANT, is called "push to lock". These are a variant of
> the more common "push ons" you refer to below. The "push to lock" females
> have a U shaped area cut from the back (flat) side of the terminal's
> contact area. This area is bent out. When pushed into a matching socket,
> the terminal is trapped in the socket by this tab. See
>
> http://order.waytekwire.com/IMAGES/M37/catalog/216_54
>
> Look carefully at terminal 31073 & you can see the "cut out" I'm referring
> to. You may have to "zoom in" to see this. If I can't find the 18/22 AWG
> size terminals, I'll just double the wire back and use the 16/14 AWG
terminals.
> Thanks for trying
> Charlie
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: | tion-reducing elec load so can use 35amp PM alternator [ was |
Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: OVM disconnect relay 'tween alternator & VR ]
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "David Carter" <dcarter@datarecall.net>
Ken, I reviewed my info sheet on Deere alternators. There is a 35 amp that
is light weight, which I consider usable. There is also a 40/50 that is
much heavier. I knew there was one of them that I had conflicting info on -
was the 40/50, not a "35/40".
As noted, one could use 2 of the 20 amp alterntors to have a 40 amp
capacity. Would be appealing if had a pulley at each end of engine so each
alternator had its own belt - true redundancy and separation in case 1 belt
broke it wouldn't take out the other. I don't plan on trying this.
That 35amp "limit" is the reason I am interested the "Simplification"
architecture - eliminating the 1amp current draw of a "battery contactor"
(or 2) - and am interested in using LED lights to the max instead of
incandescant bulbs - to keep night IFR load below 35 amps.
David
----- Original Message -----
From: "Ken" <klehman@albedo.net>
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: OVM disconnect relay 'tween alternator &
VR on juliet
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Ken <klehman@albedo.net>
>
> David
>
> Your pdf displayed just fine for me after I patched the link in your
e-mail.
>
> I didn't know there was a 40amp JD alternator. While
> there are automotive relays supposedly rated at 40 amp they usually have
> push on connectors and in the past Bob has recommended not exceeding 20
> amps for push on connectors. I ended up purchasing a battery master
> contactor for the ov circuit on my main 40 amp ND alternator. I couldn't
> find anything else that was affordable, rated for continuous duty, and
> had bolt on connections.
>
> FWIW I elected to try a smaller than 5 amp breaker to feed the ov relay.
>
> Ken
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 |
|
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Brian Lloyd <brianl@lloyd.com>
On Aug 31, 2004, at 10:14 AM, Ron Koyich wrote:
> But a simple pad will match a 23 Watt car stereo amplifier to an
> intercom
> music input better than a 500 mW 8 ohm to 500 ohm transformer, without
> danger of smoking the little transformer. If a bigger transformer were
> used, I believe it would weigh more than the attenuator.
But most automobile stereo system outputs are bridged rather than
referenced to ground. Basically you have a balanced output. The
transformer is nice to solve the balanced-to-unbalanced output problem.
And since the output of the car stereo is something like 24V-pp maximum
output you don't really need a step-up transformer. You probably want
a step down transformer with a relatively high impedance input.
Brian Lloyd 6501 Red Hook Plaza
brianl@lloyd.com Suite 201
+1.340.998.9447 St. Thomas, VI 00802
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@matronics.com'" <aeroelectric-list@matronics.com>
| Subject: | RE: [subaruaircraft] Digest Number 1262 |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Glaeser, Dennis A" <dennis.glaeser@eds.com>
OK, the batteries are both getting charged AND buffering the alternator - a
valid and important point. Is there an advantage to switching back and
forth between 2 batteries, vs. just leaving both connected all the time?
Regarding the VR: My understanding is: if it sensed a fully charged battery,
to prevent overcharging it would reduce the voltage from the 'charging'
level to the 'maintenance' level. I forget the values, but it is something
like 13.8 charging and 13.2 maintenance. The alternator still takes the
whole electrical load, but now the battery is being treated 'better'.
Now the question is: Will the added complexity of treating the battery
'better' truly add reliability to the system? In our case, we're not talking
about reducing battery failure (I just don't see that as a problem), we're
looking for maximum battery capacity - making it last the longest time
possible if the alternator fails. Does anyone have statistics on the
degradation of batteries constantly charged at 13.8V (for 1 to 4 hours -
then sit for a few days) versus those where the voltage is reduced once
fully charged? My guess is that the difference would be measurable but not
dramatic. In the end, replacing oldest the battery every annual probably
mitigates the whole thing. If treating the battery 'better' demonstrates
that keeping a battery longer could be justified, that might justify the
cost/complexity of such a system.
I'm going to post this on the AeroElectric list also, to get that group's
input. Might as well stir two pots with one spoon!
Dennis Glaeser
=============================================================
Date: Mon, 30 Aug 2004 22:40:01 -0500
From: "Jim Skala" <wa8vwy2@bellsouth.net>
Subject: Re: Re: Alternative Electrical System
Not true -- battery needs to be connected while alternator is running to
keep the AC components to a minimum. If you run the alternator without the
battery, you will have about 2 volts peak-to-peak of AC on the DC bus.
Date: Mon, 30 Aug 2004 23:02:22 -0500
From: "Jim Skala" <wa8vwy2@bellsouth.net>
Subject: Re: Re: Alternative electrical system
Lets say a VR could sense a fully charged battery. What then? If the
airplane took absolutely no current to run anything, and the only purpose of
the alternator was to charge the battery, then no problem with reducing the
alternator field current to zero. But because the alternator must supply
the power load of the airplane, any drop in voltage would cause the battery
to begin to discharge because the battery is a critical part of the circuit,
and current is constantly shuffling in and out of the battery to keep the
alternator's natural AC components off the DC bus.
----- Original Message -----
From: Glaeser, Dennis A
To: 'subaruaircraft@yahoogroups.com'
Sent: Thursday, August 26, 2004 1:39 PM
Subject: [subaruaircraft] Re: Alternative Electrical System
While the alternator is working, the batteries aren't doing anything
except
getting charged, so what does the switching back and forth accomplish? In
battery-only operation such a device will be using precious electrons
(maybe
not many, but not zero) which should be running the engine and other
essential devices. It is also another failure point.
Batteries are one of the most reliable items in the system, there are 2 of
them, and they should be checked before flight and monitored in-flight.
Is
there a problem I'm missing that needs to be solved?
Dennis Glaeser
Future RV7A builder...
==============================================
Date: Mon, 30 Aug 2004 23:02:22 -0500
From: "Jim Skala" <wa8vwy2@bellsouth.net>
Subject: Re: Re: Alternative electrical system
Lets say a VR could sense a fully charged battery. What then? If the
airplane took absolutely no current to run anything, and the only purpose of
the alternator was to charge the battery, then no problem with reducing the
alternator field current to zero. But because the alternator must supply
the power load of the airplane, any drop in voltage would cause the battery
to begin to discharge because the battery is a critical part of the circuit,
and current is constantly shuffling in and out of the battery to keep the
alternator's natural AC components off the DC bus.
> Date: Thu, 26 Aug 2004 22:40:09 EDT
> From: eaainc@aol.com
>Subject: Re: Alternative electrical system
>
>
>In a message dated 8/26/2004 10:08:18 PM Eastern Standard Time,
>jean_don@msn.com writes:
>
>I see great advantage to putting both batteries into the circuit
>until there some need to separate them - failed alternator. This
>can be done manually or automatically. Doing this will allow both
>batteries to be recharged together after the start and you could
>alternate which battery was used for the start or use both. I would
>also recommend getting into a routine of changing out one of the
>batteries each year. A very small cost for very good insurance.
>
>Don Russell
--------------------------------
>I am also thinking along these lines. I am instantly warned if the
>alternator is out of the loop and fuses handle any kind of short. Each
battery could
>even be fused separately to the bus with 100A or so fuses. This
approach
>would make things simple. There could be an engine BUS from each
battery
for
>emergency use when not running on dual?
>
>This discussion is no longer about replacing the existing system but
rather
>an alternative system. I believe the alternative should be a simpler
system.
>
>Jan
------------------
Date: Wed, 25 Aug 2004 22:04:11 EDT
From: eaainc@aol.com
Subject: Re: Alternative Electrical System
I have been reading the posts regarding the alternative electrical system.
What are the implications of having a single battery bus system, then
alternating the feed to it from 2 separate batteries on a time schedule?
Good and bad?
Jan
============================================================================
===
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: RE: [subaruaircraft] Digest Number 1262 |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Brian Lloyd <brianl@lloyd.com>
On Aug 31, 2004, at 11:16 AM, Glaeser, Dennis A wrote:
> Now the question is: Will the added complexity of treating the battery
> 'better' truly add reliability to the system? In our case, we're not
> talking
> about reducing battery failure (I just don't see that as a problem),
> we're
> looking for maximum battery capacity - making it last the longest time
> possible if the alternator fails. Does anyone have statistics on the
> degradation of batteries constantly charged at 13.8V (for 1 to 4 hours
> -
> then sit for a few days) versus those where the voltage is reduced once
> fully charged? My guess is that the difference would be measurable
> but not
> dramatic. In the end, replacing oldest the battery every annual
> probably
> mitigates the whole thing. If treating the battery 'better'
> demonstrates
> that keeping a battery longer could be justified, that might justify
> the
> cost/complexity of such a system.
We had a big discussion on this a while back so you might want to
peruse the archives.
The issue of reducing the voltage from "charge" to "float" is one of
increasing battery life, not increasing battery capacity (well, perhaps
that too if you count how the life is limited by lost capacity). If
you live in a warm climate (I do) battery life is greatly extended by
adjusting the charge voltage for temperature and not overcharging the
battery. Batteries rarely last two years down here where temps are
typically over 80F year-round unless you have compensated the charging
voltage for temperature.
If you want a two or three stage charge regulator with temperature
compensation for your battery such things are available from marine
supply places since that charging regimen is becoming the rule on boats
that use their battery banks to provide power when the engine is not
running.
The other thing to look at is what the charge and float voltages should
be for flooded-cell, AGM, and gel-cell batteries. AGM and flooded-cell
are pretty close but AGMs do not tolerate overcharge as well as
flooded-cell batteries do. Gel-cell batteries have charge and float
voltages relatively near to each other so it is possible to set your
regulator to a single voltage and stay within both the change and float
voltage ranges. If you set the charge voltage to the low end of the
acceptable range you are probably at the upper end of the acceptable
float voltage range. This means you can get away with a regulator with
a single setpoint. Temperature compensation is important in that case.
Brian Lloyd 6501 Red Hook Plaza
brianl@lloyd.com Suite 201
+1.340.998.9447 St. Thomas, VI 00802
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: Locking female fast-ons |
on juliet
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Ken <klehman@albedo.net>
Charlie
I haven't followed this thread but I have in my hand what sounds like
what you might be after.
Digikey A27927CT for 14-18ga
Digikey A27930CT for 12-16ga
They are tin plated 1/4" female pushons that lock into digikey PB16
sockets for 5 pin VF4 series relays among others.
Ken
Charlie Kuss wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Charlie Kuss <chaztuna@adelphia.net>
>
>David
> Thanks for your efforts on my behalf. However, push ons are not what I'm
>looking for. What I WANT, is called "push to lock". These are a variant of
>the more common "push ons" you refer to below. The "push to lock" females
>have a U shaped area cut from the back (flat) side of the terminal's
>contact area. This area is bent out. When pushed into a matching socket,
>the terminal is trapped in the socket by this tab. See
>
>
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: | Re: Locking female fast-ons on juliet |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <b.nuckolls@cox.net>
At 02:08 PM 8/31/2004 -0400, you wrote:
I've run numerous tests and demonstrations for resistance
to vibration and the "non locking" variety fast-on terminals
are entirely adequate for our applications. All of the PIDG
fast-on females feature a locking pip that will increase
retention force on male terminals that also feature the right
detent . . . yeah, it's pretty good idea but the difference
is not worth worrying about.
Bob . . .
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Ken <klehman@albedo.net>
>
>Charlie
>I haven't followed this thread but I have in my hand what sounds like
>what you might be after.
>Digikey A27927CT for 14-18ga
>Digikey A27930CT for 12-16ga
>They are tin plated 1/4" female pushons that lock into digikey PB16
>sockets for 5 pin VF4 series relays among others.
>Ken
>
>Charlie Kuss wrote:
>
> >--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Charlie Kuss
> <chaztuna@adelphia.net>
> >
> >David
> > Thanks for your efforts on my behalf. However, push ons are not what I'm
> >looking for. What I WANT, is called "push to lock". These are a variant of
> >the more common "push ons" you refer to below. The "push to lock" females
> >have a U shaped area cut from the back (flat) side of the terminal's
> >contact area. This area is bent out. When pushed into a matching socket,
> >the terminal is trapped in the socket by this tab. See
> >
> >
>
>
>---
>Version: 6.0.742 / Virus Database: 495 - Release Date: 8/19/2004
Bob . . .
--------------------------------------------------------
< Throughout history, poverty is the normal condition >
< of man. Advances which permit this norm to be >
< exceeded -- here and there, now and then -- are the >
< work of an extremely small minority, frequently >
< despised, often condemned, and almost always opposed >
< by all right-thinking people. Whenever this tiny >
< minority is kept from creating, or (as sometimes >
< happens) is driven out of a society, the people >
< then slip back into abject poverty. >
< >
< This is known as "bad luck". >
< -Lazarus Long- >
<------------------------------------------------------>
http://www.aeroelectric.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: | Re: 35amp PM alternator |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <b.nuckolls@cox.net>
At 09:35 AM 8/31/2004 -0500, you wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "David Carter"
><dcarter@datarecall.net>
>
>Ken, I reviewed my info sheet on Deere alternators. There is a 35 amp that
>is light weight, which I consider usable. There is also a 40/50 that is
>much heavier. I knew there was one of them that I had conflicting info on -
>was the 40/50, not a "35/40".
>
>As noted, one could use 2 of the 20 amp alterntors to have a 40 amp
>capacity. Would be appealing if had a pulley at each end of engine so each
>alternator had its own belt - true redundancy and separation in case 1 belt
>broke it wouldn't take out the other. I don't plan on trying this.
>
>That 35amp "limit" is the reason I am interested the "Simplification"
>architecture - eliminating the 1amp current draw of a "battery contactor"
>(or 2) - and am interested in using LED lights to the max instead of
>incandescant bulbs - to keep night IFR load below 35 amps.
>
>David
I'd like to see your final load analysis. The largest full-up
IFR load I've run to date on a 14v system is 27A.
Bob . . .
---
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: Dual Alternator/Bat Crossfeed? |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <b.nuckolls@cox.net>
At 07:44 AM 8/31/2004 -0600, you wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Malcolm Thomson"
><mdthomson@attglobal.net>
>
>Is there any reason to not leave the Crossfeed switch in the ON position
>all the time? I know it is used for starting power and for "backup"
>power but would it be OK to leave on during normal operations. What
>would be the pro/cons for doing so?
Z-14's major advantage is totally independent electrical systems
that back each other up . . . not work in tandem. If you want a
system like a 1970's Baron or a Twin Comanche then you can simply
leave the contactor out and tie the two systems together. If you
fly with the contactor closed, you can have failure of one alternator
go un-annunciated if the working alternator is capable of carrying
the full system load.
Bob . . .
---
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: | Re: Locking female fast-ons on juliet |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <b.nuckolls@cox.net>
At 06:36 PM 8/31/2004 -0500, you wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III"
><b.nuckolls@cox.net>
>
>At 02:08 PM 8/31/2004 -0400, you wrote:
>
> I've run numerous tests and demonstrations for resistance
> to vibration and the "non locking" variety fast-on terminals
> are entirely adequate for our applications. All of the PIDG
> fast-on females feature a locking pip that will increase
> retention force on male terminals that also feature the right
> detent . . . yeah, it's pretty good idea but the difference
> is not worth worrying about.
>
> Bob . . .
Hmmmm . . . I guess I was thinking of the wrong 'locking' feature.
I understand now that the question was about a the retaining barb
that holds an installed terminal captive to the molded housing.
The Digikey parts look like
http://rocky.digikey.com/WebLib/Amp/Web%20Data/42281.pdf
Looks like the minimum buy is 100 pieces.
These terminals can be installed using tools like B&Cs
BCT-1 which you can see at:
http://bandc.biz/cgi-bin/ez-catalog/cat_display.cgi?9X358218#BCT-
Bob . . .
> >--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Ken <klehman@albedo.net>
> >
> >Charlie
> >I haven't followed this thread but I have in my hand what sounds like
> >what you might be after.
> >Digikey A27927CT for 14-18ga
> >Digikey A27930CT for 12-16ga
> >They are tin plated 1/4" female pushons that lock into digikey PB16
> >sockets for 5 pin VF4 series relays among others.
> >Ken
> >
> >Charlie Kuss wrote:
> >
> > >--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Charlie Kuss
> > <chaztuna@adelphia.net>
> > >
> > >David
> > > Thanks for your efforts on my behalf. However, push ons are not what I'm
> > >looking for. What I WANT, is called "push to lock". These are a variant of
> > >the more common "push ons" you refer to below. The "push to lock" females
> > >have a U shaped area cut from the back (flat) side of the terminal's
> > >contact area. This area is bent out. When pushed into a matching socket,
> > >the terminal is trapped in the socket by this tab. See
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >---
> >Version: 6.0.742 / Virus Database: 495 - Release Date: 8/19/2004
>
>
> Bob . . .
>
>
> --------------------------------------------------------
> < Throughout history, poverty is the normal condition >
> < of man. Advances which permit this norm to be >
> < exceeded -- here and there, now and then -- are the >
> < work of an extremely small minority, frequently >
> < despised, often condemned, and almost always opposed >
> < by all right-thinking people. Whenever this tiny >
> < minority is kept from creating, or (as sometimes >
> < happens) is driven out of a society, the people >
> < then slip back into abject poverty. >
> < >
> < This is known as "bad luck". >
> < -Lazarus Long- >
> <------------------------------------------------------>
> http://www.aeroelectric.com
>
>
>---
>
>
>---
>Version: 6.0.742 / Virus Database: 495 - Release Date: 8/19/2004
Bob . . .
--------------------------------------------------------
< Throughout history, poverty is the normal condition >
< of man. Advances which permit this norm to be >
< exceeded -- here and there, now and then -- are the >
< work of an extremely small minority, frequently >
< despised, often condemned, and almost always opposed >
< by all right-thinking people. Whenever this tiny >
< minority is kept from creating, or (as sometimes >
< happens) is driven out of a society, the people >
< then slip back into abject poverty. >
< >
< This is known as "bad luck". >
< -Lazarus Long- >
<------------------------------------------------------>
http://www.aeroelectric.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 |
|
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <b.nuckolls@cox.net>
At 10:14 PM 8/31/2004 +0800, you wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Ron Koyich" <Ron@Koyich.com>
>
> >> Don't require power supplies. I one of the design goals is to break
>every potential "ground loop", a transformer's input-to-output isolation
>is unequaled.<<
>
>No arguments with either of those statements, Bob.
>
>But a simple pad will match a 23 Watt car stereo amplifier to an intercom
>music input better than a 500 mW 8 ohm to 500 ohm transformer, without
>danger of smoking the little transformer. If a bigger transformer were
>used, I believe it would weigh more than the attenuator.
Oh certainly, I'd put a pad ahead of a small transformer so its
size can remain low. But if a pad-only installation has any extraneous
noises audible during quiet passages of the music, I'd sure try
adding transformers to see if breaking ground loops helps.
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: | Re: Solid state contactors, OVP |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <b.nuckolls@cox.net>
At 02:45 PM 8/30/2004 -0400, you wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: SportAV8R@aol.com
>
>'Lectric Bob-
>
>I'm wondering if a few details of your design philosophy will necessarily
>shift when builders begin adopting Eric Jones's not-yet-available solid
>state large-current (1280 amp)contactors (or similar) in their designs, as
>regards the need to shed the one-amp battery contactor load during an
>alternator failure. Seems like in addition to a weight savings versus
>electromagnetic contactors and relays, there might be a reduction in parts
>count for the essentials bus supply routing.
I've not had occasion to try one. I had a sample a year or so
ago and had intentions of testing it but lost access to my
high current test stand. I've not built one for my shop yet.
I returned the parts to Eric.
>I'm also curious to hear your "take" on PerihelionDesign's non-crowbar
>approach to alternator regulation and OVP.
That will work too . . . especially after we slay the "battery-dump"
dragon. The same ceiling on battery-dump excursions will protect
the series pass components of a solid state ov disconnect "relay".
Bob . . .
---
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: 35amp PM alternator |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "David Carter" <dcarter@datarecall.net>
----- Original Message -----
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <b.nuckolls@cox.net>
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Re: 35amp PM alternator
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III"
<b.nuckolls@cox.net>
>
> At 09:35 AM 8/31/2004 -0500, you wrote:
>
> >--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "David Carter"
> ><dcarter@datarecall.net>
> >
> >Ken, I reviewed my info sheet on Deere alternators. There is a 35 amp
that
> >is light weight, which I consider usable. There is also a 40/50 that is
> >much heavier. I knew there was one of them that I had conflicting info
on -
> >was the 40/50, not a "35/40".
> >
> >As noted, one could use 2 of the 20 amp alterntors to have a 40 amp
> >capacity. Would be appealing if had a pulley at each end of engine so
each
> >alternator had its own belt - true redundancy and separation in case 1
belt
> >broke it wouldn't take out the other. I don't plan on trying this.
> >
> >That 35amp "limit" is the reason I am interested the "Simplification"
> >architecture - eliminating the 1amp current draw of a "battery contactor"
> >(or 2) - and am interested in using LED lights to the max instead of
> >incandescant bulbs - to keep night IFR load below 35 amps.
> >
> >David
>
> I'd like to see your final load analysis. The largest full-up
> IFR load I've run to date on a 14v system is 27A.
>
> Bob . . .
My spreadsheet currently shows 28A "night cruise" and 30.4 "night descent" -
with mech switches for Batt 1 & 2. With a few engine computer items not yet
included because I haven't found out the current draw, yet. Also based on
incandescent lighting - haven't calculated led systems, yet. I'll be
running 30 to 35A with incandescent exterior lights,with a 35 amp
alternator. Hope to be down to 30 or so amps with LED ext lites - for more
"headroom".
David
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: Solid state contactors, OVP |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "David Carter" <dcarter@datarecall.net>
----- Original Message -----
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <b.nuckolls@cox.net>
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Solid state contactors, OVP
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III"
<b.nuckolls@cox.net>
>
> At 02:45 PM 8/30/2004 -0400, you wrote:
>
> >--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: SportAV8R@aol.com
> >
> >'Lectric Bob-
> >
> >I'm wondering if a few details of your design philosophy will necessarily
> >shift when builders begin adopting Eric Jones's not-yet-available solid
> >state large-current (1280 amp)contactors (or similar) in their designs,
as
> >regards the need to shed the one-amp battery contactor load during an
> >alternator failure. Seems like in addition to a weight savings versus
> >electromagnetic contactors and relays, there might be a reduction in
parts
> >count for the essentials bus supply routing.
>
> I've not had occasion to try one. I had a sample a year or so
> ago and had intentions of testing it but lost access to my
> high current test stand. I've not built one for my shop yet.
> I returned the parts to Eric.
>
>
> >I'm also curious to hear your "take" on PerihelionDesign's non-crowbar
> >approach to alternator regulation and OVP.
>
> That will work too . . . especially after we slay the "battery-dump"
> dragon. The same ceiling on battery-dump excursions will protect
> the series pass components of a solid state ov disconnect "relay".
>
> Bob . . .
Where's the info on PerihelionDesign's non-crowbar approach to regulation
and OVP? Website? Word of mouth so far? If the "current technology" relay
shown with the Crowbar OVM in the Z-drawings could be replaced with "solid
state", that would be another .8 or 1.0 amp reduction in load for my 35 amp
alternator.
David
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! --
|