Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 03:03 AM - Re: Re: General Wiring Question (Dan O'Brien)
2. 06:42 AM - MicroAir Antenna (William Yamokoski)
3. 11:32 AM - Hall effect sensor (Glen Matejcek)
4. 01:46 PM - Re: Load Dump Question (Paul Messinger)
5. 01:46 PM - Re: Load Dump Question (Paul Messinger)
6. 02:18 PM - Open letter to the list (Paul Messinger)
7. 02:26 PM - Re: Load Dump Question (Jerry2DT@aol.com)
8. 02:53 PM - Re: Re: Load Dump Question (Paul Messinger)
9. 02:53 PM - Re: Load Dump Question (luckymacy@comcast.net (lucky))
10. 03:01 PM - Re: Pilot stick grip priority options rev B (Leo J. Corbalis)
11. 03:06 PM - Narco CS-3B Indicator Pinout (Mr. Pilot Peter)
12. 03:46 PM - Re: Load Dump Question (Bill Schlatterer)
13. 04:05 PM - Re: Load Dump Question (Eric M. Jones)
14. 04:05 PM - Points for discussion (Paul Messinger)
15. 05:43 PM - Re: Narco CS-3B Indicator Pinout (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
16. 06:09 PM - Re: Re: Load Dump Question (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
17. 07:15 PM - Re: Open letter to the list (Harold Kovac)
18. 09:20 PM - AMP CPC connectors and Pins (Tim Olson)
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: Re: General Wiring Question |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Dan O'Brien" <danobrien@cox.net>
>The assumption is (by Garmin) is the 430 tray is connected to the airframe
>through mounting screws, and the ground terminals (I found the purpose of
>those at AOPA convention) is connected to the tray, and the tray to the
>airframe. At least that's the way mine is and it works.
>>On a composite like my Lancair, the mounting screws will not ground the
tray.
>>Is one supposed to run a wire from the ground stud
>>on the radio case to the ground bus? There is no mention of this
>>in either the Garmin 430 or UPS SL30 manuals.
>>>OK, I may be wrong. The 430 does have a ground wire for both the COM
and GPS
>>>power supplies (connectors P4002 and P4001). Check with a multimeter
(ohms)
>>>to see if the ground terminals, that funny
>>>looking thing on the back of the tray, Fig F-6 which identifies it as
Shield
>>>Grounds, and one of the ground wires have continuity when the 430 is
plugged
>>>in. If not, then I would guess you need to run a ground wire from the
tray to
>>>you aircraft ground bus. Let us know what you find out.
Wayne,
Thanks for the suggestion. I checked with an ohmmeter with the cables
plugged in, and all the grounds --- the Aircraft Power pins on the P4001
and P4002 connectors, along with the case ground stud --- are tied
together. Answers my question. Thanks,
Dan
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: | MicroAir Antenna |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "William Yamokoski" <yamokosk@lakemichigancollege.edu>
Hi Folks,
I notice that MicroAir is offering a com antenna they recommend for
composite aircraft. Supposedly no ground plane required. Does anyone
have information on this? I currently have MicroAir 760 and a copper
strip dipole antenna in the vertical stabilizer of my GlaStar...looking
to try something else. Thanks for any input.
Bill Yamokoski, N4970Y
430 hrs on the EggenSoob that fires right up in 10 degree weather
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: | Hall effect sensor |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Glen Matejcek" <aerobubba@earthlink.net>
Hi All-
A short while ago, someone (Bob, I believe) made the suggestion to run both
the main and stby alt B leads through the same Hall effect sensor. Seems
like a pretty nifty idea, but something just came to mind. The
installation instructions for the SD-8 call for the leads from the SD-8 all
the way to the battery to be a twisted pair. How close can the ground wire
be to the Hall effect sensor before it starts to influence the sensor vs.
the need to maintain the twisted pair for noise suppression?
As ever, thanks in advance!
Glen Matejcek
aerobubba@earthlink.net
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: Load Dump Question |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Paul Messinger" <paulm@olypen.com>
----- Original Message -----
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <b.nuckolls@cox.net>
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Load Dump Question
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III"
<b.nuckolls@cox.net>
>
> At 02:26 PM 1/22/2005 -0800, you wrote:
>
> >--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Paul Messinger"
<paulm@olypen.com>
>
> >However Bob's crow bar OVP will trigger with the above load dump and this
> >results in the hi current during its operation that some of us object to.
A
> >simple addition of a small value series resistor fixes that.
>
> If the battery is off line and the crowbar "trips" there is no
> high current pulse. The alternator is physically incapable of
> delivering more than a few percent above rated current. Once
> the battery is out of the loop, a crowbar trip sinks the relatively
> low current of the alternator . . . the alternator looses excitation
> and dies.
Not sure about the alternators ability to exceed the max rated current by
only a small amount.
The one I tested was rated at 55 amps and at 55 amps the regulator was still
far less than 100% duty cycle for full field current. 100% is needed for the
true max current which may be far more than rated current in some products.
Thus its my opinion that currents up to 100 amps are possible with larger
alternators and in any event there is simply no reason to have a product
(OVP) that produces currents excessive to the job. We gain nothing in more
than 20-30 amps in speed of tripping a 5 amp CB based on my testing of
several common types.
>
> >If the load dump is a result of the "B" lead opening the load dump issue
is
> >contained to the alternator where you may or may not damage the
alternator
> >internal regulator. A transorb on the alternator side of the "B" lead
> >contactor will protect the alternator if the regulator is not up to the
> >task. This is a second transorb as one needs to be on the Bus side also.
>
> Why? if load dump energies come from the alternator, one Transorb
> at the alternator's b-lead terminal should suffice for all cases.
True in concept however as in another post I have found other causes of
transients. See other post for response
Note that Bob has not found these but I have documented some in my upcomming
report. Perhaps its not something in most systems but a pix is hard to deny.
>
>
> >If the load dump is a result of disconnecting a charging battery the load
> >dump is delivered to the aircraft bus and potential damage can result to
> >your avionics. Its likely the OVP will trip but not in time in all cases
to
> >prevent a short hi voltage pulse on the BUS. The OVP takes some time to
> >start clamping (5-10MS?) and much longer (50-100ms) to disconnect the
> >alternator thru the "B" lead contactor. Even 5 ms is long with a 60V or
> >higher pulse on BUS.
> >
> >So some of us feel the need for the "Transorb" to keep the BUS voltages
> >clamped while the OVP can act. The transorb acts not in 5 MS but in 1/2
pico
> >second 10,000+ times faster and faster than any damage can start.
> >
> >If the failure is a failed hi voltage alternator the transorb clamps the
> >voltage while the OVP acts. Both arte needed in the safest system.
> >
> >If this does not answer your concerns ask more as everyone benefits from
> >such a "conversation"
>
> Agreed!
>
> Bob . . .
>
>
Message 5
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Load Dump Question |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Paul Messinger" <paulm@olypen.com>
I have found sharp transients on the bus independent of the alternator load
dump.
Bob has not been able to find any so we disagree. A single 1.5k transorb
will clamp any present as well as clamp the OVP trigger while the OVP is in
process of clamping the overvoltage. Of coure while the altertnator is
connected and you have an alternator load dump transorb that will do the
job.
A single transorb is under $1 and extra insurance and may or may not bee
needed as these transients i have found may not occur in your system.
Remember that all alternators inter or external regulated exibit load dumps
so its best to have a transorb of hi capacity like the Whackjack which is a
convient package of 3 1.5K transorbs in parallel. These devices load share
well so normally matching is not needed but at least 3 are needed for a
60amp alternator.
Paul
----- Original Message -----
From: "Vincent Welch" <welchvincent@hotmail.com>
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Load Dump Question
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Vincent Welch"
<welchvincent@hotmail.com>
>
> OK, I'm almost with you Paul. If I place a transorb (say, the Whackjack)
on
> the alternator side of the B-Lead contactor, doesn't that clamp the entire
> line from alternator, through contactor, to the bus? If the battery is
> taken offline accidently isn't the bus still clamped through that
transorb?
> If the B-Lead contactor opens due to the OVP trip won't the bus voltage be
> stabilized by the battery? If all of these things are true, why do we
need
> a second transorb on the bus side?
>
> If I do need a second transorb on the bus side, is another Whackjack
> acceptable or should I use something else? If so, what?
>
> Vince
>
> >From: "Paul Messinger" <paulm@olypen.com>
> >Reply-To: aeroelectric-list@matronics.com
> >To: <aeroelectric-list@matronics.com>
> >Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Load Dump Question
> >Date: Sat, 22 Jan 2005 14:26:53 -0800
> >
> >--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Paul Messinger"
> ><paulm@olypen.com>
> >
> >As I recall the original start of this thread was early last year when
> >there
> >were failures of Van's rebuilt alternators. Bob and others questioned the
> >quality of the rebuilt regulator in the Van's alternator.
> >
> >Personally I have never seen any real proof of what was the true cause. I
> >have real trouble believing Van would sell substandard alternators. ALL
> >standard alternator internal regulators are protected against worst case
> >load dump.
> >
> >Any way You are correct that in the case of a real alternator regulator
HI
> >voltage failure, the only solution is to cut the "B" lead and "so what"
if
> >that causes an isolated load dump that the alternator cannot take.
> >
> >However if the alternator is working fine and the battery is disconnected
> >the resulting load dump is distributed to the bus and can cause harm
> >depending on what is on the bus and how big the load dump is.
> >
> >There are a couple of solutions to this. First a transorb big enough to
> >clamp the load dump hi voltage. This has nothing directly to do with any
> >OVP
> >device present.
> >
> >However Bob's crow bar OVP will trigger with the above load dump and this
> >results in the hi current during its operation that some of us object to.
A
> >simple addition of a small value series resistor fixes that.
> >
> >If the load dump is a result of the "B" lead opening the load dump issue
is
> >contained to the alternator where you may or may not damage the
alternator
> >internal regulator. A transorb on the alternator side of the "B" lead
> >contactor will protect the alternator if the regulator is not up to the
> >task. This is a second transorb as one needs to be on the Bus side also.
> >
> >If the load dump is a result of disconnecting a charging battery the load
> >dump is delivered to the aircraft bus and potential damage can result to
> >your avionics. Its likely the OVP will trip but not in time in all cases
to
> >prevent a short hi voltage pulse on the BUS. The OVP takes some time to
> >start clamping (5-10MS?) and much longer (50-100ms) to disconnect the
> >alternator thru the "B" lead contactor. Even 5 ms is long with a 60V or
> >higher pulse on BUS.
> >
> >So some of us feel the need for the "Transorb" to keep the BUS voltages
> >clamped while the OVP can act. The transorb acts not in 5 MS but in 1/2
> >pico
> >second 10,000+ times faster and faster than any damage can start.
> >
> >If the failure is a failed hi voltage alternator the transorb clamps the
> >voltage while the OVP acts. Both arte needed in the safest system.
> >
> >If this does not answer your concerns ask more as everyone benefits from
> >such a "conversation"
> >
> >Paul
> >
> >----- Original Message -----
> >From: "Vincent Welch" <welchvincent@hotmail.com>
> >To: <aeroelectric-list@matronics.com>
> >Subject: AeroElectric-List: Load Dump Question
> >
> >
> > > --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Vincent Welch"
> ><welchvincent@hotmail.com>
> > >
> > > Hey guys, I have been watching this "Battle Of The Titans" with great
> > > interest. I have a question from one a bit lower down the food
chain:)
> > >
> > > It has always been my understanding that the purpose of the OV circuit
> >was
> > > to protect my avionics from a runaway alternator. The alternator or
> > > regulator has already failed and the voltage is climbing. The crowbar
> >opens
> > > the circuit to limit prevent damage to my expensive avionics. The
> > > alternator/regulator has already failed, its trash, so I open the
B-lead
> > > under load, I get a load dump event. So what? Why do I care about
> >trying
> > > to protect the alternator now?
> > >
> > > I can understand limiting the crowbar circuit current and adding a
> >resistor
> > > sounds like a simple easy solution to that problem.
> > >
> > > What am I missing here? Please further educate me.
> > >
> > > Vince
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>
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: | Open letter to the list |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Paul Messinger" <paulm@olypen.com>
I have been a follower of the Aeroelectric Connection for 10+ years.
Bob has contributed more to experimental aviation electrical systems design
etc ( in my opinion) than ALL the rest of those pundits who would try to
educate builders in electrical systems design.
Many of us are in awe of how much Bob produces and still has time for a Job,
not to mention the width and depth of his knowledge.
But, I and other equally experienced electrical and electronic engineers
have some concerns with some of the positions and recommendations of the
Aeroelectric connection web site as well as this list.
I firmly believe that alternate solutions exist and should be given a fair
and unbiased discussion as there are always more than one good solution to
most every problem. While its great to have firm opinions not all of us
agree with each other and a well done technical vs. opinion discussion is
helpful.
These discussions should end with agreement that the others opinion has
passed technical merit and is a reasonable alternative. Today most of the
time its "my or no way" or lets overwhelm the discussion with verbose
responses until the discussion is overwhelmed with factoids not always
relevant.
During the past few years I have noticed that, on occasion, some one posts
an alternate solution and is slapped down with a comment like "why would you
want to do that" etc. The result is that person typically decides not to
follow up and others decide not to voice their alternant opinions in fear of
being slapped at. I do not think the response was intended to be harsh, just
a request for basis of that position but it comes across much harder and the
result is much discussion is suppressed.
Its now gotten to the point that many different positions are not even being
posted. I know as many post to me privately to get my opinion.
I have come up with a list of subjects and concerns where I and my
associates disagree with the "official" position of Aeroelectric Connection
in that there are pros and cons that might suggest that at least some of the
time a different concept is preferred.
This list will be a separate post soon.
With the greatest admiration and respect to Bob.
Paul
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: Load Dump Question |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Jerry2DT@aol.com
Paul,
I'm sure you're right, Van's would not sell a bad
alternator....intentionally that is. However, there are any number of bad flap
motors are there from
Van's, and those weren't intentionally sold defective either. My .02..
BTW, how's your health, feeling better?
Jerry Cochran
In a message dated 1/22/2005 11:59:35 P.M. Pacific Standard Time,
aeroelectric-list-digest@matronics.com writes:
Personally I have never seen any real proof of what was the true cause. I
have real trouble believing Van would sell substandard alternators. ALL
standard alternator internal regulators are protected against worst case
load dump.
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: Load Dump Question |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Paul Messinger" <paulm@olypen.com>
My nagging question is "what is the real cause of the failure" I plan on
calling Vans tomorrow and see what they say. Bad alternators is quite
different from inability to handle load dump and/or its Bob's OVP that is
the problem.
Feeling better but still very tired after 6-7 weeks of bad times.
I have not forgotten your list nor the Dyno test/inspection.
Paul
----- Original Message -----
From: <Jerry2DT@aol.com>
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Re: Load Dump Question
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Jerry2DT@aol.com
>
>
> Paul,
>
> I'm sure you're right, Van's would not sell a bad
> alternator....intentionally that is. However, there are any number of bad
flap motors are there from
> Van's, and those weren't intentionally sold defective either. My .02..
>
> BTW, how's your health, feeling better?
>
> Jerry Cochran
>
> In a message dated 1/22/2005 11:59:35 P.M. Pacific Standard Time,
> aeroelectric-list-digest@matronics.com writes:
>
>
> Personally I have never seen any real proof of what was the true cause. I
> have real trouble believing Van would sell substandard alternators. ALL
> standard alternator internal regulators are protected against worst case
> load dump.
>
>
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: Load Dump Question |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: luckymacy@comcast.net (lucky)
Sorry I hadn't paying attention to this topic. My system is done.
But in a sentence or two, if I have Van's 60 amp, internally regulated alternator,
why would I want to consider three parallel transorbs and where would I install
them and how would I know they are doing something for me?
thx,
lucky
-------------- Original message --------------
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Paul Messinger"
>
> I have found sharp transients on the bus independent of the alternator load
> dump.
>
> Bob has not been able to find any so we disagree. A single 1.5k transorb
> will clamp any present as well as clamp the OVP trigger while the OVP is in
> process of clamping the overvoltage. Of coure while the altertnator is
> connected and you have an alternator load dump transorb that will do the
> job.
>
> A single transorb is under $1 and extra insurance and may or may not bee
> needed as these transients i have found may not occur in your system.
>
> Remember that all alternators inter or external regulated exibit load dumps
> so its best to have a transorb of hi capacity like the Whackjack which is a
> convient package of 3 1.5K transorbs in parallel. These devices load share
> well so normally matching is not needed but at least 3 are needed for a
> 60amp alternator.
>
> Paul
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Vincent Welch"
> To:
> Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Load Dump Question
>
>
> > --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Vincent Welch"
>
> >
> > OK, I'm almost with you Paul. If I place a transorb (say, the Whackjack)
> on
> > the alternator side of the B-Lead contactor, doesn't that clamp the entire
> > line from alternator, through contactor, to the bus? If the battery is
> > taken offline accidently isn't the bus still clamped through that
> transorb?
> > If the B-Lead contactor opens due to the OVP trip won't the bus voltage be
> > stabilized by the battery? If all of these things are true, why do we
> need
> > a second transorb on the bus side?
> >
> > If I do need a second transorb on the bus side, is another Whackjack
> > acceptable or should I use something else? If so, what?
> >
> > Vince
> >
> > >From: "Paul Messinger"
> > >Reply-To: aeroelectric-list@matronics.com
> > >To:
> > >Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Load Dump Question
> > >Date: Sat, 22 Jan 2005 14:26:53 -0800
> > >
> > >--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Paul Messinger"
> > >
> > >
> > >As I recall the original start of this thread was early last year when
> > >there
> > >were failures of Van's rebuilt alternators. Bob and others questioned the
> > >quality of the rebuilt regulator in the Van's alternator.
> > >
> > >Personally I have never seen any real proof of what was the true cause. I
> > >have real trouble believing Van would sell substandard alternators. ALL
> > >standard alternator internal regulators are protected against worst case
> > >load dump.
> > >
> > >Any way You are correct that in the case of a real alternator regulator
> HI
> > >voltage failure, the only solution is to cut the "B" lead and "so what"
> if
> > >that causes an isolated load dump that the alternator cannot take.
> > >
> > >However if the alternator is working fine and the battery is disconnected
> > >the resulting load dump is distributed to the bus and can cause harm
> > >depending on what is on the bus and how big the load dump is.
> > >
> > >There are a couple of solutions to this. First a transorb big enough to
> > >clamp the load dump hi voltage. This has nothing directly to do with any
> > >OVP
> > >device present.
> > >
> > >However Bob's crow bar OVP will trigger with the above load dump and this
> > >results in the hi current during its operation that some of us object to.
> A
> > >simple addition of a small value series resistor fixes that.
> > >
> > >If the load dump is a result of the "B" lead opening the load dump issue
> is
> > >contained to the alternator where you may or may not damage the
> alternator
> > >internal regulator. A transorb on the alternator side of the "B" lead
> > >contactor will protect the alternator if the regulator is not up to the
> > >task. This is a second transorb as one needs to be on the Bus side also.
> > >
> > >If the load dump is a result of disconnecting a charging battery the load
> > >dump is delivered to the aircraft bus and potential damage can result to
> > >your avionics. Its likely the OVP will trip but not in time in all cases
> to
> > >prevent a short hi voltage pulse on the BUS. The OVP takes some time to
> > >start clamping (5-10MS?) and much longer (50-100ms) to disconnect the
> > >alternator thru the "B" lead contactor. Even 5 ms is long with a 60V or
> > >higher pulse on BUS.
> > >
> > >So some of us feel the need for the "Transorb" to keep the BUS voltages
> > >clamped while the OVP can act. The transorb acts not in 5 MS but in 1/2
> > >pico
> > >second 10,000+ times faster and faster than any damage can start.
> > >
> > >If the failure is a failed hi voltage alternator the transorb clamps the
> > >voltage while the OVP acts. Both arte needed in the safest system.
> > >
> > >If this does not answer your concerns ask more as everyone benefits from
> > >such a "conversation"
> > >
> > >Paul
> > >
> > >----- Original Message -----
> > >From: "Vincent Welch"
> > >To:
> > >Subject: AeroElectric-List: Load Dump Question
> > >
> > >
> > > > --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Vincent Welch"
> > >
> > > >
> > > > Hey guys, I have been watching this "Battle Of The Titans" with great
> > > > interest. I have a question from one a bit lower down the food
> chain:)
> > > >
> > > > It has always been my understanding that the purpose of the OV circuit
> > >was
> > > > to protect my avionics from a runaway alternator. The alternator or
> > > > regulator has already failed and the voltage is climbing. The crowbar
> > >opens
> > > > the circuit to limit prevent damage to my expensive avionics. The
> > > > alternator/regulator has already failed, its trash, so I open the
> B-lead
> > > > under load, I get a load dump event. So what? Why do I care about
> > >trying
> > > > to protect the alternator now?
> > > >
> > > > I can understand limiting the crowbar circuit current and adding a
> > >resistor
> > > > sounds like a simple easy solution to that problem.
> > > >
> > > > What am I missing here? Please further educate me.
> > > >
> > > > Vince
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
Sorry I hadn't paying attention to this topic. My system is done.
But in a sentence or two, if I have Van's 60 amp, internally regulated alternator,
why would I want to consider three parallel transorbs and where would I install
them and how would I know they are doing something for me?
thx,
lucky
-------------- Original message --------------
-- AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Paul Messinger" <PAULM@OLYPEN.COM>
I have found sharp transients on the bus independent of the alternator load
dump.
Bob has not been able to find any so we disagree. A single 1.5k transorb
will clamp any present as well as clamp the OVP trigger while the OVP is in
process of clamping the overvoltage. Of coure while the altertnator is
connected and you have an alternator load dump transorb that will do the
job.
A single transorb is under $1 and extra insurance and may or may not bee
needed as these transients i have found may not occur in your system.
Remember that all alternators inter or external regulated exibit load dumps
so its best to have a transor
b of hi capacity like the Whackjack which is a
convient package of 3 1.5K transorbs in parallel. These devices load share
well so normally matching is not needed but at least 3 are needed for a
60amp alternator.
Paul
----- Original Message -----
From: "Vincent Welch" <WELCHVINCENT@HOTMAIL.COM>
To: <AEROELECTRIC-LIST@MATRONICS.COM>
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Load Dump Question
-- AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Vincent Welch"
<WELCHVINCENT@HOTMAIL.COM>
OK, I'm almost with you Paul. If I place a transorb (say, the Whackjack)
on
the alternator side of the B-Lead contactor, doesn't that clamp the entire
line from alternator, through contactor, to the bus? If the battery is
taken offline accidently isn't the bus still clamped through that
transorb?
If the B-Lead contactor opens due to the OVP trip won't the bus voltage be
stabilized by the battery? If all of these things are true, why do we
need
a second transorb on the bus side?
If I do need a second transorb on the bus side, is another Whackjack
acceptable or should I use something else? If so, what?
Vince
From: "Paul Messinger" <PAULM@OLYPEN.COM>
Reply-To: aeroelectric-list@matronics.com
To: <AEROELECTRIC-LIST@MATRONICS.COM>
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Load Dump Question
Date: Sat, 22 Jan 2005 14:26:53 -0800
-- AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Paul Messinger"
<PAULM@OLYPEN.COM>
As I recall the original start of this thread was early last year when
there
were failures of Van's rebuilt alternators. Bob and others questioned the
quality of the rebuilt regulator in the Van's alternator.
Personally I have never seen any real proof of what was the true cause. I
have real trouble believing Van would sell substandard alternators. ALL
standard alternator internal regulators are protected against worst case
load dump.
Any way You are correct that in the case of a real alternator regulator
HI
voltage failure, the only solution is to cut the "B" lead and "so what"
if
that causes an isolated load dump that the alternator cannot take.
However if the alternator is working fine and the battery is disconnected
the resulting load dump is distributed
to the bus and can cause harm
depending on what is on the bus and how big the load dump is.
There are a couple of solutions to this. First a transorb big enough to
clamp the load dump hi voltage. This has nothing directly to do with any
OVP
device present.
However Bob's crow bar OVP will trigger with the above load dump and this
results in the hi current during its operation that some of us object to.
A
simple addition of a small value series resistor fixes that.
If the load dump is a result of the "B" lead opening the load dump issue
is
contained to the alternator where you may or may not damage the
alternator
internal regulator. A transorb on the alternator side of the "B" lead
contactor will protect the alternator if the regulator is not up to the
task. This is a second transorb as one needs to be on the Bus side also.
If the load dump is a result of disconnecting a charging battery the load
dump is delivered to the aircraft bus and potential damage can result to
your avionics. Its likely the OVP will trip but not in time in all cases
to
prevent a short hi voltage pulse on the BUS. The OVP takes some time to
start clamping (5-10MS?) and much longer (50-100ms) to disconnect the
alternator thru the "B" lead contactor. Even 5 ms is long with a 60V or
higher pulse on BUS.
So some of us feel the need for the "Transorb" to keep the BUS voltages
clamped while the OVP can act. The transorb acts not in 5 MS but in 1/2
&
gt;pico
second 10,000+ times faster and faster than any damage can start.
If the failure is a failed hi voltage alternator the transorb clamps the
voltage while the OVP acts. Both arte needed in the safest system.
If this does not answer your concerns ask more as everyone benefits from
such a "conversation"
Paul
----- Original Message -----
From: "Vincent Welch" <WELCHVINCENT@HOTMAIL.COM>
To: <AEROELECTRIC-LIST@MATRONICS.COM>
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Load Dump Question
-- AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Vincent Welch"
<WELCHVINCENT@HOTMAIL.COM>
Hey guys, I have been watching this "Battle
Of The Titans" with great
interest. I have a question from one a bit lower down the food
chain:)
It has always been my understanding that the purpose of the OV circuit
was
to protect my avionics from a runaway alternator. The alternator or
regulator has already failed and the voltage is climbing. The crowbar
opens
the circuit to limit prevent damage to my expensive avionics. The
alternator/regulator has already failed, its trash, so I open the
B-lead
under load, I get a load dump event. So what? Why do I care about
trying
to protect the alternator now?
I can understand limiting the crowbar circuit current and adding a
resistor
sounds like a simple easy solution to that problem.
What am I missing here? Please further educate me.
Vince
com/FAQ/AeroElectric-List.htm
Message 10
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Pilot stick grip priority options rev B |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Leo J. Corbalis" <leocorbalis@sbcglobal.net>
Use a 1N4004 and it will never fail. I replaced many 1N4001 that the penny
squeezing manufacturer used. You have no excuse. If you have a REALLY BIG HI
CURRENT COIL then go to 400 volt 5 amp diodes.
Leo Corbalis
----- Original Message -----
From: "Mark Banus" <mbanus@hotmail.com>
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Pilot stick grip priority options rev B
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Mark Banus" <mbanus@hotmail.com>
>
> Bob,
> I am about to start building your circuit for pilot priority. I
intend to use 1N4001 diodes and a T9AP5D52-12 relay. Is there a more
appropriate relay for this application?
>
> Thanks
> Mark Banus
> Glasair S II S FT
>
>
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: | Narco CS-3B Indicator Pinout |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Mr. Pilot Peter" <pdavidson@familynet.net>
I'm trying to find a pinout diagram for a Narco CS-3B Course Selecor/
indicator.
I already tried Narco. They say it's too old.
-Peter
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: | Load Dump Question |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Bill Schlatterer" <billschlatterer@sbcglobal.net>
Following this thread intently but not quite up to speed on transorbs.
Could someone give me a short explanation as to how they work and where they
can be generally used for protection purposes. Assuming that the WhackJack
is a large transorb, it seems like a simple thing that might be overkill
with the B&C set up for IR alternators but what's $29 for peace of mind?
I note that Bob has added one on the Z13a diagram on the IR alternator
itself. Is this substantially different than the WhackJack?
Thanks in advance
Bill Schlatterer
7a QB/fuse/panel
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com]On Behalf Of Paul
Messinger
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Load Dump Question
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Paul Messinger" <paulm@olypen.com>
I have found sharp transients on the bus independent of the alternator load
dump.
Bob has not been able to find any so we disagree. A single 1.5k transorb
will clamp any present as well as clamp the OVP trigger while the OVP is in
process of clamping the overvoltage. Of coure while the altertnator is
connected and you have an alternator load dump transorb that will do the
job.
A single transorb is under $1 and extra insurance and may or may not bee
needed as these transients i have found may not occur in your system.
Remember that all alternators inter or external regulated exibit load dumps
so its best to have a transorb of hi capacity like the Whackjack which is a
convient package of 3 1.5K transorbs in parallel. These devices load share
well so normally matching is not needed but at least 3 are needed for a
60amp alternator.
Paul
----- Original Message -----
From: "Vincent Welch" <welchvincent@hotmail.com>
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Load Dump Question
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Vincent Welch"
<welchvincent@hotmail.com>
>
> OK, I'm almost with you Paul. If I place a transorb (say, the Whackjack)
on
> the alternator side of the B-Lead contactor, doesn't that clamp the entire
> line from alternator, through contactor, to the bus? If the battery is
> taken offline accidently isn't the bus still clamped through that
transorb?
> If the B-Lead contactor opens due to the OVP trip won't the bus voltage be
> stabilized by the battery? If all of these things are true, why do we
need
> a second transorb on the bus side?
>
> If I do need a second transorb on the bus side, is another Whackjack
> acceptable or should I use something else? If so, what?
>
> Vince
>
> >From: "Paul Messinger" <paulm@olypen.com>
> >Reply-To: aeroelectric-list@matronics.com
> >To: <aeroelectric-list@matronics.com>
> >Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Load Dump Question
> >Date: Sat, 22 Jan 2005 14:26:53 -0800
> >
> >--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Paul Messinger"
> ><paulm@olypen.com>
> >
> >As I recall the original start of this thread was early last year when
> >there
> >were failures of Van's rebuilt alternators. Bob and others questioned the
> >quality of the rebuilt regulator in the Van's alternator.
> >
> >Personally I have never seen any real proof of what was the true cause. I
> >have real trouble believing Van would sell substandard alternators. ALL
> >standard alternator internal regulators are protected against worst case
> >load dump.
> >
> >Any way You are correct that in the case of a real alternator regulator
HI
> >voltage failure, the only solution is to cut the "B" lead and "so what"
if
> >that causes an isolated load dump that the alternator cannot take.
> >
> >However if the alternator is working fine and the battery is disconnected
> >the resulting load dump is distributed to the bus and can cause harm
> >depending on what is on the bus and how big the load dump is.
> >
> >There are a couple of solutions to this. First a transorb big enough to
> >clamp the load dump hi voltage. This has nothing directly to do with any
> >OVP
> >device present.
> >
> >However Bob's crow bar OVP will trigger with the above load dump and this
> >results in the hi current during its operation that some of us object to.
A
> >simple addition of a small value series resistor fixes that.
> >
> >If the load dump is a result of the "B" lead opening the load dump issue
is
> >contained to the alternator where you may or may not damage the
alternator
> >internal regulator. A transorb on the alternator side of the "B" lead
> >contactor will protect the alternator if the regulator is not up to the
> >task. This is a second transorb as one needs to be on the Bus side also.
> >
> >If the load dump is a result of disconnecting a charging battery the load
> >dump is delivered to the aircraft bus and potential damage can result to
> >your avionics. Its likely the OVP will trip but not in time in all cases
to
> >prevent a short hi voltage pulse on the BUS. The OVP takes some time to
> >start clamping (5-10MS?) and much longer (50-100ms) to disconnect the
> >alternator thru the "B" lead contactor. Even 5 ms is long with a 60V or
> >higher pulse on BUS.
> >
> >So some of us feel the need for the "Transorb" to keep the BUS voltages
> >clamped while the OVP can act. The transorb acts not in 5 MS but in 1/2
> >pico
> >second 10,000+ times faster and faster than any damage can start.
> >
> >If the failure is a failed hi voltage alternator the transorb clamps the
> >voltage while the OVP acts. Both arte needed in the safest system.
> >
> >If this does not answer your concerns ask more as everyone benefits from
> >such a "conversation"
> >
> >Paul
> >
> >----- Original Message -----
> >From: "Vincent Welch" <welchvincent@hotmail.com>
> >To: <aeroelectric-list@matronics.com>
> >Subject: AeroElectric-List: Load Dump Question
> >
> >
> > > --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Vincent Welch"
> ><welchvincent@hotmail.com>
> > >
> > > Hey guys, I have been watching this "Battle Of The Titans" with great
> > > interest. I have a question from one a bit lower down the food
chain:)
> > >
> > > It has always been my understanding that the purpose of the OV circuit
> >was
> > > to protect my avionics from a runaway alternator. The alternator or
> > > regulator has already failed and the voltage is climbing. The crowbar
> >opens
> > > the circuit to limit prevent damage to my expensive avionics. The
> > > alternator/regulator has already failed, its trash, so I open the
B-lead
> > > under load, I get a load dump event. So what? Why do I care about
> >trying
> > > to protect the alternator now?
> > >
> > > I can understand limiting the crowbar circuit current and adding a
> >resistor
> > > sounds like a simple easy solution to that problem.
> > >
> > > What am I missing here? Please further educate me.
> > >
> > > Vince
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>
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: Load Dump Question |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Eric M. Jones" <emjones@charter.net>
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: luckymacy@comcast.net (lucky)
>But in a sentence or two, if I have Van's 60 amp, internally regulated
alternator,
>why would I want to consider three parallel transorbs and where would I
install
>them....
The three parallel transorbs are used because 1.5kW devices are a little
easier to get than the 5 kW parts, they provide some redundancy perhaps, and
they have a little less overshoot to transients. It mounts near the
alternator and tees off the B-lead.
None of these issues is really critical. Bob's solution is fine.
>>how would I know they are doing something ......?
Well, the fire extinguisher in my Jeep has successfully prevented a
fire....so far.
Load dump is not an imaginary issue. This is a real phenomena that becomes
more important as more electronics is stuffed into your airplane. The result
of not squashing the problem is that your avionics repairman buys a new
Lexus every year.
Regards,
Eric M. Jones
www.PerihelionDesign.com
113 Brentwood Drive
Southbridge MA 01550-2705
Phone (508) 764-2072
Email: emjones@charter.net
"I tried being reasonable--I didn't like it!"
--Clint Eastwood
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: | Points for discussion |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Paul Messinger" <paulm@olypen.com>
I and my associates have a few issues with some of the apparent positions
and solutions that have been presented here on this forum and the following
listed topics will be posted one issue at a time to stimulate discussion.
In no particular order. The posted subjects will not necessarly be in the
following order.
A. Batteries: Testing/usage/quality
B. OVP: Shorting/opening/limited current
C. Transorbs: Needed?/usage/etc
D. Fault interruption: Fuses/CB/Solid state
E. Battery capacity vs fuel duration: How much and why
F. Switches: Contact types etc/solid state
G. Avionics master: Needed yes/no and why
H. Alternator load meter: Only or battery also needed
I. Unstitched battery buses: needed and why or why not.
J. KISS in the cockpit: Keep it simple, minimize pilot actions
K. All electric aircraft design approach: just mags or auto conversion
L. Schematics for design: Full or just concepts
M. Spread sheet load analysis: advantages and limitatons.
N-Z Open to other topics. Note load dump seems to be well discussed and thus
not included here as it will be discussed in depth with the forthcomming lab
testing.
Paul
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: Narco CS-3B Indicator Pinout |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <b.nuckolls@cox.net>
At 04:59 PM 1/23/2005 -0600, you wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Mr. Pilot Peter"
><pdavidson@familynet.net>
>
>I'm trying to find a pinout diagram for a Narco CS-3B Course Selecor/
>indicator.
>I already tried Narco. They say it's too old.
>-Peter
Sorry, that item is not in my data base.
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: Load Dump Question |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <b.nuckolls@cox.net>
At 02:39 PM 1/23/2005 -0800, you wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Paul Messinger" <paulm@olypen.com>
>
>My nagging question is "what is the real cause of the failure" I plan on
>calling Vans tomorrow and see what they say. Bad alternators is quite
>different from inability to handle load dump and/or its Bob's OVP that is
>the problem.
Van's won't have a clue. The BIG question to ask is whether
their alternators are factory new or rebuilds. If rebuilds,
do they have any first-hand knowledge of regulators used
in the rebuild process?
I've never said nor intended to imply that Van's ever
sold a "bad" alternator. As we all know, there are good,
better, best solutions to most every design decision and
many folks are not particularly interested or driven to
understand the finer details of the process.
Van's has reacted in a very predictable and honorable
way in making their recommendations: If a particular
situation was detrimental to the use of our product,
we recommend you use it the way WE have used it
successfully for years. But at the same time, if
Van's were selling less-than-the-best-we-know-how-to-do,
it's doubtful that it was a conscious decision on
their part to short change anyone.
It's hard to argue with perceived success. If we're
to be HELPFUL, then designing and publishing the repeatable
experiment along with the results is the way you make
the best decisions. If anyone throws rocks without
such data, I'll be the first to defend the target.
>Feeling better but still very tired after 6-7 weeks of bad times.
We've had our hands full here too for the past several
months. Visited my dad in Medicine Lodge, KS today. He's
out of the hospital, home and getting stronger but
forever tethered to an oxygen concentrator. Makes him
very easy to locate. He's always within 50' of the
machine! Dee was in the hospital two weeks ago for
several days but is 90% recovered and hit the road
today to visit a good friend in Sallisaw, OK. I've got
two projects on the bench for RAC (The last of the
RAC skunkworks operations is now in my basement!).
Got 50% of the ice storm damage cut up and stacked.
My son (professional tree trimmer) is coming down
next weekend to clear the one big branch that didn't
come down . . . it's the one that extends right over
the house. He thinks he's going to shinny up
the thing and take it down in pieces. I don't think
I'll watch . . . he probably thinks the same thing
about me when I wire up house circuits in a hot-box.
Each to his own . . .
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: Open letter to the list |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Harold Kovac" <kayce@sysmatrix.net>
I second your observation, He is a great service to all in aviation.
Harold
----- Original Message -----
From: Paul Messinger
To: aeroelectric-list@matronics.com
Sent: Sunday, January 23, 2005 5:11 PM
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Open letter to the list
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Paul Messinger" <paulm@olypen.com>
I have been a follower of the Aeroelectric Connection for 10+ years.
Bob has contributed more to experimental aviation electrical systems design
etc ( in my opinion) than ALL the rest of those pundits who would try to
educate builders in electrical systems design.
Many of us are in awe of how much Bob produces and still has time for a Job,
not to mention the width and depth of his knowledge.
But, I and other equally experienced electrical and electronic engineers
have some concerns with some of the positions and recommendations of the
Aeroelectric connection web site as well as this list.
I firmly believe that alternate solutions exist and should be given a fair
and unbiased discussion as there are always more than one good solution to
most every problem. While its great to have firm opinions not all of us
agree with each other and a well done technical vs. opinion discussion is
helpful.
These discussions should end with agreement that the others opinion has
passed technical merit and is a reasonable alternative. Today most of the
time its "my or no way" or lets overwhelm the discussion with verbose
responses until the discussion is overwhelmed with factoids not always
relevant.
During the past few years I have noticed that, on occasion, some one posts
an alternate solution and is slapped down with a comment like "why would you
want to do that" etc. The result is that person typically decides not to
follow up and others decide not to voice their alternant opinions in fear of
being slapped at. I do not think the response was intended to be harsh, just
a request for basis of that position but it comes across much harder and the
result is much discussion is suppressed.
Its now gotten to the point that many different positions are not even being
posted. I know as many post to me privately to get my opinion.
I have come up with a list of subjects and concerns where I and my
associates disagree with the "official" position of Aeroelectric Connection
in that there are pros and cons that might suggest that at least some of the
time a different concept is preferred.
This list will be a separate post soon.
With the greatest admiration and respect to Bob.
Paul
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: | AMP CPC connectors and Pins |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Tim Olson <Tim@MyRV10.com>
Hi all,
I'm getting ready to buy some AMP CPC connectors just as connectors at
the wing root for my pitot, landing, Nav, Strobe, and stall warning
connections, so that I can wire the wings, and connect the connector
at the time I join the wings to the fuse.
In looking at the CPC varieties, I want to make sure I get the
appropriate style and pin type. I'm looking at Digikey's
online catalog starting at page 244.
I was planning on Series 1 sealed plastic connectors, since the contacts
can handle 13A, and I have nothing that will draw that much.
The real question is the pins. I have choices like:
*Selective Gold with 30u gold on Electrical engagement area over
50u nickel on entire contact.
*15u gold in the mating area over 50u nickel.
*Selective gold with 30u gold on electrical engagement areas with
10u on the remainder over 50u nickel.
(The "u" I'm assuming is microns...it's really kind-of a backwards u)
My guess is the last one is best, because it's all covered in gold.
Correct?
Then, I already own a crimper that does the standard crimping of these
connectors, where the two tabs on the tail make "m" shaped crimps.
BUT, I see that they make nice, screw machined crimp connectors that
seem to be similar to the D-sub pins that I'm about to buy,along
with the required crimper. Would these be better, and would they
crimp with the same crimper used on the D-sub pins? Digikey does
list a couple of crimpers like the Pro-Crimper II with dies for
$145.50 for series 1 contacts. I don't know if this is better than
what I own though. I have a nice ratcheting crimper for AMP pins.
Then, to throw a bigger twist in, there are some MIL-C-5015 connectors
and contacts that I can buy instead, but they even list their own
"certi-crimp" crimper. I don't know if they're really something
special, or just overkill on price due to being "Mil-Spec".
Anyway, any guidance the connector experts can give would be
appreciated. Not that I just want to go the cheapest, but it
is kind of looking like I could just go with the series 1
connectors, series 1 standard "m" crimp pins, and call it good.
I just to date have no experience with the nice machined pins,
and have never really had to choose the plating on the pins before.
Thanks in advance for any help!
Tim
--
Tim Olson -- RV-10 #170
Tim@MyRV10.com
Wing Kit - Almost Complete
QB Fuse - Coming soon!
'77 Sundowner - Flying
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! --
|