Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 01:16 AM - Re: Re: Subaru z-figure (Hans Teijgeler)
2. 04:33 AM - Re: Re: LOCATION OF WX 500 ANTENNA (CHAD FELDPOUCH)
3. 05:38 AM - Re: Tap into antenna coax? (Jerry Grimmonpre)
4. 05:42 AM - Re: Re: LOCATION OF WX 500 ANTENNA (Jim Stone)
5. 05:48 AM - Alternator frequency (Gary Casey)
6. 06:15 AM - Re: OVP (Let's do what Rodney King suggested....) (Eric M. Jones)
7. 06:37 AM - Alternator characteristics (Richard Garforth)
8. 06:46 AM - Off-topic : MCR 4S performance with Rotax 914 (Gilles Thesee)
9. 08:10 AM - Re: Alternator characteristics (Paul Messinger)
10. 08:30 AM - Re: Re: OVP (Let's do what Rodney King suggested....) (Paul Messinger)
11. 08:34 AM - AK-450 ELT Antenna and connection (Ronald J. Parigoris)
12. 08:51 AM - Re: Tap into antenna coax? (Matt Prather)
13. 09:32 AM - Re: Alternator characteristics (Glaeser, Dennis A)
14. 09:58 AM - Re: Re: OVP (Let's do what Rodney King suggested....) (John Danielson)
15. 09:59 AM - Re: Tap into antenna coax? (John Danielson)
16. 10:13 AM - Re: Re: Alternator characteristics (Bob C.)
17. 11:39 AM - Re: 20% better efficiency ??? (George Braly)
18. 12:42 PM - Re: Re: OVP (Let's do what Rodney King suggested....) (BobsV35B@aol.com)
19. 01:43 PM - Ongoing soap opera (N1deltawhiskey@aol.com)
20. 01:43 PM - Re: Re: Alternators (Dumb Question) (Sanderson)
21. 01:49 PM - Re: AK-450 ELT Antenna and connection (James H Nelson)
22. 01:52 PM - Re: Re: Alternators (Dumb Question) (Charlie England)
23. 02:29 PM - Re: Alternator characteristics (Andrew Rowley)
24. 02:29 PM - Re: Ongoing soap opera (Steve Thomas)
25. 02:39 PM - Re: Re: Alternators (Dumb Question) (Richard Tasker)
26. 02:40 PM - Re: Ongoing soap opera (BobsV35B@aol.com)
27. 03:09 PM - Re: (Andrew Rowley)
28. 05:02 PM - Re: Ongoing soap opera (Jerzy Krasinski)
29. 05:21 PM - Extra Voltage! (Bob McDevitt)
30. 05:40 PM - Re: Extra Voltage! (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
31. 07:45 PM - Re: Ongoing soap opera (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
32. 08:56 PM - Re: Ongoing soap opera (Richard Riley)
33. 10:00 PM - Re: Ongoing soap opera (N1deltawhiskey@aol.com)
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: Subaru z-figure |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Hans Teijgeler" <hans@jodel.com>
Hi Jon,
I don't think it is the schematic that I actually have in my Jodel now that
you have seen. However, you might have seen a very old scetch that I have
posted on my web site years ago. This is the (certified) French Potez 4E20
engine, featuring coil ignition rather than magnetos. Potez solved the
dependancy on electric power by providing a split switch (labelled normal -
emergency) between the alternator and battery. The alternator would fire one
set of sparks, the battery the other one. Splitting was up to the pilot. Any
transfer between alternator and battery exceeding 7 amps was deemed
excessive and required the pilot to cut the alternator loose.
Schematics can be found at
http://www.jodel.com/index.asp?p=potezwiring&engines . Please forgive me for
the really mediocre drawing. I made it while lying on my back in a hospital
bed, yeeeeeaaars ago.
This is all 1960's stuff but seemed to work. Potez powered aircraft didn't
crash into the ground because of electrical problems. They did so because of
the engine throwing rods, cylinders, pistons, etc. :-)
Hans
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jon Finley" <jon@finleyweb.net>
Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Re: Subaru z-figure
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Jon Finley" <jon@finleyweb.net>
>
> Hi Hans,
>
> I think I've seen your electrical system schematic (maybe on the FlySoob
> list) but can't find it now. Do you have it posted somewhere?
>
> Jon Finley
> N90MG Q2 - Subaru EJ-22 DD - 467 Hrs. TT
> Apple Valley, Minnesota
> http://www.FinleyWeb.net/Q2Subaru
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
> > [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On
> > Behalf Of Hans Teijgeler
> > Sent: Wednesday, March 16, 2005 2:25 AM
> > To: aeroelectric-list@matronics.com
> > Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Re: Subaru z-figure
> >
> >
> > --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Hans Teijgeler"
> > --> <hans@jodel.com>
> >
> > Jon,
> >
> > Your requirements exactly match mine. Strictly VFR, Subaru
> > engine and tough luck for ATC, but as soon as my alternator
> > dies the radio will be switched off, no lights, no strobe, no
> > tpx, no electric flaps, no electric trim, just the engine to
> > feed from two batteries.
> >
> > I've ended up with a very simple diagram:
> >
> > Battery A feeds pump A, computer A and the main bus.
> > Battery B feeds pump B, computer B and the starter
> > One alternator tops off both batteries through some diodes
> >
> > No crossfeeding, no E-bus, no complexity. I know that I am
> > throwing away a lot of flexibility, I know that a triple
> > failure might shut me down (alternator, battery A and
> > computer B broken = glider), but I can live with that. The
> > reduced complexity makes up for that- for me.
> >
> > Thanks Bob for the preview. The diagram makes a lot of sense
> > if you want to keep alive more than the engine alone. Like
> > with Jon, it simply is overkill for my requirements.
> >
> > Hans
> >
> >
> > > -----Oorspronkelijk bericht-----
> > > Van: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:owner-
> > > aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] Namens Jon Finley
> > > Verzonden: dinsdag 15 maart 2005 17:48
> > > Aan: aeroelectric-list@matronics.com
> > > Onderwerp: RE: AeroElectric-List: Re: Subaru z-figure
> > >
> > > --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Jon Finley"
> > > --> <Jon@finleyweb.net>
> > >
> > >
> > > Sort of opportune moment to jump into this thread Ive been
> > trying to
> > > find the time to compose some intelligent questions about a simple
> > > electron- dependent-engine system (Subaru).
> > >
> > > After studying the Z diagrams (I've not yet studied these
> > sneak-peak
> > > diagrams), I came up came up with the system posted on my website
> > > (http://www.finleyweb.net/default.asp?id=131). This was
> > designed and
> > > constructed more than a year ago. Since this time Ive
> > learned a lot
> > > by lurking here and now understand that my system has a number of
> > > weaknesses/problems (which probably means that are more
> > things that I
> > > dont even know about yet).
> > >
> > > My biggest issue/hurdle is that the relevant Z diagrams seem overly
> > > complicated for my simple system. I do not have a highly complex
> > > airplane nor do I have a difficult mission profile. While I
> > am an IFR
> > > pilot, I know that my airplane is strictly VFR. When I detect an
> > > electrical problem, everything in the airplane is going to be
> > > shutdown. The engine keeps running from the battery and I
> > land (within
> > > an hour). I dont NEED a radio, transponder, gauges,
> > five-hour range,
> > > etc... just need the engine to keep running for a bit. I could
> > > probably babble on for a long time about this but my point
> > (really a
> > > request) is that I would really like to see a simple system for a
> > > Subaru.
> > >
> > > Thanks Bob!
> > >
> > > Jon Finley
> > > N90MG Q2 - Subaru EJ-22 DD - 467 Hrs. TT
> > > Apple Valley, Minnesota
> > > http://www.FinleyWeb.net/Q2Subaru
> > >
> >
>
>
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: RE: LOCATION OF WX 500 ANTENNA |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: CHAD FELDPOUCH <1pouch@sbcglobal.net>
A 1978 PIPER TURBO ARROW.
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: | Re: Tap into antenna coax? |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Jerry Grimmonpre" <jerry@mc.net>
Trying this one again ...
Bob or anyone ...
Would it work to tape a rubber ducky antenna outside a gear leg fairing to
test out the handheld for xmit/rec? If it worked it could then go inside
the fairing for more permanent use. Has anyone tried this? (RV7A)
Jerry Grimmonpre
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: LOCATION OF WX 500 ANTENNA |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Jim Stone" <jsto1@tampabay.rr.com>
You might want to scan the following site on how they approached a
similar problem.
http://www.bleeding.com/~jjwolf/avionics/day1/ I think the servo
location would be much to noisy and in constent operation. A skin
mapper survey is probably best bet, with empanage top of bottom being
probable candidates. Good luck with the 337 field approval.
Jim Stone
Jabiru J450
Clear5water FL.
=
=
Message 5
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Alternator frequency |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Gary Casey" <glcasey@adelphia.net>
<<It's been a very long time since I had a "scope" on an
alternator and (of course) the gear/pulley ratios between
crankshaft and alternator have a profound effect on the
frequency as does the number of poles in the stator and field.
I seem to recall measuring numbers in the 200-400 Hz range
for boss-hogg 100A Teledyne alternators on a big recip
Cessna Twin.>>
It's also been a long time for me, but I recall that a typical alternator
has a 14-pole rotor, giving a frequency 7 times the rpm. Also, the
alternator is typical driven at between 2 and 3 times engine speed. Given a
2500 rpm engine the frequency comes out to 730 hz. If you assumed the
frequency was between 500 and 1,000 you would probably be safe.
Gary Casey
Message 6
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: OVP (Let's do what Rodney King suggested....) |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Eric M. Jones" <emjones@charter.net>
I've been keeping my head down in this OVP thing. But I am thoroughly on
Paul's side technically. I quit selling crowbars on my website entirely.
I can't even digest the voluminous postings back and forth, and have for the
most part, held off posting on this issue. My concern is that there will not
be any resolution on this issue. This may spill over into other issues.
That's bad.
Here's my suggestion---We require a small technical committee to look into
the issue, evaluate the arguments, perhaps run tests and then publish the
results. I recuse myself, and of course suggest excluding the major
combatants, although they would supply technical information and provide the
arguments.
I nominate George Braly of GAMI to head the OVP technical committee. He
seems to be a level head in these things. I suggest that George pick a half
dozen similar level-heads and communicate off line, posting progress reports
on the Aeroelectric List, then finally a complete report.
Oh yes, Rodney King said, "Can't we just all get along?"
Regards,
Eric M. Jones
www.PerihelionDesign.com
113 Brentwood Drive
Southbridge MA 01550-2705
Phone (508) 764-2072
Email: emjones@charter.net
When trouble arises and things look bad, there is always one individual who
perceives a solution and is willing to take command. Very often, that
individual is crazy.
--Dave Barry
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: | Alternator characteristics |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Richard Garforth" <richard@hawk.flyer.co.uk>
Just to throw in in another aspect on this topic. None of the correspondence I
have seen lately refers to the inductive issues involved with shutting down an
alternator. If you remove the field current (or reduce it to 2 volts), how long
is it before the field collapses ? Could it be long enough to sustain output
for some tens of milliseconds?
Richard
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: | Off-topic : MCR 4S performance with Rotax 914 |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Gilles Thesee <Gilles.Thesee@ac-grenoble.fr>
Hi all,
Some years ago there was a discution on this list about our Dyn Aero MCR
4S project. Some expressed doubts as to the actual performance of this
Rotax 914 four-seater.
Now we are flying, and some listers might be interested in a few numbers.
We've performed some GPS runs (3-run method) at FL 120 (two on board,
with 200 liter Avgas), and obtained 157 kt TAS at 100 % power (100 hp).
The Vz is in the 1100/1300 range, and we made a climb from FL 30 to FL
140 in just 10 minutes (100 % power).
For those with a fast internet connection, a 18 MB video of our first
short take-off attempt can be viewed for some time at
http://gilles.thesee.free.fr/temp/MOV00659.MPG .
The field elevation is 1986 ft, the temperature was 5C, wind calm. Two
on board with 150 liter Avgas, weight about 640 kg (i.e. 110 kg under
max takeoff weight). Take off power 115 % (115 hp).
We still have to perform tests at gross weight but we find our little
four-seater is no sluggard !
More on the MCRs at :
http://www.dynaero.com/
http://www.avnet.co.uk/lts/
Regards,
Gilles Thesee
Grenoble, France
Website will be updated...in the near future
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: Alternator characteristics |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Paul Messinger" <paulm@olypen.com>
If you totally open the field the residual energy can last up to 150 ms or
longer depending on the external load and the presence or absence of a
battery and the way the system is physically wired. To suggest the
alternator output immediately goes to zero is technically false but it can
be a very short time if the battery connected and in good condition.
There are so many variables its hard to discuss the individual
configurations without confusion.
Consider we have internal and external regulators and in some cases the
desire to operate with no battery. Then there is the ovp method. there is
the Crowbar, a OVP that is current limited and pops the CB but with a
reasonable current. And finally the Eric Jones and recommended by me
approach where the OV is instantly clamped to a safe level and then the
alternator is taken off line and there is no chance of any post CB popping
load dump residual voltage to deal with as the circuit is clamped before
during and after. The crow bar approach takes a short time to start and may
end before the alternator finishes dumping and or the "B" lead contactor
finally opens.
The "B" lead contactor if installed takes 50 MS to open after the voltage is
dropped from 12v.
Lets assume you have a internally regulated alternator with the "B" lead
contactor as and wired per Bob's diagrams.
An OV happens
3-5 ms later the crowbar starts.
Lets assume that the contactor coil voltage drops to a couple of volts. This
triggers the 50 ms time to open.
The crowbar opens the CB 15 ms later.
WE still have to wait 30 ms or longer for the "B" lead contactor to open and
during this there is no OV protection and the load dump from the stored
energy is still dumping onto the bus. If there is a battery present its
likely a non event voltage wise. However if the mode of operation is
alternator only then there can be 20+ volt voltage spike on top of the 12v
nominal voltage. A mag equipped engine will press on but your avionics may
be toasted.
One can come up with many different senieros, too many to discuss fully in
my opinion.
As for the contactor needing 50 ms to open? I tested 3 different contactors
from Wicks and Allied and all took around 10 ms with no diode across the
coil and 50 ms with a diode across the coil. Not theory but tested facts
here.
Paul
----- Original Message -----
From: "Richard Garforth" <richard@hawk.flyer.co.uk>
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Alternator characteristics
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Richard Garforth"
> <richard@hawk.flyer.co.uk>
>
> Just to throw in in another aspect on this topic. None of the
> correspondence I have seen lately refers to the inductive issues involved
> with shutting down an alternator. If you remove the field current (or
> reduce it to 2 volts), how long is it before the field collapses ? Could
> it be long enough to sustain output for some tens of milliseconds?
>
> Richard
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: OVP (Let's do what Rodney King suggested....) |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Paul Messinger" <paulm@olypen.com>
We are making a mountain out of a mole hill.
Every competent engineer I know has never seen the use of a crowbar to short
out a massive battery as in this case.
Regardless or whether it's 50 amps or 5000 amps who cares as is not
necessary. Harm is in the eyes of the beholder. With an engine that does not
need any electrons to run is a very different condition than an engine that
is automotive derived with computers that require solid power of at least
9.5V.
We should accept that different requirements dictate different solutions and
move on.
Those who want to continue using Bob's approach should feel free to do so.
Those who want to use a different approach where there is no hi current
pulse should do so.
Personally I feel the future of general aviation is with automotive derived
conversions where fuel consumption is significantly lower(more than 20%), HP
is higher (230 vs. 180 for example)for the same weight and lifetime is
longer( hard to really tell as few are past 2000 and it appears that is not
the limit). It's here today in experimental form and perhaps soon to be
certificated) Overhaul cost could be 1/10 that of the current 50-70 year old
designs IF the FAA could be modernized as well.
The LAST thing we need is another study. Bob and I will never agree and so
what! There are always disagreements on what is the best way to do things.
Both ways work so lets simply stop the debate. but that also takes both
sides to agree.
Paul
----- Original Message -----
From: "Eric M. Jones" <emjones@charter.net>
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Re: OVP (Let's do what Rodney King
suggested....)
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Eric M. Jones"
> <emjones@charter.net>
>
> I've been keeping my head down in this OVP thing. But I am thoroughly on
> Paul's side technically. I quit selling crowbars on my website entirely.
>
> I can't even digest the voluminous postings back and forth, and have for
> the
> most part, held off posting on this issue. My concern is that there will
> not
> be any resolution on this issue. This may spill over into other issues.
> That's bad.
>
> Here's my suggestion---We require a small technical committee to look into
> the issue, evaluate the arguments, perhaps run tests and then publish the
> results. I recuse myself, and of course suggest excluding the major
> combatants, although they would supply technical information and provide
> the
> arguments.
>
> I nominate George Braly of GAMI to head the OVP technical committee. He
> seems to be a level head in these things. I suggest that George pick a
> half
> dozen similar level-heads and communicate off line, posting progress
> reports
> on the Aeroelectric List, then finally a complete report.
>
> Oh yes, Rodney King said, "Can't we just all get along?"
>
> Regards,
> Eric M. Jones
> www.PerihelionDesign.com
> 113 Brentwood Drive
> Southbridge MA 01550-2705
> Phone (508) 764-2072
> Email: emjones@charter.net
>
> When trouble arises and things look bad, there is always one individual
> who
> perceives a solution and is willing to take command. Very often, that
> individual is crazy.
> --Dave Barry
>
>
>
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: | AK-450 ELT Antenna and connection |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Ronald J. Parigoris" <rparigor@suffolk.lib.ny.us>
Reading on the install manual for AK-450 ELT, the antenna requires at least a 36
inch
ground plane.
Any ideas how I can install a ELT antenna on the inside of Europa XS Monowheel?
Second question is about the remote panel. It uses a telephone jack, that i understand
can be troublesome. Is it worth it at install time to get rid of the telephone
jack
and hardwire to remote, and install a nice removable connector at the unit?
Thx.
Sincerely
Ron Parigoris
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: Tap into antenna coax? |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Matt Prather" <mprather@spro.net>
That might work on some airplanes.. Chances are it won't work very well
on an RV. The gear leg is metal, and putting the VHF antenna close and
parallel to a long conductor will cause significant loss of efficiency.
Regards,
Matt-
VE N34RD, C150 N714BK
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Jerry Grimmonpre"
> <jerry@mc.net>
>
> Trying this one again ...
>
> Bob or anyone ...
> Would it work to tape a rubber ducky antenna outside a gear leg fairing
> to test out the handheld for xmit/rec? If it worked it could then go
> inside the fairing for more permanent use. Has anyone tried this?
> (RV7A) Jerry Grimmonpre
>
>
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: Alternator characteristics |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Glaeser, Dennis A" <dennis.glaeser@eds.com>
I have a question regarding:
--snip--
WE still have to wait 30 ms or longer for the "B" lead contactor to open and
during this there is no OV protection and the load dump from the stored
energy is still dumping onto the bus. If there is a battery present its
likely a non event voltage wise. However if the mode of operation is
alternator only then there can be 20+ volt voltage spike on top of the 12v
nominal voltage. A mag equipped engine will press on but your avionics may
be toasted
--snip--
I probably missed something along the way, but when would the mode of
operation be 'alternator only'? Is this to allow for a failed battery, or
some other scenario? I thought the purpose of the On-On-On switch (or
Cessna split rocker) was to preclude taking the battery off-line while the
alternator is connected.
Dennis Glaeser
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: OVP (Let's do what Rodney King suggested....) |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "John Danielson" <johnd@wlcwyo.com>
I built an RV-6, I used Bob's approach to OVP with his crowbar, (I don't
even know what that means).
I understand the need for discussion on the list here, but I and I am
sure many others are totally confused now.
John L. Danielson
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: | Tap into antenna coax? |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "John Danielson" <johnd@wlcwyo.com>
Has any one tried to use the leg gear on a RV at the comm. Antenna?
John L. Danielson
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: Alternator characteristics |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Bob C. " <flyboy.bob@gmail.com>
My Garmin 430 says it will operate from 11-33V . . . I bet it would
handle the "spike"?
I don't wan't to enter the argument or weigh in on either side . . . I
follow this list looking for ideas and solutions, not arguments!
I sense sincerity on both sides . . . but let's agree to disagree and
let the list get back to "normal" operation. Those of us wanting OVP
will have to make a choice . . . and I'm betting either choice will
provide "adequate" protection?
Thanks,
Bob Christensen
RV-8 Builder
On Mon, 21 Mar 2005 12:30:20 -0500, Glaeser, Dennis A
<dennis.glaeser@eds.com> wrote:
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Glaeser, Dennis A" <dennis.glaeser@eds.com>
>
> I have a question regarding:
>
> --snip--
> WE still have to wait 30 ms or longer for the "B" lead contactor to open and
> during this there is no OV protection and the load dump from the stored
> energy is still dumping onto the bus. If there is a battery present its
> likely a non event voltage wise. However if the mode of operation is
> alternator only then there can be 20+ volt voltage spike on top of the 12v
> nominal voltage. A mag equipped engine will press on but your avionics may
> be toasted
> --snip--
>
> I probably missed something along the way, but when would the mode of
> operation be 'alternator only'? Is this to allow for a failed battery, or
> some other scenario? I thought the purpose of the On-On-On switch (or
> Cessna split rocker) was to preclude taking the battery off-line while the
> alternator is connected.
>
> Dennis Glaeser
>
>
>
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: 20% better efficiency ??? |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "George Braly" <gwbraly@gami.com>
Paul,
You write:
>>Personally I feel the future of general aviation is with automotive derived
conversions where fuel consumption is significantly lower(more than 20%) - -<<
The Brake Specific Fuel Consumption is the universal yardstick of piston engine
efficiency.
Can you point me to any data on any spark ignition automotive engine that delivers
75% of its rated power to the propeller flange, at prop appropriate RPM's,
and has a BSFC anywhere close to the existing 0.385 lb/hr/hp that one gets from
a 300 Hp TCM engine?
I am unaware of any. Even the highly regarded Porsche Mooney (FADEC) engine had
to struggle to get down to 0.425.
Regards, George
---
Message 18
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: OVP (Let's do what Rodney King suggested....) |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: BobsV35B@aol.com
In a message dated 3/21/2005 2:33:03 P.M. Central Standard Time,
paulm@olypen.com writes:
Both ways work so lets simply stop the debate. but that also takes both
sides to agree.
Paul
Good Afternoon Paul,
I for one hope you never cease the discussion.
It is all way over my head, but I feel I do pick out a granule of education
from each and every interchange. It is an awful lot of work for you and Bob,
so I can see why both of you may want to drop the discussion, but please do
not feel that no benefit has been derived by we vast unwashed masses.
Thank you both very much for the time and thought expended.
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
AKA
Bob Siegfried
Ancient Aviator
Stearman N3977A
Brookeridge Airpark LL22
Downers Grove, IL 60516
630 985-8502
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: | Ongoing soap opera |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: N1deltawhiskey@aol.com
In a message dated 21-Mar-05 6:16:07 Pacific Standard Time,
emjones@charter.net writes:
Here's my suggestion---We require a small technical committee to look into
the issue, evaluate the arguments, perhaps run tests and then publish the
results. I recuse myself, and of course suggest excluding the major
combatants, although they would supply technical information and provide the
arguments.
Paul, Eric, Bob, et al,
I agree with this suggestion. I am probably like most on this list,
interested in learning practical methods of wiring my aircraft for safe and reliable
performance.
While I respect and appreciate the intellectual dialogue that has been going
on over various aspects of load dump and its associated issues, the volume of
relatively useless information and writings is becoming overwhelming.
Unfortunately, in the process of massive "delete" button pushing, I fear that I
may
be missing a tidbit of useful information; but is is no longer worth my time to
look for it - it is too rare.
I am not interested in the soap opera aspect of these communications any
longer, nor am I interested in who's ego is being challenged.
Please move this off list. When something useful comes of your discussions,
then share it with us. It will be readily received and appreciated.
Respectfully, Doug Windhorn
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: Alternators (Dumb Question) |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Sanderson" <mldsub@earthlink.net>
Sorry for the interruption, but what is an ND alternator?
I am sure the answer is self evident but it escapes me.
Thanks
>
> I'd opt for an ND alternator modified to run external regulator
> for ANY belt driven certified alternator any day.
>
> Bob . . .
>
--
Message 21
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: AK-450 ELT Antenna and connection |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: James H Nelson <rv9jim@juno.com>
Ron,
I installed mine just behind the baggage comp hatch and ran 6
spaced copper tapes glassed to the bottom. I mounted the antenna on a
piece of aluminum where I attached the copper radials to form the ground
plane. It's really not needed. think about the portability issue and
there is no ground plane there. Also, portable com units (like my Icom
unit) which works fine with out a ground plane. Figured that out to
late.
Jim (Mono-Wheel sold)
Message 22
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Alternators (Dumb Question) |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Charlie England <ceengland@bellsouth.net>
Sanderson wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Sanderson" <mldsub@earthlink.net>
>
>Sorry for the interruption, but what is an ND alternator?
>I am sure the answer is self evident but it escapes me.
>Thanks
>
Nippon Denso brand of Japanese auto electric stuff
Message 23
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Alternator characteristics |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Andrew Rowley <arowley@ncable.net.au>
Paul Messinger wrote:
> And finally the Eric Jones and recommended by me
> approach where the OV is instantly clamped to a safe level and then the
> alternator is taken off line and there is no chance of any post CB popping
> load dump residual voltage to deal with as the circuit is clamped before
> during and after.
How is the OV clamped? The only ways I can think of to control the
voltage are to divert the current like the crowbar does, or to have a
regulator-like device that the alternator output goes through.
The second option would raise reliability questions for me. Having seen
common problems with regulators in the motorcycle world, I have formed
the opinion that it is not easy to build a device that can carry the
constant output of an alternator and cope with real world problems like
poor connections and inadequate cooling.
--
Andrew Rowley
arowley@ncable.net.au
Message 24
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Ongoing soap opera |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Steve Thomas <lists@stevet.net>
Hello N1deltawhiskey,
Monday, March 21, 2005, 1:42:45 PM, you wrote:
Nac> Please move this off list. When something useful comes of your discussions,
Nac> then share it with us. It will be readily received and appreciated.
I couldn't disagree more. This discussion is the best thing I've seen
on any list anywhere. I'm no more of an expert than the least of you
out there, but I have learned more about alternators than I've ever
dreamed about knowing despite the fact that I don't understand a lot
of it.
I'm sad that some of the participants are taking this disagreement so
personally. I do not see that anything has been said here that needs
to be taken personally. It's just an argument about design and
testing.
I'd like the discussion to continue. Paul's recent comment about
using different techniques for different applications is good advice.
But, why stop the on-line discussion? I like it when someone can lay
out a clear argument based on what facts they think they have. Why
squash that? And, to presume that someone is right because of who they
are (or claim to be) makes no sense to me at all.
If you don't like the discussion, as has been said, delete it. You
can tell in the first paragraph whether it is of interest or not. As
for me, I'd like to continue to read.
--
Best regards,
Steve mailto:lists@stevet.net.nospam
Message 25
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Alternators (Dumb Question) |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Richard Tasker <retasker@optonline.net>
Nippon Denso automotive alternator
Sanderson wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Sanderson" <mldsub@earthlink.net>
>
>Sorry for the interruption, but what is an ND alternator?
>I am sure the answer is self evident but it escapes me.
>Thanks
>
>
>
>> I'd opt for an ND alternator modified to run external regulator
>> for ANY belt driven certified alternator any day.
>>
>> Bob . . .
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
Message 26
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Ongoing soap opera |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: BobsV35B@aol.com
In a message dated 3/21/2005 4:30:31 P.M. Central Standard Time,
lists@stevet.net writes:
I'd like the discussion to continue. Paul's recent comment about
using different techniques for different applications is good advice.
But, why stop the on-line discussion? I like it when someone can lay
out a clear argument based on what facts they think they have. Why
squash that? And, to presume that someone is right because of who they
are (or claim to be) makes no sense to me at all.
Good Evening Steve,
My sentiments precisely!
Do Not Archive
Happy Skies,
Old (often wrong, but never uncertain) Bob
AKA
Bob Siegfried
Ancient Aviator
Stearman N3977A
Brookeridge Airpark LL22
Downers Grove, IL 60516
630 985-8502
Message 27
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Andrew Rowley <arowley@ncable.net.au>
Paul Messinger wrote:
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Paul Messinger" <paulm@olypen.com>
> I only wanted to define what was inside
> the realistic range to show how ridiculous the crowbar approach was
That doesn't sound like a good point to begin an objective experiment.
> Bob then goes on with "out of the thin air conclusions" :-) that are not
> based on any real facts and in fact the available data (again from various
> data sheets) do not support the conclusions.
>
> For example:
>
> From the report:
>
> ". Battery delta E for 135A load is about 2.4 volts for an internal
> impedance of about 17 milliohms.
>
> About what one would expect from a two year old battery that started out in
> the 8 to 10 milliohm."
>
>
> The Panasonic data sheet says approximately 12 milliohm. Approximately is
> hardly an engineering term but it's also not 8-10 as Bob suggests for a new
> battery.
These figures sound close enough to the data sheet to be usable to me. I
don't see how the difference affects the conclusion. You used 2
batteries for 3.5 milliohms resistance, which is even less than the 8-10
that you are objecting to.
> Going on we find a violation of ohms law :-)
>
> When I do the math I get 70 NOT 7 milliohms on the last line (for the CB)
> which conflicts with the first line of 62 milliohms total loop resistance.
> From this and my earlier comments the entire technical analysis is clearly
> faulty.
I don't see that it conflicts. It is the maximum from the
specifications. There is no reason it can't be lower. I don't see that
the conclusions are affected. As far as I can see it only affects the
calculation of the average joint resistance. It seems like a nitpick,
rather than something that puts the entire technical analysis into doubt.
> I simply do not understand the massive resistance to make an improvement
> (even the addition of 1/4 ohm is resisted).
I think that one of the objectives of the OVP short is to control the
voltage until the alternator shuts down. To do that you probably need to
be able to take the entire output of the alternator. If you put a
resistor there, you need to make sure it is sized according to the
alternator output. You would also need to subtract the resistance of the
rest of the circuit from the resistor value. At this point, it is
probably getting unnecessarily complex.
--
Andrew Rowley
arowley@ncable.net.au
Message 28
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Ongoing soap opera |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Jerzy Krasinski <krasinski@provalue.net>
I would like the discussion to continue.
However, the discussion would not be harmed at all if it was done in a
cool professional atmosphere. In fact it would help a lot.
Lets attack the issue, not the people.
Jerzy
Message 29
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Bob McDevitt" <mcdevitt@sympatico.ca>
I am having a problem that has me stumped. The problem occurs with the
engine running or off. As I am doing all my trouble shooting with the engine
off, I will use that mode for all descriptions.
Master on, radio on, the bus voltage reads 12.5 volts, when the PTT switch
is pressed, the voltage rises to 13.5 volts.
I have replaced all suspect cables (battery + and -) starter cable as well
as the master and starter relays. Problem still exists.
I have disconnected the alternator B lead to no avail. Can anyone offer a
suggestion for a cure?
Bob McDevitt
Message 30
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Extra Voltage! |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <b.nuckolls@cox.net>
At 08:20 PM 3/21/2005 -0500, you wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Bob McDevitt"
><mcdevitt@sympatico.ca>
>
>I am having a problem that has me stumped. The problem occurs with the
>engine running or off. As I am doing all my trouble shooting with the engine
>off, I will use that mode for all descriptions.
>Master on, radio on, the bus voltage reads 12.5 volts, when the PTT switch
>is pressed, the voltage rises to 13.5 volts.
>I have replaced all suspect cables (battery + and -) starter cable as well
>as the master and starter relays. Problem still exists.
>I have disconnected the alternator B lead to no avail. Can anyone offer a
>suggestion for a cure?
>
>Bob McDevitt
Your voltmeter appears to suffer from RF interference.
Just as a quick test, can you dummy load the transceiver
and see if the problem goes away?
See
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/DummyLoad.jpg
Bob . . .
Message 31
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Ongoing soap opera |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <b.nuckolls@cox.net>
At 04:42 PM 3/21/2005 -0500, you wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: N1deltawhiskey@aol.com
>
>In a message dated 21-Mar-05 6:16:07 Pacific Standard Time,
>emjones@charter.net writes:
>Here's my suggestion---We require a small technical committee to look into
>the issue, evaluate the arguments, perhaps run tests and then publish the
>results.
. . . and who shall we delegate the responsibility of requiring anything?
> I recuse myself, and of course suggest excluding the major
>combatants, although they would supply technical information and provide the
>arguments.
. . . and who should be included/excluded from the 'technical committee'?
What makes you think anyone is fighting? Listen (read) carefully and
see who's words are most likely to provoke combative responses and then
deduce how the target reacts to those words.
>Paul, Eric, Bob, et al,
>
>I agree with this suggestion. I am probably like most on this list,
>interested in learning practical methods of wiring my aircraft for safe
>and reliable
>performance.
>
>While I respect and appreciate the intellectual dialogue that has been going
>on over various aspects of load dump and its associated issues, the volume of
>relatively useless information and writings is becoming overwhelming.
>Unfortunately, in the process of massive "delete" button pushing, I fear
>that I may
>be missing a tidbit of useful information; but is is no longer worth my
>time to
>look for it - it is too rare.
When we walk into a library, there will no doubt be countless
texts that contain equally countless tidbits of useful information
which will never come to our attention. One is ALWAYS at risk
of missing the golden needles in the storm of chaff that surrounds
us daily in every aspect of life.
Please rest assured that (1) there are no battles being waged here
and no egos to be stroked - at least not from my perspective. (2)
when the simple-ideas are all sorted and fitted to their respective
places in our toolboxes, I will craft a consensus document that will
will satisfy the professional requirements of any person who wishes
to co-author the text or at least sprinkle with holy water.
>I am not interested in the soap opera aspect of these communications any
>longer, nor am I interested in who's ego is being challenged.
>
>Please move this off list. When something useful comes of your discussions,
>then share it with us. It will be readily received and appreciated.
Forgive me sir but I'm not about to challenge anyone to censure
what they write other than to ask for explanations in terms of
simple ideas that you or anyone else can understand and use. I
hope that nobody else would either. I'm sorry you believe this
activity to be "soap opera" . . . please use your delete key
and be assured that the document you seek will come to pass. In
the mean time, I think it's counter productive to push the
conversation into hiding when so many people have expressed an
interest in listening in.
Bob . . .
Message 32
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Ongoing soap opera |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Richard Riley <Richard@Riley.net>
At 02:28 PM 3/21/05, Steve Thomas wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Steve Thomas <lists@stevet.net>
>
>Hello N1deltawhiskey,
>
>Monday, March 21, 2005, 1:42:45 PM, you wrote:
>
>Nac> Please move this off list. When something useful comes of your
>discussions,
>Nac> then share it with us. It will be readily received and appreciated.
>
>I couldn't disagree more. This discussion is the best thing I've seen
>on any list anywhere. I'm no more of an expert than the least of you
>out there, but I have learned more about alternators than I've ever
>dreamed about knowing despite the fact that I don't understand a lot
>of it.
I'm hoping that at the end, someone will translate all the information into
knowledge that I can use. As it is, as near as I can tell from reading
both sides, any voltage regulator, any over voltage protection and any
alternator will certainly kill me.
Message 33
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Ongoing soap opera |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: N1deltawhiskey@aol.com
In a message dated 21-Mar-05 17:03:05 Pacific Standard Time,
krasinski@provalue.net writes:
Lets attack the issue, not the people.
I hope there is no perception that I was attacking anyone with my post; it
was certainly not my intent. All of the major participants have a lot to offer
and I would certainly not want to put a damper on whatever substantial
contributions they can make to better understanding their airplane's electrical
systems.
My response was to a suggestion by one of the primary participants that some
of the dialogue might best be moved off the list, and given MY priorities, I
can agree with that position. At least keeping the discussion "on point" if it
is to continue would be of more benefit to me. I understand that not all will
agree with this view and take no offense at that. It is, indeed, the issue
that matters.
Opinions (of which there are many) do not need to be rebutted - they are
simply that, the writer's opinion, regardless of its alleged factual basis.
Facts, or alleged facts, may be challengeable. If the dialogue was trimmed to
the
facts, the information would be of much more use IMHO.
One thing needs to be kept in mind -- a better mousetrap is not better unless
it can be practically utilized. As an example, I would like a dual Chelton
glass screen system in my cockpit and consider that "better" (at least
functionally) than my Dynon. But, it is not practical for me and hence, of little
use
when the Dynon will do what I want it to do. It doesn't matter what one
considers, there is always a "better" idea, product, system, etc. out there;
somewhere.
If a crowbar circuit will work for me, without giving me tripping problems
and damaging my equipment, I will deem it functional and practical. In that
case, the better mousetrap is only better if it costs no more, or even better,
less. On the other hand, if it does not do what I expect it to do, I will be
looking for that better OVP, even at a higher cost. Just some food for thought.
With regards, and again respectfully, Doug
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! --
|