Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 06:59 AM - Re: Re: Wire crimper suggestions? (William Slaughter)
2. 07:21 AM - Re: Re: Bottom line on Over Voltage protection (N1deltawhiskey@aol.com)
3. 07:32 AM - Re: Re: Internally regulated alternator OVP protection (James H Nelson)
4. 07:55 AM - Re: Re: Wire crimper suggestions? (Ron Raby)
5. 08:01 AM - Re: Re: Internally regulated alternator OVP protection (Bill Schlatterer)
6. 09:54 AM - Re: Re: Internally regulated alternator OVP protection (Paul Messinger)
7. 09:59 AM - Re: Re: Internally regulated alternator OVP protection (luckymacy@comcast.net (lucky))
8. 10:05 AM - Re: Re: Bottom line on Over Voltage protection (George Braly)
9. 10:18 AM - Re: Re: Internally regulated alternator OVP protection (Fiveonepw@aol.com)
10. 12:50 PM - Re: Re: Internally regulated alternator OVP protection (PTACKABURY@aol.com)
11. 01:20 PM - Dynon and OAT (Werner Schneider)
12. 02:09 PM - Re: Re: Internally regulated alternator OVP (Gerry Holland)
13. 04:25 PM - Re: Re: Internally regulated alternator OVP (Guy Buchanan)
14. 05:36 PM - Re: Re: Internally regulated alternator OVP protection (Robert McCallum)
15. 07:17 PM - Re: Re: Internally regulated alternator OVP (Guy Buchanan)
16. 07:49 PM - Re: Dynon and OAT (w_sweet@comcast.net)
17. 08:21 PM - Re: Extra Voltage! ()
18. 08:36 PM - Re: Dynon and OAT (John Schroeder)
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: Wire crimper suggestions? |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "William Slaughter" <willslau@alumni.rice.edu>
No one should be afraid of the $30 - $40 crimpers from SteinAir and B&C,
but come on now guys, you don't have to spend $300 to get an AMP
crimper. Not that they don't make crimpers that cost that and a lot
more, but as someone else recently posted, the Pro Crimp II is about $65
from Digikey. I bought mine in the kit form with a case and an
assortment of terminals for right at $100. I'm going to use only AMP
PIDG terminals, and having the factory crimping jaws for $30 extra gives
me a very warm and fuzzy feeling. And boy does it make a nice crimp!
I'll keep the Panduit assembled with jaws for other connector types.
YMMV.
William
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Stein
Bruch
Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Re: Wire crimper suggestions?
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Stein Bruch"
--> <stein@steinair.com>
Don't use one of those on your airplane. This is kind of taking "cheap"
too far. Yes, they do work - but I wouldn't use them when wiring up an
airplane. Use a proper ratcheting crimper. If you want to spend
$300.00 for an AMP crimper that's ok, but the $30-$40 somethinth crimper
from B&C or me is every bit as good and a lot cheaper. Both are FAR and
away superior to the "plier type".
This whole discussion has baffeled me for a couple years now. People
ask me regularly if the $30 crimper is ok to use since it's so "cheap"?
I've gotten to the point I feel like raising the price on my crimpers to
$150.00 so people feel like they're spending a bunch of money on
something good. This may come as a surprise, but some of the crimpers
(B&C and myself sell some of the exact same ones) come from the SAME
factory that makes some the crimpers for AMP/Tyco.
I have a whole tool box full of AMP, Daniels, Astro, etc.. crimpers that
I've rarely touched. I use my simple little B&C & SteinAir crimpers far
more often. Kind of like wrenches, sockets & screwdrivers. Snap-On is
good (but WAYYY overpriced), Craftsmen Professional, SK and others are
equally as good, but a LOT cheaper.
Just my typically "biased" 2 cents as usual!
Cheers,
Stein.
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com]On Behalf Of John
Swartout
Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Re: Wire crimper suggestions?
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "John Swartout"
<jgswartout@earthlink.net>
Bob, are you familiar with the crimping tool described (but not named)
in a September 1999 Experimenter magazine article, p. 27, by Bill
Benedict, reprinted from The RVator, first issue, 1999? The crimping
tool is forged steel (not stamped) looks a bit like a standard pair of
pliers--fairly wide-jawed and curved on the outside (non-business side)
of the jaws. The crimping part has a half-circle groove perpendicular
to the long axis of the tool on one jaw, into which the terminal is
laid, and the other jaw has a bump across the jaw, which nests into the
groove on the other jaw but has a smaller radius. The writer says this
tool maintains the round shape of the connector barrel, and prevents it
from separating at the seam if you use it on cheap industrial terminals.
It doesn't crimp perpendicular to the terminal barrel, but crimps the
whole barrel lengthwise. Makes sense to me. Know where I can get one?
He says they cost $10 to $21.
John
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of
Robert L. Nuckolls, III
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Re: Wire crimper suggestions?
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III"
<b.nuckolls@cox.net>
At 08:42 PM 4/20/2005 -0400, you wrote:
>
>Hi Bob, I am hunting for a good quality wire crimper. I thought the
B&C
>crimper for $40 was high quality until I read it referred to as the "El
>Cheapo" crimper. Can't afford the T-Head!
I own several copies of tools sold by B&C in addition to my
venerable ol' t-head tool. The term "el-cheapo" was not intended
to be depreciatory. The comparative article I did was to demonstrate
that the lower cost tool was adequate and therefore a good value.
I sold that tool myself for years.
The other tools you cited, particularly if sold by AMP are
certain to be compatible with their products . . . and if
you're more comfortable with them, by all means.
Bob . . .
Message 2
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Bottom line on Over Voltage protection |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: N1deltawhiskey@aol.com
George,
I must be a sucker for good stories - I once thought another solution to load
dump was on the horizon - it only seemed to generate a lot email exchanges.
Hope this is not deja vu!
Anyway, I have a couple of questions.
You imply two alternators are required; why? Does the arrangement work with a
single alternator and single battery?
I know Bob has discussed the single point failure mode of internally
regulated alternators, however, the details of what happens eludes me. Would you
describe this OV failure mode?
You make claims for what this system does; can you describe how it does it
and why there is a reduction in potential failures? What are these
add-ons/tweaks you mention?
What will be the weight/cost of the package, single alternator if it will
work that way?
When are you going to provide one of these contraptions to Bob so he can
scrutinize it and give us an opinion?
Doug Windhorn
In a message dated 22-Apr-05 17:32:47 Pacific Standard Time, gwbraly@gami.com
writes:
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "George Braly" <gwbraly@gami.com>
>>I think the
risks are indeed low but they are not so low that I could put
an internally regulated alternator on a certified airplane.
Not without proving to myself, the FAA and my customers that the
machine selected has been designed and tested to meet certain
reliability requirements. This would mean calling out a
very specific source of hardware that would not include
rebuilds, junk-yard takeoffs, or most over the counter
alternators.
Folks have misunderstood my resistance to embrace this
technology as a desire to promote B&C and a variety of
other agendas . . . but the bottom line is simply this:
I cannot recommend anything without knowing everything
there is to know about it . . . and you can't deduce
this data by simply holding the part in your hand or
having some kind of faith in a brand name.
It's been suggested that an ND alternator is good-to-go
off the shelf . . .<<
Bob,
I agree.
We have spent a considerable amount of time studying these issues - - albeit,
rather quietly.
You have seen occasional posts from me over the last year or so that have
mentioned some of our adverse results with transorbs, and various other
protection schemes.
We looked at the internal regulators. They ALL have a major single point
failure mode that can cause a runaway voltage condition that is simply
unacceptable for aircraft use, especially when electronic engine controls or glass
cockpits are part of the contemplated equipment package.
With an automotive built in regulator, the best one can do is to live with
14 volts (we need 14 and 28 volt capability) and to attempt to "fix" the single
point failure mode by:
A) Introducing the kludge of adding a high current contactor - - so as to
take the unit off line; or,
B) By adding some kind of a worse kludge which will shunt the over
voltage/high current event to ground through some kind of a crowbar type fuse which
accomplishes the same as A), above, but with possibly more unfavorable side
effects.
The result of our effort on this entire subject is that that we have built,d
tested, proven, and are now producing a replacement internal regulator that
eliminates the single point failure mode described above and allows the
alternator to be gracefully shut down. It is not yet certified, but it is on track
for that milestone, also.
The unit can fully withstand any load dump we have ever been able to create,
including those that have fried a lot of 5kw Transorbs.
We then combined this integrated system with other components to create a
rather robust "redundant, fault tolerant, electrical system" out of a box.
We worked on it a bit more and now have a unit that functions normally across
the entire load range WITH NO BATTERY ON LINE and the primary alternator
shut down and out of service. With no battery on line, it actually introduces
less audible electrical noise into the system than does the stock primary
alternator with a battery on line.
Recently, I flew one of these systems for a night IMC cross country.
Shortly after takeoff, we shut down the a/c primary alternator and turned off
the
battery master - - and continued for three hours to our destination. Had this
been a real situation, rather than a test, there would not have been the
slightest concern about when the battery was last changed or how many electrons
we
could count coming out of the battery on a periodic load test. If the
battery started the engine, we were good to go with no single point failure
identifiable that would compromise the easy completion of the intended flight.
The concept now contemplates a couple of configurations:
1) battery; and,
2) one large capacity (60-90 amp) alternator; and,
3) one smaller (35 amps, nominal, about 42 to 44amps peak) alternator
Where the smaller alternator is fully capable of self exciting and running
the entire night/IFR (plus pitot heat) equipment list - - indefinitely - - in
the event of any combination of failures of items 1) and/or 2), above.
An alternative configuration is to use two of the same 35 amp smaller
alternators, rather than the combination of one large and one small alternator.
The
only good reason for the large alternator is to handle peak loads during taxi
and night ground operations.
Bottom line, you are absolutely right - - the automotive solution is really
not appropriate because of the single point failure modes and the other
uncertainties associated with that design.
Regards, George
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: Internally regulated alternator OVP protection |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: James H Nelson <rv9jim@juno.com>
Amen Bob!
Show the facts and provide the repeatability to prove your assertions is
the way of any research organization no matter what product.
Jim Nelson
RV9-A
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: Wire crimper suggestions? |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Ron Raby" <ronr@advanceddesign.com>
I would like to add that it would be wise to perform a pull test and crimp
inspection. Do this for the terminals and size wires that you would be
crimping. Tools do go out of calibration and require periodic maintenance.
Regards
Ron Raby
----- Original Message -----
From: "William Slaughter" <willslau@alumni.rice.edu>
Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Re: Wire crimper suggestions?
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "William Slaughter"
> <willslau@alumni.rice.edu>
>
> No one should be afraid of the $30 - $40 crimpers from SteinAir and B&C,
> but come on now guys, you don't have to spend $300 to get an AMP
> crimper. Not that they don't make crimpers that cost that and a lot
> more, but as someone else recently posted, the Pro Crimp II is about $65
> from Digikey. I bought mine in the kit form with a case and an
> assortment of terminals for right at $100. I'm going to use only AMP
> PIDG terminals, and having the factory crimping jaws for $30 extra gives
> me a very warm and fuzzy feeling. And boy does it make a nice crimp!
> I'll keep the Panduit assembled with jaws for other connector types.
> YMMV.
>
> William
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Stein
> Bruch
> To: aeroelectric-list@matronics.com
> Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Re: Wire crimper suggestions?
>
>
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Stein Bruch"
> --> <stein@steinair.com>
>
> Don't use one of those on your airplane. This is kind of taking "cheap"
> too far. Yes, they do work - but I wouldn't use them when wiring up an
> airplane. Use a proper ratcheting crimper. If you want to spend
> $300.00 for an AMP crimper that's ok, but the $30-$40 somethinth crimper
> from B&C or me is every bit as good and a lot cheaper. Both are FAR and
> away superior to the "plier type".
>
> This whole discussion has baffeled me for a couple years now. People
> ask me regularly if the $30 crimper is ok to use since it's so "cheap"?
> I've gotten to the point I feel like raising the price on my crimpers to
> $150.00 so people feel like they're spending a bunch of money on
> something good. This may come as a surprise, but some of the crimpers
> (B&C and myself sell some of the exact same ones) come from the SAME
> factory that makes some the crimpers for AMP/Tyco.
>
> I have a whole tool box full of AMP, Daniels, Astro, etc.. crimpers that
> I've rarely touched. I use my simple little B&C & SteinAir crimpers far
> more often. Kind of like wrenches, sockets & screwdrivers. Snap-On is
> good (but WAYYY overpriced), Craftsmen Professional, SK and others are
> equally as good, but a LOT cheaper.
>
> Just my typically "biased" 2 cents as usual!
>
> Cheers,
> Stein.
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com]On Behalf Of John
> Swartout
> To: aeroelectric-list@matronics.com
> Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Re: Wire crimper suggestions?
>
>
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "John Swartout"
> <jgswartout@earthlink.net>
>
> Bob, are you familiar with the crimping tool described (but not named)
> in a September 1999 Experimenter magazine article, p. 27, by Bill
> Benedict, reprinted from The RVator, first issue, 1999? The crimping
> tool is forged steel (not stamped) looks a bit like a standard pair of
> pliers--fairly wide-jawed and curved on the outside (non-business side)
> of the jaws. The crimping part has a half-circle groove perpendicular
> to the long axis of the tool on one jaw, into which the terminal is
> laid, and the other jaw has a bump across the jaw, which nests into the
> groove on the other jaw but has a smaller radius. The writer says this
> tool maintains the round shape of the connector barrel, and prevents it
> from separating at the seam if you use it on cheap industrial terminals.
> It doesn't crimp perpendicular to the terminal barrel, but crimps the
> whole barrel lengthwise. Makes sense to me. Know where I can get one?
> He says they cost $10 to $21.
>
> John
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of
> Robert L. Nuckolls, III
> To: aeroelectric-list@matronics.com
> Subject: AeroElectric-List: Re: Wire crimper suggestions?
>
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III"
> <b.nuckolls@cox.net>
>
> At 08:42 PM 4/20/2005 -0400, you wrote:
>
>>
>>Hi Bob, I am hunting for a good quality wire crimper. I thought the
> B&C
>>crimper for $40 was high quality until I read it referred to as the "El
>
>>Cheapo" crimper. Can't afford the T-Head!
>
> I own several copies of tools sold by B&C in addition to my
> venerable ol' t-head tool. The term "el-cheapo" was not intended
> to be depreciatory. The comparative article I did was to demonstrate
> that the lower cost tool was adequate and therefore a good value.
> I sold that tool myself for years.
>
> The other tools you cited, particularly if sold by AMP are
> certain to be compatible with their products . . . and if
> you're more comfortable with them, by all means.
>
> 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: Internally regulated alternator OVP protection |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Bill Schlatterer" <billschlatterer@sbcglobal.net>
Reminds me of a story by Jerry Clower I think. Bear hunting one
night,....His buddies and dogs had a bear treed and he raised up his gun to
shoot it. One of his buddies said, "if you was a "real" man, you'd put that
knife 'tween your teeth(2) and go up that tree and take him hand to hand".
Jerry just couldn't resist the dare so up the tree he went, knife in hand.
After about 10 minutes of the damnest thrashing around he hollered back down
to the ground,.... "Help, help, shoot shoot now shoot him,..... "
His buddy on the ground hollered back up,.... "Can't do it,... might hit
you!"
Jerry hollered back down to the ground,..... "Just shoot anyway,... one of
us has to got have some relief!"
Loved the IR OVP discussion the first time, the second time, the third time,
but,.... Paul can only present (or have presented) the same position so
many times and you (Bob) can only defend it so many times. Sooner or later,
instead of just hearing about them, it would be nice to just see the
promised papers, publications, tests, test results, autopsy, system designs,
etc.
In the meantime, I have sent my Vans IR Alternator back but have not ordered
the B&C L40 yet as I am anxiously awaiting something more definitive.
Confused in Arkansas (.02)
Bill S
7a Panel
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com]On Behalf Of Robert
L. Nuckolls, III
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Re: Internally regulated alternator OVP
protection
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III"
<b.nuckolls@cox.net>
At 02:05 PM 4/22/2005 -0400, you wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Eric M. Jones"
<emjones@charter.net>
>
>Posted for Paul Messinger----
>
>Internally regulated alternator OVP protection.
>
>It has long been a desire (by many of us) to use stock internally regulated
>alternators on Experimental aircraft. Recently, my detailed analysis and
>testing along with flight failure reports (mostly from Van's have
>demonstrated the very popular Aeroelectric Connection OVP module with a
>common power contactor in the "B" lead appears to cause failures not
prevent
>them. Part of the problem is the rather frequent false tripping of that
>specific OVP.
I was told that it involved instances where the
operator deliberately opened the alternator control switch
while the alternator was loaded. This is guaranteed to produce
a load dump event that is antagonistic to the alternator
only. "False tripping" is a new complaint. There have been
instances where features in the system would cause the OVM-14
to trip. Diodes left of starter contactors was a real
common occurrence.
Let's take care not to bundle two separate problems into
one pot. Nuisance tripping of ANY ovp system is possible
depending on dynamics of the voltage sensing design goals.
Failure of the alternator due to self induced load dump
is an entirely different problem which happens whether or
not ov protection is present . . . or what kind it is.
If you simply wanted to shut off an internally regulated
alternator by leaving out the ov protection and just
install the b-lead contactor . . . risk to the alternator
is just as high whether or not the OVM-14 is present. So
please refrain from piling all the blame for alternator
failures on the OVM-14.
>The above OVP module shorts the 5 amp fuse as a method of OVP detection and
>prevention and that can produce current surges of 100 amps to as high as
400
>amps.
A highly touted "down side" feature . . .
> Then the contactor opens and there is a real likely hood (demonstrated
>by test) of a contact arc that is not cleared with the contact opening as
>the contacts are not rated to break the resulting arc voltage of an runaway
>alternator.
This is the reason I'm pulling Z-24. If and until we can
mitigate the load-dump transient to levels favorable to
the existing contactor I have to take the position that
the task cannot be done.
>False trips exacerbate the problem.
True
> There should be no possible
>pilot misapplication of switches that damage components.
True
>The simple turning
>of the battery can and usually triggers the OVP module to trip and
>occasionally destroys the alternator regulator.
Whoa! Who's ov module? We've sold hundreds of these things
for over 10 years. I've never had a nuisance trip I couldn't
cure (when I was made aware of it) and I've never had a builder
complain of the characteristics you describe. If it
performs as badly as you describe Do you really believe I
would put my name on a product and then attempt to cover up
or whitewash sub-standard performance? I've always had a
100% satisfaction guaranteed warranty or your money
back policy. See
http://aeroelectric.com/Catalog/warranty.html
I don't even ask that they send it back although if it
failed, I'd like to get it back for a autopsy. I think
there's about a 1000 OVM-14 crowbar OVM modules sold
of which at least half are flying by now . . . I've
NEVER had one returned nor has anyone ask for his money
back.
I had two failed units returned . . . both toasted because
one builder wired it to the wrong side of the breaker . . . the
other had no breaker at all . . .
>Apparently the very recent Aeroelectric Connection solution is to eliminate
>any discussion or support of internally regulated alternators as such
>designs are being deleted from the schematics. This is unfortunate as there
>is a simple solution that protects the aircraft with out damage to the
>alternator.
Where does this come from? I've been trying to get a lucid
discussion and universally applicable solutions to this
task for over a year. Folks assured me they were going to
go off and do testing and let us know what the answers
were. I understand tests were done but I'm still wondering
what the answers are. I offered to publish any solution
to the application of internally regulated alternators
that anyone wants to propose . . . but my offers and
pleas go unanswered.
I am not suggesting that discussions on the matter cease.
Quite the contrary, I'd be delighted if they would continue
toward a useable conclusion. I've had to withdraw my
recommendations, but not discussions and ideas. This
is because I cannot presently look a builder in the eye and
say that the proposed solution has been carefully crafted and has
a high probability of trouble free operation as advertised.
You sent me an eyes-only email on 4-5-5 stating that:
"The designs will be made available on my web site when
the design is done and flight tested. As my contract is
for a specific system I cannot at this time provide any
details and also need to design the system to the customers
desires including what is overkill in some cases.
However the major components are mine to show anywhere
and I will at the right time."
Okay, after telling me that I won and you didn't want
to play anymore, you also tell me that your work is
not presently available to me or anyone else for
publication. That puts me back to square-one with respect
to successful integration of the I-R alternator after
waiting for your test results which I assumed would be
shared.
It was your letter of 4-5 that prompted me to put
any recommendations I might have for internally regulated
alternators on hold. I could not continue to publish what
was in place because I didn't have the data to either
support it as-published -OR- make meaningful modifications.
>Here is a simple tested solution that allows the use of an automotive
>internally regulated alternator in our aircraft electrical systems.
>
>A. Regulator overvoltage causing failure.
>
> Add transorbs to the "B" lead on the alternator side of any other
device
>like a fuse or contactor. Eric Jones has a suitable part if you do not want
>to build your own. Something I recommend for ALL alternators regardless of
>where the regulator is.
Good idea . . .
>B. Contactor contact arcing with common low voltage contactors.
>
> Use the Kilovac brand contactor that is rated to break 900 volts DC at
>over 1000 amps. Big overkill but its the only one around I can find that is
>both a high current and high voltage unit that is reasonable cost. Part #
>EV200AAANA If you want isolated aux low power contacts the part # is
>EV200HAANA
If you have a transorb or equal on the alternator to
mitigate load dump, why do you need a contactor that
will break 900V?
>C. Large current crow bar approach to OVP. This approach is unique in the
>industry for this specific application. There is no need for large currents
>to do the job and overstressing the circuit breaker.
There is no "need" in this particular situation but
keep in mind that the crowbar ovm was developed 25 years
ago with specific design goals that could not be met any
other way. It was certifiable and did not violate any guidelines
of DO-160/Mil-Std-704. It was sold into that application
(E-R alternators) for years before the I-R alternator
issue came up. Granted, features that made it particularly
attractive in the first instance were no longer "necessary"
in the second instance but they didn't hurt anything either.
The OVM-14 and direct descendants are flying in thousands
of OBAM aircraft and soon to be thousands of SpamCans. It
met design goals of DO-160/Mil-Std-704 25 years ago and it
still meets it today.
>Use a modern solid state OV detector that opens the field lead and the
>Kilovac "B" lead. Eric Jones has such a device or you can wait for my
design
>to appear later this year. There is active notification of alternator
>failure designed in to Eric's module. There is false tripping prevention
>built into the design.
"False tripping" has not been a big issue and we've always
cured it with fixes to antagonists elsewhere in the system.
>The above 3 step solution eliminates the false tripping, large currents,
>internal regulator failure from false tripping OV, and contactor contact
>arcing associated with the current Aeroelectric Connection approach. This
>is designed to work with rebuilt alternators as well as brand new
>alternators and provides the demonstrated superior reliability of the stock
>automotive alternator at 1/2 the cost of a purchased B&C modified
alternator
>and external regulator.
I don't recall who was hailing from which camp earlier
this year but I thought you were of the opinion that
I-R alternators were of sufficient reliability so as not
to justify OV protection . . . but you seem to endorse
the concept by citation of the foregoing recommendations.
So I guess the only hold-out is Van and he isn't interested
in participating and probably isn't interested in the
results of any tests we conduct. But that's his business
model and he's entitled.
So it appears that we don't disagree on anything substantive.
If you have a softer, gentler ov system to offer, no problem
there. My only concern for Figure Z-24 at the moment is to
size the load-dump protection. If load dump protection exists
then I'm suggesting that the b-lead contactor doesn't need
any high-voltage capabilities.
You say you've extensively tested, Eric has product to
deliver but George Braly says he can toast it.
(Eric, would you send a sample to George? You have the
product, he has the drive stand, I need the data.)
I'm turning blue awaiting the bill of materials, schematics,
installation instructions, etc so that your demonstration can be
repeated
on someone else's hardware but your own. I'm asking no more of
you than what I've sold, described in detail and warranted for
thousands of others for over 15 years.
>This above approach has been extensively tested. This testing (in detail)
>will be posted here later this year
>
>There are additional design concerns for those wishing to operate with no
>battery in the system. This is in design process right now and will be
>announced soon. Simple but required proof of concept testing which has not
>yet been done.
>
>Design details and more information will soon be posted on my site. Site
>address will be announced soon.
VERY pleased to hear that. But please sir, you misrepresent
my words and intent. You continue to toss bombs into the discussion
without participating in the discussion. The last big bomb
about damage to an breaker due to "out of specification" operation
was a dud but it's taken me weeks to find the bits of spare time to
research and defuse it. I'm working on an article . . .
[For those interested, breakers qualified to mil-spec are
routinely subject to extra-ordinary fault currents far
beyond the perceived 10x "limit" and expected to meet
trip calibration requirements after the test. In the case
of a 5A breaker, it gets a ~700A shot that opens it in a flash
followed by a test to show trip characteristics HAVE NOT
changed. The miniature breakers qualified to mil-specs are
built on the same production lines as the commercial
equivalents . . . the commercial breakers are simply not
qualified but they'll meet the same requirements as the
mil-spec. The 10x upper bound on the trip characteristic
curves were never intended as not-to-exceed-lest-you-
trash-the-breaker-limits. See Mil-C-5806G paragraphs
6.4.7, 4.7.14, table VII and Figure 3.
When I asked my breaker guru at Eaton/Cuttler-Hammer about
this not-to-exceed fault requirement, he was mystified. Now
I know why: In years past this test WAS called a "Rupture
Capacity" test . . . for in days of old, breakers were known to
come apart under high fault conditions. For at least 30
years and perhaps longer, the test has been called an
"Interrupting Capacity" test . . . seems that it's no
big deal any more but old ideas seem to persist. Modern
breakers are expected to handle this with ease.]
. . . but there are other things far more interesting to do
that to field your bombs. Now, after saying that you quit
but you'll make all things known at some later time, you're
still dropping bombs in through a proxy tosser. I'm not even
from Missouri but all I want is for somebody to "show me the
hardware". In the mean time I'll have to fit in plans for
gathering the data I need to make Z-24 or some reasonable
replacement suitable for use in airplanes. It would be
really cool if you were helping.
Bob . . .
Message 6
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Internally regulated alternator OVP protection |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Paul Messinger" <paulm@olypen.com>
Again you have misquoted my work and notes. You have again failed (as usual)
to reply to specific issues and specific solutions. Selective snipping has
changed the entire meaning of what I have said in your reply. This was the
reason for my stopping posting and this post is a one time reply.
What I had sent Eric was a "press release".
The Kilovac contactor was stated to have the ability to break the
potentially high voltage arc (which "normal low voltage contactors cannot
do) resulting from a runaway alternator. You have seen that (arc) for your
self and so stated on this list some time ago. I do not remember the exact
words but you commented to the effect there was concern about the ability to
quench the arc. I ran a test and the arc did not self quench. The Kilovac
however is designed to not sustain an arc voltage and current way over what
is needed. I have not found a less of an overkill part that will work. The
Kilovac is also an ideal contactor for all contactor applications but is
higher cost.
Sorry that you fail to understand that solutions are out there and there is
zero interest by me and others to try to prove it to you. The automotive
market is a wealth of proven solutions but it does take some looking to find
the right one for a specific problem.
Van is not a hold out, they have seen the light and they are not the only
one (I know of 4 more significant players in that market and all use stock
alternators with no OV external OV protection, but they are the largest
based on number of aircraft flying. There are many auto engine converters
for aircraft that also have seen no reason not to use the stock internally
regulated alternator. Its very popular to simply duplicate the relevant part
of an auto engine electrical system in a single string for aircraft and this
is based on the logic the resulting auto single string system is far more
reliable that the dual string aircraft systems. Adding redundancy does not
always add reliability when the additional complexity is considered. In aero
space crosssrapping and multiple redundancies often was discarded as the
resulting system reliability was lowered with the additional reduncency.
Single point failures are only important is credible. Based on incident
reports a prop flying off the engine is more likely than a runaway
alternator. We do not worry about the prop so perhaps its not important to
worry about the alternator rarest of the rare runaway failure.
As for returned OVP module units, why bother its easier to simply go down a
different route. or at least that is what Eric and I have been told by many
many unhappy customers who discarded the OVP module after false tripping.
Again you have commented recently on this list that under some conditions
the unit is prone to false trip, this was in a reply to my post noting this
fact.
If Eric (or any one) has a product why should he be required to prove it
with design disclosure and subject it to independent uncontrolled testing.
Anything can be broken and made to appear it was a design fault.
After all you have not disclosed the LR-3 design details. I for one would be
interested as I have a failed one here that failed and did not POP the CB in
the act of failing. Its a safe failure as the alternator simply failed to
produce power. There was internal burned up parts apparent. The owner went
local for a heavy duty adjustable unit used by long haul truckers and for a
fraction of the cost of a replacement LR-3
Be that as it may, feel free to continue to reply to any who disagree. If
any reader cares to reread my entire statement that I allowed Eric to
publish you can see the full story.
What about NSI's design that has a simple system that has been extensively
FLIGHT and bench tested that handles load dump and battery disconnect?
In fact no battery ops is a requirement not a forbidden danger zone.
Flight testing has been done with the battery switched on and off as well as
heavy loads with no battery on line. Nothing was damaged and the truly all
electric system never glitches. Its a complete system that would be easy to
fail with testing setup to make it fail.
Heck I can make it fail in a simple setup but that is not the issue. There
is a COMPLETE SYSTEM design that works and is flying today and first flight
several years ago. Its likely that one could use some of the same parts in a
different system and have failures. This is why its important to design a
SYSTEM and recognize how every part interacts with the others in a system.
If you run the numbers ,Van may be the smart one. Tens of thousands of
flight hours with no failures with no OV protection and many failures in a
very short time with OV protection. The reason for the failures has never
been fully investigated and from Van's point of VU there is no reason to do
it. the circumstantional evidence has found Bob's OVP module guilty. :-)
The failure rate of a NEW ND alternator is very low (MTBF demonstrated of
well over 4,000 equivalent flight hours). Then the primary failure is simple
shutdown as there is internal OV protection built in. Joes Auto Parts
rebuilt alternator MAY be a very different story. The failure rate of a
runaway alternator is lower than a prop failure and Van among others (at
least appears to) simply ignore it as too low a risk to worry about. Its one
failure in thousands of the already rare failure above. Some in the industry
suggest its one in millions of flight hours. I have only heard of one such
failure and its only suspected not confirmed.
Is this not a prop bolt issue? prop failures of all kinds are hundreds of
times more likely than a HV fault in an alternator.
Load dumps are simple to take care of and its not me or Eric that has the
solution ;its the entire industry that has documented the cause and
solution. Eric and I simply verified a specific solution that meets the
needs of the aircraft avionics.
That George can blow a 5kw transorb and in a seemingly similar test I cannot
blow a 1.5kw unit has never been resolved (1.5Kw units survive but are
overstressed based on specifications). I do not question Gorge's results and
you will not accept mine (so be it!)
My testing has shown that the load dump test results match the industry
published data as well as the ability of the proper transorbs to absorb any
reasonable load dump. (1.5Kw units survive but are overstressed based on
specifications with a 40 amp load dump) My testing simply demonstrated the
industry published results. Thus the tests while interesting shed no
additional light on the problem and the solution was what was already in the
published info.
I apologize to the group and I do not expect to ever post here again and I
will ask that no one else forwards a press release of mine to this group.
Its not about winning the war of words nor convincing you that there is a
system that does what you say cannot be done at present. Its trying to show
there is a reliable solution that others are using today. You are free to
disagree as you have and will likely continue to do as we all have freedom
of thought.
I am saddened that you have chosen to quote from a private email to you from
me. Quoted out of context and changing the entire meaning does not help
either. What part of private do you not understand??
With all the respect that is due.
Paul
----- Original Message -----
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <b.nuckolls@cox.net>
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Re: Internally regulated alternator OVP
protection
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III"
> <b.nuckolls@cox.net>
>
> At 02:05 PM 4/22/2005 -0400, you wrote:
>
>>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Eric M. Jones"
>><emjones@charter.net>
>>
>>Posted for Paul Messinger----
>>
>>Internally regulated alternator OVP protection.
>>
>>It has long been a desire (by many of us) to use stock internally
>>regulated
>>alternators on Experimental aircraft. Recently, my detailed analysis and
>>testing along with flight failure reports (mostly from Van's have
>>demonstrated the very popular Aeroelectric Connection OVP module with a
>>common power contactor in the "B" lead appears to cause failures not
>>prevent
>>them. Part of the problem is the rather frequent false tripping of that
>>specific OVP.
>
> I was told that it involved instances where the
> operator deliberately opened the alternator control switch
> while the alternator was loaded. This is guaranteed to produce
> a load dump event that is antagonistic to the alternator
> only. "False tripping" is a new complaint. There have been
> instances where features in the system would cause the OVM-14
> to trip. Diodes left of starter contactors was a real
> common occurrence.
>
> Let's take care not to bundle two separate problems into
> one pot. Nuisance tripping of ANY ovp system is possible
> depending on dynamics of the voltage sensing design goals.
> Failure of the alternator due to self induced load dump
> is an entirely different problem which happens whether or
> not ov protection is present . . . or what kind it is.
>
> If you simply wanted to shut off an internally regulated
> alternator by leaving out the ov protection and just
> install the b-lead contactor . . . risk to the alternator
> is just as high whether or not the OVM-14 is present. So
> please refrain from piling all the blame for alternator
> failures on the OVM-14.
>
>
>>The above OVP module shorts the 5 amp fuse as a method of OVP detection
>>and
>>prevention and that can produce current surges of 100 amps to as high as
>>400
>>amps.
>
> A highly touted "down side" feature . . .
>
>> Then the contactor opens and there is a real likely hood (demonstrated
>>by test) of a contact arc that is not cleared with the contact opening as
>>the contacts are not rated to break the resulting arc voltage of an
>>runaway
>>alternator.
>
> This is the reason I'm pulling Z-24. If and until we can
> mitigate the load-dump transient to levels favorable to
> the existing contactor I have to take the position that
> the task cannot be done.
>
> >False trips exacerbate the problem.
>
> True
>
>> There should be no possible
>>pilot misapplication of switches that damage components.
>
> True
>
>>The simple turning
>>of the battery can and usually triggers the OVP module to trip and
>>occasionally destroys the alternator regulator.
>
> Whoa! Who's ov module? We've sold hundreds of these things
> for over 10 years. I've never had a nuisance trip I couldn't
> cure (when I was made aware of it) and I've never had a builder
> complain of the characteristics you describe. If it
> performs as badly as you describe Do you really believe I
> would put my name on a product and then attempt to cover up
> or whitewash sub-standard performance? I've always had a
> 100% satisfaction guaranteed warranty or your money
> back policy. See
>
> http://aeroelectric.com/Catalog/warranty.html
>
> I don't even ask that they send it back although if it
> failed, I'd like to get it back for a autopsy. I think
> there's about a 1000 OVM-14 crowbar OVM modules sold
> of which at least half are flying by now . . . I've
> NEVER had one returned nor has anyone ask for his money
> back.
>
> I had two failed units returned . . . both toasted because
> one builder wired it to the wrong side of the breaker . . . the
> other had no breaker at all . . .
>
>>Apparently the very recent Aeroelectric Connection solution is to
>>eliminate
>>any discussion or support of internally regulated alternators as such
>>designs are being deleted from the schematics. This is unfortunate as
>>there
>>is a simple solution that protects the aircraft with out damage to the
>>alternator.
>
> Where does this come from? I've been trying to get a lucid
> discussion and universally applicable solutions to this
> task for over a year. Folks assured me they were going to
> go off and do testing and let us know what the answers
> were. I understand tests were done but I'm still wondering
> what the answers are. I offered to publish any solution
> to the application of internally regulated alternators
> that anyone wants to propose . . . but my offers and
> pleas go unanswered.
>
> I am not suggesting that discussions on the matter cease.
> Quite the contrary, I'd be delighted if they would continue
> toward a useable conclusion. I've had to withdraw my
> recommendations, but not discussions and ideas. This
> is because I cannot presently look a builder in the eye and
> say that the proposed solution has been carefully crafted and has
> a high probability of trouble free operation as advertised.
>
> You sent me an eyes-only email on 4-5-5 stating that:
>
> "The designs will be made available on my web site when
> the design is done and flight tested. As my contract is
> for a specific system I cannot at this time provide any
> details and also need to design the system to the customers
> desires including what is overkill in some cases.
>
> However the major components are mine to show anywhere
> and I will at the right time."
>
> Okay, after telling me that I won and you didn't want
> to play anymore, you also tell me that your work is
> not presently available to me or anyone else for
> publication. That puts me back to square-one with respect
> to successful integration of the I-R alternator after
> waiting for your test results which I assumed would be
> shared.
>
> It was your letter of 4-5 that prompted me to put
> any recommendations I might have for internally regulated
> alternators on hold. I could not continue to publish what
> was in place because I didn't have the data to either
> support it as-published -OR- make meaningful modifications.
>
>
>>Here is a simple tested solution that allows the use of an automotive
>>internally regulated alternator in our aircraft electrical systems.
>>
>>A. Regulator overvoltage causing failure.
>>
>> Add transorbs to the "B" lead on the alternator side of any other
>> device
>>like a fuse or contactor. Eric Jones has a suitable part if you do not
>>want
>>to build your own. Something I recommend for ALL alternators regardless of
>>where the regulator is.
> Good idea . . .
>
>
>>B. Contactor contact arcing with common low voltage contactors.
>>
>> Use the Kilovac brand contactor that is rated to break 900 volts DC
>> at
>>over 1000 amps. Big overkill but its the only one around I can find that
>>is
>>both a high current and high voltage unit that is reasonable cost. Part #
>>EV200AAANA If you want isolated aux low power contacts the part # is
>>EV200HAANA
>
> If you have a transorb or equal on the alternator to
> mitigate load dump, why do you need a contactor that
> will break 900V?
>
>
>>C. Large current crow bar approach to OVP. This approach is unique in the
>>industry for this specific application. There is no need for large
>>currents
>>to do the job and overstressing the circuit breaker.
>
> There is no "need" in this particular situation but
> keep in mind that the crowbar ovm was developed 25 years
> ago with specific design goals that could not be met any
> other way. It was certifiable and did not violate any guidelines
> of DO-160/Mil-Std-704. It was sold into that application
> (E-R alternators) for years before the I-R alternator
> issue came up. Granted, features that made it particularly
> attractive in the first instance were no longer "necessary"
> in the second instance but they didn't hurt anything either.
>
> The OVM-14 and direct descendants are flying in thousands
> of OBAM aircraft and soon to be thousands of SpamCans. It
> met design goals of DO-160/Mil-Std-704 25 years ago and it
> still meets it today.
>
>
>>Use a modern solid state OV detector that opens the field lead and the
>>Kilovac "B" lead. Eric Jones has such a device or you can wait for my
>>design
>>to appear later this year. There is active notification of alternator
>>failure designed in to Eric's module. There is false tripping prevention
>>built into the design.
>
> "False tripping" has not been a big issue and we've always
> cured it with fixes to antagonists elsewhere in the system.
>
>
>>The above 3 step solution eliminates the false tripping, large currents,
>>internal regulator failure from false tripping OV, and contactor contact
>>arcing associated with the current Aeroelectric Connection approach. This
>>is designed to work with rebuilt alternators as well as brand new
>>alternators and provides the demonstrated superior reliability of the
>>stock
>>automotive alternator at 1/2 the cost of a purchased B&C modified
>>alternator
>>and external regulator.
>
>
> I don't recall who was hailing from which camp earlier
> this year but I thought you were of the opinion that
> I-R alternators were of sufficient reliability so as not
> to justify OV protection . . . but you seem to endorse
> the concept by citation of the foregoing recommendations.
>
> So I guess the only hold-out is Van and he isn't interested
> in participating and probably isn't interested in the
> results of any tests we conduct. But that's his business
> model and he's entitled.
>
> So it appears that we don't disagree on anything substantive.
> If you have a softer, gentler ov system to offer, no problem
> there. My only concern for Figure Z-24 at the moment is to
> size the load-dump protection. If load dump protection exists
> then I'm suggesting that the b-lead contactor doesn't need
> any high-voltage capabilities.
>
> You say you've extensively tested, Eric has product to
> deliver but George Braly says he can toast it.
>
> (Eric, would you send a sample to George? You have the
> product, he has the drive stand, I need the data.)
>
> I'm turning blue awaiting the bill of materials, schematics,
> installation instructions, etc so that your demonstration can be
> repeated
> on someone else's hardware but your own. I'm asking no more of
> you than what I've sold, described in detail and warranted for
> thousands of others for over 15 years.
>
>>This above approach has been extensively tested. This testing (in detail)
>>will be posted here later this year
>>
>>There are additional design concerns for those wishing to operate with no
>>battery in the system. This is in design process right now and will be
>>announced soon. Simple but required proof of concept testing which has not
>>yet been done.
>>
>>Design details and more information will soon be posted on my site. Site
>>address will be announced soon.
>
> VERY pleased to hear that. But please sir, you misrepresent
> my words and intent. You continue to toss bombs into the discussion
> without participating in the discussion. The last big bomb
> about damage to an breaker due to "out of specification" operation
> was a dud but it's taken me weeks to find the bits of spare time to
> research and defuse it. I'm working on an article . . .
>
> [For those interested, breakers qualified to mil-spec are
> routinely subject to extra-ordinary fault currents far
> beyond the perceived 10x "limit" and expected to meet
> trip calibration requirements after the test. In the case
> of a 5A breaker, it gets a ~700A shot that opens it in a flash
> followed by a test to show trip characteristics HAVE NOT
> changed. The miniature breakers qualified to mil-specs are
> built on the same production lines as the commercial
> equivalents . . . the commercial breakers are simply not
> qualified but they'll meet the same requirements as the
> mil-spec. The 10x upper bound on the trip characteristic
> curves were never intended as not-to-exceed-lest-you-
> trash-the-breaker-limits. See Mil-C-5806G paragraphs
> 6.4.7, 4.7.14, table VII and Figure 3.
>
> When I asked my breaker guru at Eaton/Cuttler-Hammer about
> this not-to-exceed fault requirement, he was mystified. Now
> I know why: In years past this test WAS called a "Rupture
> Capacity" test . . . for in days of old, breakers were known to
> come apart under high fault conditions. For at least 30
> years and perhaps longer, the test has been called an
> "Interrupting Capacity" test . . . seems that it's no
> big deal any more but old ideas seem to persist. Modern
> breakers are expected to handle this with ease.]
>
> . . . but there are other things far more interesting to do
> that to field your bombs. Now, after saying that you quit
> but you'll make all things known at some later time, you're
> still dropping bombs in through a proxy tosser. I'm not even
> from Missouri but all I want is for somebody to "show me the
> hardware". In the mean time I'll have to fit in plans for
> gathering the data I need to make Z-24 or some reasonable
> replacement suitable for use in airplanes. It would be
> really cool if you were helping.
>
> Bob . . .
>
>
>
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: Internally regulated alternator OVP protection |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: luckymacy@comcast.net (lucky)
should have just used kept the alternator and built on. You'd have the damn thing
probably done by now....
There's another saying I'll butcher here.
Wise man and fool were arguing one day. Stranger walked by and listened for a
minute. He couldn't tell which was which....
lucky
-------------- Original message --------------
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Bill Schlatterer"
>
>
> Reminds me of a story by Jerry Clower I think. Bear hunting one
> night,....His buddies and dogs had a bear treed and he raised up his gun to
> shoot it. One of his buddies said, "if you was a "real" man, you'd put that
> knife 'tween your teeth(2) and go up that tree and take him hand to hand".
> Jerry just couldn't resist the dare so up the tree he went, knife in hand.
>
> After about 10 minutes of the damnest thrashing around he hollered back down
> to the ground,.... "Help, help, shoot shoot now shoot him,..... "
>
> His buddy on the ground hollered back up,.... "Can't do it,... might hit
> you!"
>
> Jerry hollered back down to the ground,..... "Just shoot anyway,... one of
> us has to got have some relief!"
>
>
> Loved the IR OVP discussion the first time, the second time, the third time,
> but,.... Paul can only present (or have presented) the same position so
> many times and you (Bob) can only defend it so many times. Sooner or later,
> instead of just hearing about them, it would be nice to just see the
> promised papers, publications, tests, test results, autopsy, system designs,
> etc.
>
> In the meantime, I have sent my Vans IR Alternator back but have not ordered
> the B&C L40 yet as I am anxiously awaiting something more definitive.
>
> Confused in Arkansas (.02)
> Bill S
> 7a Panel
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com]On Behalf Of Robert
> L. Nuckolls, III
> To: aeroelectric-list@matronics.com
> Subject: AeroElectric-List: Re: Internally regulated alternator OVP
> protection
>
>
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III"
>
>
> At 02:05 PM 4/22/2005 -0400, you wrote:
>
> >--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Eric M. Jones"
>
> >
> >Posted for Paul Messinger----
> >
> >Internally regulated alternator OVP protection.
> >
> >It has long been a desire (by many of us) to use stock internally regulated
> >alternators on Experimental aircraft. Recently, my detailed analysis and
> >testing along with flight failure reports (mostly from Van's have
> >demonstrated the very popular Aeroelectric Connection OVP module with a
> >common power contactor in the "B" lead appears to cause failures not
> prevent
> >them. Part of the problem is the rather frequent false tripping of that
> >specific OVP.
>
> I was told that it involved instances where the
> operator deliberately opened the alternator control switch
> while the alternator was loaded. This is guaranteed to produce
> a load dump event that is antagonistic to the alternator
> only. "False tripping" is a new complaint. There have been
> instances where features in the system would cause the OVM-14
> to trip. Diodes left of starter contactors was a real
> common occurrence.
>
> Let's take care not to bundle two separate problems into
> one pot. Nuisance tripping of ANY ovp system is possible
> depending on dynamics of the voltage sensing design goals.
> Failure of the alternator due to self induced load dump
> is an entirely different problem which happens whether or
> not ov protection is present . . . or what kind it is.
>
> If you simply wanted to shut off an internally regulated
> alternator by leaving out the ov protection and just
> install the b-lead contactor . . . risk to the alternator
> is just as high whether or not the OVM-14 is present. So
> please refrain from piling all the blame for alternator
> failures on the OVM-14.
>
>
> >The above OVP module shorts the 5 amp fuse as a method of OVP detection and
> >prevention and that can produce current surges of 100 amps to as high as
> 400
> >amps.
>
> A highly touted "down side" feature . . .
>
> > Then the contactor opens and there is a real likely hood (demonstrated
> >by test) of a contact arc that is not cleared with the contact opening as
> >the contacts are not rated to break the resulting arc voltage of an runaway
> >alternator.
>
> This is the reason I'm pulling Z-24. If and until we can
> mitigate the load-dump transient to levels favorable to
> the existing contactor I have to take the position that
> the task cannot be done.
>
> >False trips exacerbate the problem.
>
> True
>
> > There should be no possible
> >pilot misapplication of switches that damage components.
>
> True
>
> >The simple turning
> >of the battery can and usually triggers the OVP module to trip and
> >occasionally destroys the alternator regulator.
>
> Whoa! Who's ov module? We've sold hundreds of these things
> for over 10 years. I've never had a nuisance trip I couldn't
> cure (when I was made aware of it) and I've never had a builder
> complain of the characteristics you describe. If it
> performs as badly as you describe Do you really believe I
> would put my name on a product and then attempt to cover up
> or whitewash sub-standard performance? I've always had a
> 100% satisfaction guaranteed warranty or your money
> back policy. See
>
> http://aeroelectric.com/Catalog/warranty.html
>
> I don't even ask that they send it back although if it
> failed, I'd like to get it back for a autopsy. I think
> there's about a 1000 OVM-14 crowbar OVM modules sold
> of which at least half are flying by now . . . I've
> NEVER had one returned nor has anyone ask for his money
> back.
>
> I had two failed units returned . . . both toasted because
> one builder wired it to the wrong side of the breaker . . . the
> other had no breaker at all . . .
>
> >Apparently the very recent Aeroelectric Connection solution is to eliminate
> >any discussion or support of internally regulated alternators as such
> >designs are being deleted from the schematics. This is unfortunate as there
> >is a simple solution that protects the aircraft with out damage to the
> >alternator.
>
> Where does this come from? I've been trying to get a lucid
> discussion and universally applicable solutions to this
> task for over a year. Folks assured me they were going to
> go off and do testing and let us know what the answers
> were. I understand tests were done but I'm still wondering
> what the answers are. I offered to publish any solution
> to the application of internally regulated alternators
> that anyone wants to propose . . . but my offers and
> pleas go unanswered.
>
> I am not suggesting that discussions on the matter cease.
> Quite the contrary, I'd be delighted if they would continue
> toward a useable conclusion. I've had to withdraw my
> recommendations, but not discussions and ideas. This
> is because I cannot presently look a builder in the eye and
> say that the proposed solution has been carefully crafted and has
> a high probability of trouble free operation as advertised.
>
> You sent me an eyes-only email on 4-5-5 stating that:
>
> "The designs will be made available on my web site when
> the design is done and flight tested. As my contract is
> for a specific system I cannot at this time provide any
> details and also need to design the system to the customers
> desires including what is overkill in some cases.
>
> However the major components are mine to show anywhere
> and I will at the right time."
>
> Okay, after telling me that I won and you didn't want
> to play anymore, you also tell me that your work is
> not presently available to me or anyone else for
> publication. That puts me back to square-one with respect
> to successful integration of the I-R alternator after
> waiting for your test results which I assumed would be
> shared.
>
> It was your letter of 4-5 that prompted me to put
> any recommendations I might have for internally regulated
> alternators on hold. I could not continue to publish what
> was in place because I didn't have the data to either
> support it as-published -OR- make meaningful modifications.
>
>
> >Here is a simple tested solution that allows the use of an automotive
> >internally regulated alternator in our aircraft electrical systems.
> >
> >A. Regulator overvoltage causing failure.
> >
> > Add transorbs to the "B" lead on the alternator side of any other
> device
> >like a fuse or contactor. Eric Jones has a suitable part if you do not want
> >to build your own. Something I recommend for ALL alternators regardless of
> >where the regulator is.
> Good idea . . .
>
>
> >B. Contactor contact arcing with common low voltage contactors.
> >
> > Use the Kilovac brand contactor that is rated to break 900 volts DC at
> >over 1000 amps. Big overkill but its the only one around I can find that is
> >both a high current and high voltage unit that is reasonable cost. Part #
> >EV200AAANA If you want isolated aux low power contacts the part # is
> >EV200HAANA
>
> If you have a transorb or equal on the alternator to
> mitigate load dump, why do you need a contactor that
> will break 900V?
>
>
> >C. Large current crow bar approach to OVP. This approach is unique in the
> >industry for this specific application. There is no need for large currents
> >to do the job and overstressing the circuit breaker.
>
> There is no "need" in this particular situation but
> keep in mind that the crowbar ovm was developed 25 years
> ago with specific design goals that could not be met any
> other way. It was certifiable and did not violate any guidelines
> of DO-160/Mil-Std-704. It was sold into that application
> (E-R alternators) for years before the I-R alternator
> issue came up. Granted, features that made it particularly
> attractive in the first instance were no longer "necessary"
> in the second instance but they didn't hurt anything either.
>
> The OVM-14 and direct descendants are flying in thousands
> of OBAM aircraft and soon to be thousands of SpamCans. It
> met design goals of DO-160/Mil-Std-704 25 years ago and it
> still meets it today.
>
>
> >Use a modern solid state OV detector that opens the field lead and the
> >Kilovac "B" lead. Eric Jones has such a device or you can wait for my
> design
> >to appear later this year. There is active notification of alternator
> >failure designed in to Eric's module. There is false tripping prevention
> >built into the design.
>
> "False tripping" has not been a big issue and we've always
> cured it with fixes to antagonists elsewhere in the system.
>
>
> >The above 3 step solution eliminates the false tripping, large currents,
> >internal regulator failure from false tripping OV, and contactor contact
> >arcing associated with the current Aeroelectric Connection approach. This
> >is designed to work with rebuilt alternators as well as brand new
> >alternators and provides the demonstrated superior reliability of the stock
> >automotive alternator at 1/2 the cost of a purchased B&C modified
> alternator
> >and external regulator.
>
>
> I don't recall who was hailing from which camp earlier
> this year but I thought you were of the opinion that
> I-R alternators were of sufficient reliability so as not
> to justify OV protection . . . but you seem to endorse
> the concept by citation of the foregoing recommendations.
>
> So I guess the only hold-out is Van and he isn't interested
> in participating and probably isn't interested in the
> results of any tests we conduct. But that's his business
> model and he's entitled.
>
> So it appears that we don't disagree on anything substantive.
> If you have a softer, gentler ov system to offer, no problem
> there. My only concern for Figure Z-24 at the moment is to
> size the load-dump protection. If load dump protection exists
> then I'm suggesting that the b-lead contactor doesn't need
> any high-voltage capabilities.
>
> You say you've extensively tested, Eric has product to
> deliver but George Braly says he can toast it.
>
> (Eric, would you send a sample to George? You have the
> product, he has the drive stand, I need the data.)
>
> I'm turning blue awaiting the bill of materials, schematics,
> installation instructions, etc so that your demonstration can be
> repeated
> on someone else's hardware but your own. I'm asking no more of
> you than what I've sold, described in detail and warranted for
> thousands of others for over 15 years.
>
> >This above approach has been extensively tested. This testing (in detail)
> >will be posted here later this year
> >
> >There are additional design concerns for those wishing to operate with no
> >battery in the system. This is in design process right now and will be
> >announced soon. Simple but required proof of concept testing which has not
> >yet been done.
> >
> >Design details and more information will soon be posted on my site. Site
> >address will be announced soon.
>
> VERY pleased to hear that. But please sir, you misrepresent
> my words and intent. You continue to toss bombs into the discussion
> without participating in the discussion. The last big bomb
> about damage to an breaker due to "out of specification" operation
> was a dud but it's taken me weeks to find the bits of spare time to
> research and defuse it. I'm working on an article . . .
>
> [For those interested, breakers qualified to mil-spec are
> routinely subject to extra-ordinary fault currents far
> beyond the perceived 10x "limit" and expected to meet
> trip calibration requirements after the test. In the case
> of a 5A breaker, it gets a ~700A shot that opens it in a flash
> followed by a test to show trip characteristics HAVE NOT
> changed. The miniature breakers qualified to mil-specs are
> built on the same production lines as the commercial
> equivalents . . . the commercial breakers are simply not
> qualified but they'll meet the same requirements as the
> mil-spec. The 10x upper bound on the trip characteristic
> curves were never intended as not-to-exceed-lest-you-
> trash-the-breaker-limits. See Mil-C-5806G paragraphs
> 6.4.7, 4.7.14, table VII and Figure 3.
>
> When I asked my breaker guru at Eaton/Cuttler-Hammer about
> this not-to-exceed fault requirement, he was mystified. Now
> I know why: In years past this test WAS called a "Rupture
> Capacity" test . . . for in days of old, breakers were known to
> come apart under high fault conditions. For at least 30
> years and perhaps longer, the test has been called an
> "Interrupting Capacity" test . . . seems that it's no
> big deal any more but old ideas seem to persist. Modern
> breakers are expected to handle this with ease.]
>
> . . . but there are other things far more interesting to do
> that to field your bombs. Now, after saying that you quit
> but you'll make all things known at some later time, you're
> still dropping bombs in through a proxy tosser. I'm not even
> from Missouri but all I want is for somebody to "show me the
> hardware". In the mean time I'll have to fit in plans for
> gathering the data I need to make Z-24 or some reasonable
> replacement suitable for use in airplanes. It would be
> really cool if you were helping.
>
> Bob . . .
>
>
>
>
>
>
should have just used kept the alternator and built on. You'd have the damn thing
probably done by now....
There's another saying I'll butcher here.
Wise man and fool were arguing one day. Stranger walked by and listened for a minute.
He couldn't tell which was which....
lucky
-------------- Original message --------------
-- AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Bill Schlatterer"
<BILLSCHLATTERER@SBCGLOBAL.NET>
Reminds me of a story by Jerry Clower I think. Bear hunting one
night,....His buddies and dogs had a bear treed and he raised up his gun to
shoot it. One of his buddies said, "if you was a "real" man, you'd put that
knife 'tween your teeth(2) and go up that tree and take him hand to hand".
Jerry just couldn't resist the dare so up the tree he went, knife in hand.
After about 10 minutes of the damnest thrashing around he hollered back down
to the ground,.... "Help, help, shoot shoot now shoot him,..... "
His buddy on the ground hollered back up,.... "Can't do it,... might hit
you!"
Jerry hollered back down
to the ground,..... "Just shoot anyway,... one of
us has to got have some relief!"
Loved the IR OVP discussion the first time, the second time, the third time,
but,.... Paul can only present (or have presented) the same position so
many times and you (Bob) can only defend it so many times. Sooner or later,
instead of just hearing about them, it would be nice to just see the
promised papers, publications, tests, test results, autopsy, system designs,
etc.
In the meantime, I have sent my Vans IR Alternator back but have not ordered
the BC L40 yet as I am anxiously awaiting something more definitive.
Confused in Arkansas (.02)
Bill S
7a Panel
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com]On Behalf Of Robert
&
gt; L. Nuckolls, III
To: aeroelectric-list@matronics.com
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Re: Internally regulated alternator OVP
protection
-- AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III"
<B.NUCKOLLS@COX.NET>
At 02:05 PM 4/22/2005 -0400, you wrote:
-- AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Eric M. Jones"
<EMJONES@CHARTER.NET>
Posted for Paul Messinger----
Internally regulated alternator OVP protection.
It has long been a desire (by many of us) to use stock internally regulated
alternators on Experimental aircraft. Recently, my detailed analysis and
testing along with flight failure reports (mostly from Van's have
demonstrated the very popular Aeroelectric Connection OVP module with a
common power contactor in the "B
" lead appears to cause failures not
prevent
them. Part of the problem is the rather frequent false tripping of that
specific OVP.
I was told that it involved instances where the
operator deliberately opened the alternator control switch
while the alternator was loaded. This is guaranteed to produce
a load dump event that is antagonistic to the alternator
only. "False tripping" is a new complaint. There have been
instances where features in the system would cause the OVM-14
to trip. Diodes left of starter contactors was a real
common occurrence.
Let's take care not to bundle two separate problems into
one pot. Nuisance tripping of ANY ovp system is possible
depending on dynamics of the voltage sensing design goals.
Failure of the alternator due to self induced load dump
is an entirely different problem which
happens whether or
not ov protection is present . . . or what kind it is.
If you simply wanted to shut off an internally regulated
alternator by leaving out the ov protection and just
install the b-lead contactor . . . risk to the alternator
is just as high whether or not the OVM-14 is present. So
please refrain from piling all the blame for alternator
failures on the OVM-14.
The above OVP module shorts the 5 amp fuse as a method of OVP detection and
prevention and that can produce current surges of 100 amps to as high as
400
amps.
A highly touted "down side" feature . . .
Then the contactor opens and there is a real likely hood (demonstrated
by test) of a contact arc that is not cleared with the contact opening as
the contacts are not rated to break the resulting arc volt
age of an runaway
alternator.
This is the reason I'm pulling Z-24. If and until we can
mitigate the load-dump transient to levels favorable to
the existing contactor I have to take the position that
the task cannot be done.
False trips exacerbate the problem.
True
There should be no possible
pilot misapplication of switches that damage components.
True
The simple turning
of the battery can and usually triggers the OVP module to trip and
occasionally destroys the alternator regulator.
Whoa! Who's ov module? We've sold hundreds of these things
for over 10 years. I've never had a nuisance trip I couldn't
cure (when I was made aware of it) and I've never had a builder
complain of the characteristics you describe. If it
performs a
s badly as you describe Do you really believe I
would put my name on a product and then attempt to cover up
or whitewash sub-standard performance? I've always had a
100% satisfaction guaranteed warranty or your money
back policy. See
http://aeroelectric.com/Catalog/warranty.html
I don't even ask that they send it back although if it
failed, I'd like to get it back for a autopsy. I think
there's about a 1000 OVM-14 crowbar OVM modules sold
of which at least half are flying by now . . . I've
NEVER had one returned nor has anyone ask for his money
back.
I had two failed units returned . . . both toasted because
one builder wired it to the wrong side of the breaker . . . the
other had no breaker at all . . .
Apparently the very recent Aeroelectric Connection solution is to eliminate
any discuss
ion or support of internally regulated alternators as such
designs are being deleted from the schematics. This is unfortunate as there
is a simple solution that protects the aircraft with out damage to the
alternator.
Where does this come from? I've been trying to get a lucid
discussion and universally applicable solutions to this
task for over a year. Folks assured me they were going to
go off and do testing and let us know what the answers
were. I understand tests were done but I'm still wondering
what the answers are. I offered to publish any solution
to the application of internally regulated alternators
that anyone wants to propose . . . but my offers and
pleas go unanswered.
I am not suggesting that discussions on the matter cease.
Quite the contrary, I'd be delighted if they would continue
toward a useable
conclusion. I've had to withdraw my
recommendations, but not discussions and ideas. This
is because I cannot presently look a builder in the eye and
say that the proposed solution has been carefully crafted and has
a high probability of trouble free operation as advertised.
You sent me an eyes-only email on 4-5-5 stating that:
"The designs will be made available on my web site when
the design is done and flight tested. As my contract is
for a specific system I cannot at this time provide any
details and also need to design the system to the customers
desires including what is overkill in some cases.
However the major components are mine to show anywhere
and I will at the right time."
Okay, after telling me that I won and you didn't want
to play anymore, you also tell me that your work is
not presently avai
lable to me or anyone else for
publication. That puts me back to square-one with respect
to successful integration of the I-R alternator after
waiting for your test results which I assumed would be
shared.
It was your letter of 4-5 that prompted me to put
any recommendations I might have for internally regulated
alternators on hold. I could not continue to publish what
was in place because I didn't have the data to either
support it as-published -OR- make meaningful modifications.
Here is a simple tested solution that allows the use of an automotive
internally regulated alternator in our aircraft electrical systems.
A. Regulator overvoltage causing failure.
Add transorbs to the "B" lead on the alternator side of any other
device
like a fuse or contactor. Eric Jones ha
s a suitable part if you do not want
to build your own. Something I recommend for ALL alternators regardless of
where the regulator is.
Good idea . . .
B. Contactor contact arcing with common low voltage contactors.
Use the Kilovac brand contactor that is rated to break 900 volts DC at
over 1000 amps. Big overkill but its the only one around I can find that is
both a high current and high voltage unit that is reasonable cost. Part #
EV200AAANA If you want isolated aux low power contacts the part # is
EV200HAANA
If you have a transorb or equal on the alternator to
mitigate load dump, why do you need a contactor that
will break 900V?
C. Large current crow bar approach to OVP. This approach is unique in the
industry for this specific application. There is
no need for large currents
to do the job and overstressing the circuit breaker.
There is no "need" in this particular situation but
keep in mind that the crowbar ovm was developed 25 years
ago with specific design goals that could not be met any
other way. It was certifiable and did not violate any guidelines
of DO-160/Mil-Std-704. It was sold into that application
(E-R alternators) for years before the I-R alternator
issue came up. Granted, features that made it particularly
attractive in the first instance were no longer "necessary"
in the second instance but they didn't hurt anything either.
The OVM-14 and direct descendants are flying in thousands
of OBAM aircraft and soon to be thousands of SpamCans. It
met design goals of DO-160/Mil-Std-704 25 years ago and it
still meets it today.
Use a moder
n solid state OV detector that opens the field lead and the
Kilovac "B" lead. Eric Jones has such a device or you can wait for my
design
to appear later this year. There is active notification of alternator
failure designed in to Eric's module. There is false tripping prevention
built into the design.
"False tripping" has not been a big issue and we've always
cured it with fixes to antagonists elsewhere in the system.
The above 3 step solution eliminates the false tripping, large currents,
internal regulator failure from false tripping OV, and contactor contact
arcing associated with the current Aeroelectric Connection approach. This
is designed to work with rebuilt alternators as well as brand new
alternators and provides the demonstrated superior reliability of the stock
automotive alternator
at 1/2 the cost of a purchased BC modified
alternator
and external regulator.
I don't recall who was hailing from which camp earlier
this year but I thought you were of the opinion that
I-R alternators were of sufficient reliability so as not
to justify OV protection . . . but you seem to endorse
the concept by citation of the foregoing recommendations.
So I guess the only hold-out is Van and he isn't interested
in participating and probably isn't interested in the
results of any tests we conduct. But that's his business
model and he's entitled.
So it appears that we don't disagree on anything substantive.
If you have a softer, gentler ov system to offer, no problem
there. My only concern for Figure Z-24 at the moment is to
size the load-dump protection. If load dump protection exists
the
n I'm suggesting that the b-lead contactor doesn't need
any high-voltage capabilities.
You say you've extensively tested, Eric has product to
deliver but George Braly says he can toast it.
(Eric, would you send a sample to George? You have the
product, he has the drive stand, I need the data.)
I'm turning blue awaiting the bill of materials, schematics,
installation instructions, etc so that your demonstration can be
repeated
on someone else's hardware but your own. I'm asking no more of
you than what I've sold, described in detail and warranted for
thousands of others for over 15 years.
This above approach has been extensively tested. This testing (in detail)
will be posted here later this year
There are additional design concerns for those wishing to operate with no
battery i
n the system. This is in design process right now and will be
announced soon. Simple but required proof of concept testing which has not
yet been done.
Design details and more information will soon be posted on my site. Site
address will be announced soon.
VERY pleased to hear that. But please sir, you misrepresent
my words and intent. You continue to toss bombs into the discussion
without participating in the discussion. The last big bomb
about damage to an breaker due to "out of specification" operation
was a dud but it's taken me weeks to find the bits of spare time to
research and defuse it. I'm working on an article . . .
[For those interested, breakers qualified to mil-spec are
routinely subject to extra-ordinary fault currents far
beyond the perceived 10x "limit" and expected to meet
trip calibrat
ion requirements after the test. In the case
of a 5A breaker, it gets a ~700A shot that opens it in a flash
followed by a test to show trip characteristics HAVE NOT
changed. The miniature breakers qualified to mil-specs are
built on the same production lines as the commercial
equivalents . . . the commercial breakers are simply not
qualified but they'll meet the same requirements as the
mil-spec. The 10x upper bound on the trip characteristic
curves were never intended as not-to-exceed-lest-you-
trash-the-breaker-limits. See Mil-C-5806G paragraphs
6.4.7, 4.7.14, table VII and Figure 3.
When I asked my breaker guru at Eaton/Cuttler-Hammer about
this not-to-exceed fault requirement, he was mystified. Now
I know why: In years past this test WAS called a "Rupture
Capacity" test . . . for in days of old, breakers were known to
come apart
under high fault conditions. For at least 30
years and perhaps longer, the test has been called an
"Interrupting Capacity" test . . . seems that it's no
big deal any more but old ideas seem to persist. Modern
breakers are expected to handle this with ease.]
. . . but there are other things far more interesting to do
that to field your bombs. Now, after saying that you quit
but you'll make all things known at some later time, you're
still dropping bombs in through a proxy tosser. I'm not even
from Missouri but all I want is for somebody to "show me the
hardware". In the mean time I'll have to fit in plans for
gathering the data I need to make Z-24 or some reasonable
replacement suitable for use in airplanes. It would be
really cool if you were helping.
Bob . . .
================
Message 8
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Bottom line on Over Voltage protection |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "George Braly" <gwbraly@gami.com>
Doug,
No. Two alternators are NOT required.
I prefer a design philosophy of not having to rely upon counting the electrons
that can be obtained from a battery - - as a means of verifying the ability to
complete any mission of any length without any concern about single point failures
in the electrical system.
Thus, two alternators and one battery - - provided at least one of the alternators
and its regulation scheme is capable of providing continuous power with the
battery out of service and off line.
With that philosophy - - there is simply no issue about all electric aircraft systems
and there is no reliance upon the battery endurance capacity - - which
I consider to be mostly wishful thinking, but better than nothing.
Keep in mind, I come at this subject as a serious user of aircraft for high reliability
cross-country IMC transportation.
If I was just doing Saturday morning $100 hamburger runs, it would be a different
design philosophy.
I also come at the subject from the point of view of reliable "dispatchability"
while away from home.
I do not want to have to have the local Million Air facility order up an overnight
delivery of an alternator for Saturday installation so I can fly home on Sunday
afternoon. I ***KNOW*** what that costs (about $2.7K in New Orleans Lakefront).
I would much prefer to be able to dispatch home DAY VFR on one remaining
alternator and the battery and then get the other alternator overhauled
for $350 bucks.
An internally regulated alternator has to have a solid state device (transistor
of one description or another) that regulates (in one way or another) the flow
of current through the field. It is either inserted as a "high side" device
or as a "low side" device. That is, either from B+ to transistor to Field to
Ground - - or as B+ to field to transistor to ground.
Either way - - if the solid state device fails and does not happen to fail "OPEN"
- - then one can get a runaway field and voltage on the system.
I have invited Bob to come by and visit for a long time. He would enjoy the visit.
I am sure he will get around to that one of these days. If he doesn't I
might just fly up and get him and bring him down in my airplane! It is only
about 1:15 away.
Regards, George
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of N1deltawhiskey@aol.com
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: Bottom line on Over Voltage protection
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: N1deltawhiskey@aol.com
George,
I must be a sucker for good stories - I once thought another solution to load
dump was on the horizon - it only seemed to generate a lot email exchanges.
Hope this is not deja vu!
Anyway, I have a couple of questions.
You imply two alternators are required; why? Does the arrangement work with a
single alternator and single battery?
I know Bob has discussed the single point failure mode of internally
regulated alternators, however, the details of what happens eludes me. Would you
describe this OV failure mode?
You make claims for what this system does; can you describe how it does it
and why there is a reduction in potential failures? What are these
add-ons/tweaks you mention?
What will be the weight/cost of the package, single alternator if it will
work that way?
When are you going to provide one of these contraptions to Bob so he can
scrutinize it and give us an opinion?
Doug Windhorn
In a message dated 22-Apr-05 17:32:47 Pacific Standard Time, gwbraly@gami.com
writes:
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "George Braly" <gwbraly@gami.com>
>>I think the
risks are indeed low but they are not so low that I could put
an internally regulated alternator on a certified airplane.
Not without proving to myself, the FAA and my customers that the
machine selected has been designed and tested to meet certain
reliability requirements. This would mean calling out a
very specific source of hardware that would not include
rebuilds, junk-yard takeoffs, or most over the counter
alternators.
Folks have misunderstood my resistance to embrace this
technology as a desire to promote B&C and a variety of
other agendas . . . but the bottom line is simply this:
I cannot recommend anything without knowing everything
there is to know about it . . . and you can't deduce
this data by simply holding the part in your hand or
having some kind of faith in a brand name.
It's been suggested that an ND alternator is good-to-go
off the shelf . . .<<
Bob,
I agree.
We have spent a considerable amount of time studying these issues - - albeit,
rather quietly.
You have seen occasional posts from me over the last year or so that have
mentioned some of our adverse results with transorbs, and various other
protection schemes.
We looked at the internal regulators. They ALL have a major single point
failure mode that can cause a runaway voltage condition that is simply
unacceptable for aircraft use, especially when electronic engine controls or glass
cockpits are part of the contemplated equipment package.
With an automotive built in regulator, the best one can do is to live with
14 volts (we need 14 and 28 volt capability) and to attempt to "fix" the single
point failure mode by:
A) Introducing the kludge of adding a high current contactor - - so as to
take the unit off line; or,
B) By adding some kind of a worse kludge which will shunt the over
voltage/high current event to ground through some kind of a crowbar type fuse which
accomplishes the same as A), above, but with possibly more unfavorable side
effects.
The result of our effort on this entire subject is that that we have built,d
tested, proven, and are now producing a replacement internal regulator that
eliminates the single point failure mode described above and allows the
alternator to be gracefully shut down. It is not yet certified, but it is on track
for that milestone, also.
The unit can fully withstand any load dump we have ever been able to create,
including those that have fried a lot of 5kw Transorbs.
We then combined this integrated system with other components to create a
rather robust "redundant, fault tolerant, electrical system" out of a box.
We worked on it a bit more and now have a unit that functions normally across
the entire load range WITH NO BATTERY ON LINE and the primary alternator
shut down and out of service. With no battery on line, it actually introduces
less audible electrical noise into the system than does the stock primary
alternator with a battery on line.
Recently, I flew one of these systems for a night IMC cross country.
Shortly after takeoff, we shut down the a/c primary alternator and turned off
the
battery master - - and continued for three hours to our destination. Had this
been a real situation, rather than a test, there would not have been the
slightest concern about when the battery was last changed or how many electrons
we
could count coming out of the battery on a periodic load test. If the
battery started the engine, we were good to go with no single point failure
identifiable that would compromise the easy completion of the intended flight.
The concept now contemplates a couple of configurations:
1) battery; and,
2) one large capacity (60-90 amp) alternator; and,
3) one smaller (35 amps, nominal, about 42 to 44amps peak) alternator
Where the smaller alternator is fully capable of self exciting and running
the entire night/IFR (plus pitot heat) equipment list - - indefinitely - - in
the event of any combination of failures of items 1) and/or 2), above.
An alternative configuration is to use two of the same 35 amp smaller
alternators, rather than the combination of one large and one small alternator.
The
only good reason for the large alternator is to handle peak loads during taxi
and night ground operations.
Bottom line, you are absolutely right - - the automotive solution is really
not appropriate because of the single point failure modes and the other
uncertainties associated with that design.
Regards, George
---
---
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: Internally regulated alternator OVP protection |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Fiveonepw@aol.com
In a message dated 4/23/05 10:03:07 AM Central Daylight Time,
billschlatterer@sbcglobal.net writes:
> Reminds me of a story by Jerry Clower I think. Bear hunting one
> night,....
>>>>
Ahem... If'n MY mem'ry serves, that thar "bear" ( known as "bar" 'round
heah) wuz a soo-tuck wildcat, treed up the tallest Sweetgum in all of Abet
county... Ah wuzzint thar, but ol' Jerry purty much had me at the bottom of the
tree
wantin' to shoot up amongst 'em too! 8-)
(sorry!) Mark & y'all do not archive this'n, neither!
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: Internally regulated alternator OVP protection |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: PTACKABURY@aol.com
Mr. Messinger: This is your second promise to not post here ever again.
Lets hope you have better luck keeping it this (final) time. regards, lurker
paul, tired of your whining
Message 11
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Werner Schneider" <glastar@gmx.net>
Dear all,
we had the Dynon D-10 with the EDC and bought the OAT probe last year, never
got the OAT to work properly. Now we did upgrade to the D-10A with the
EDC-10A and we still have the same problem (however one combo was working
for 30 minutes until the D-10A stoped working.
Anybody out there which has the this combination working?
Many thanks
Werner
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 |
|
protection
| Subject: | Re: Internally regulated alternator OVP |
protection
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Gerry Holland <gnholland@onetel.com>
> Mr. Messinger: This is your second promise to not post here ever again.
> Lets hope you have better luck keeping it this (final) time. regards, lurker
> paul, tired of your whining
3rd time lucky......probably. It's difficult to solve a whine!!!
Regards
Gerry
Do not archive
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: Internally regulated alternator OVP |
protection
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Guy Buchanan <bnn@nethere.com> protection
At 02:08 PM 4/23/2005, you wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Gerry Holland <gnholland@onetel.com>
>
> > Mr. Messinger: This is your second promise to not post here ever again.
> > Lets hope you have better luck keeping it this (final) time. regards,
> lurker
> > paul, tired of your whining
>
>3rd time lucky......probably. It's difficult to solve a whine!!!
Nah. Apply a choke filter. (Sorry, couldn't resist.)
>Regards
>
>Gerry
>
>Do not archive
>
>
Guy Buchanan
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: Internally regulated alternator OVP protection |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Robert McCallum <robert.mccallum2@sympatico.ca>
Paul;
I reluctantly have to agree with "lurker Paul". I have, for several
months now, been anticipating this marvelous solution you've developed
and promised to bring to the list to solve all the electrical gremlins
with respect to alternators and load dump. Well Mr. Messinger, although
you previously convinced me you had some promising ideas, I now realize
that that's all you are capable of , -- promises. I think you'd make a
great politician, all hot air and promises, but never following through
with any substance. Bob has offered many times to work with you and
develop a wiring system based on your testing and experimentation and
all that has ever come of it is more argument, name calling and
persecution. I am relieved that you are finally truly gone (hopefully)
and agree with "lurker Paul" with respect to being very tired of your
whining. Your departure will perhaps allow this list to stop the useless
arguments and get on with discussing rational solutions that you claim
to have but are unwilling to show the rest of us. Sorry for venting to
the rest of the list, but I perceive Bob to have bent over backwards to
accommodate Paul and his ideas and all that has come back in return is
more bad-mouthing and no revelation of what these wonderful problem
resolving ideas are. Empty promise after empty promise. "I'll post my
results soon". "sometime in the future". Sounds to me like your
solution doesn't exist. Your credentials may be impressive but unless
you can convey some useful information to the rest of us they don't do
us any good.
DO NOT ARCHIVE (don't need to waste any more of Matt's computer space
with this garbage)
Bob McC
PTACKABURY@aol.com wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: PTACKABURY@aol.com
>
>Mr. Messinger: This is your second promise to not post here ever again.
>Lets hope you have better luck keeping it this (final) time. regards, lurker
>paul, tired of your whining
>
>
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: Internally regulated alternator OVP |
protection
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Guy Buchanan <bnn@nethere.com> protection
At 05:35 PM 4/23/2005, you wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Robert McCallum
><robert.mccallum2@sympatico.ca>
>
>Paul;
>
>I reluctantly have to agree with "lurker Paul".
Having seen this kind of behavior on other lists I feel compelled to
speculate on Paul Messinger's possible motives. I realize that most could
care less, but Paul has left a legacy of ill will and confusion. I think
that both important and unnecessary. In the past I've seen people come to
lists with "good ideas" which they espoused heavily, but were reluctant to
reveal. The reason was inevitably financial. Paul appears to make some part
of his living doing this kind of work. He is clearly in the business of
selling hardware, therefore it is quite unreasonable for us to expect him
to reveal any of his hard work in this forum. He probably wants to be paid
for it. Fair enough. Unfortunately, since he can't reveal anything, he can
only address the negative, and offer vague references as to the whereabouts
of the pot of gold. That we've seen. I don't really believe Paul does this
maliciously, but is simply caught between his ego and his greed. I
personally hope he stays off this list, since he is clearly divisive, and
that he succeeds in his pursuit of electronic perfection and lets us know
when he has marketable products/systems that we can then evaluate at our
own risk.
Guy Buchanan
K-IV 1200 / 582 / 99% done, thanks to Bob Ducar.
Do not archive
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: Dynon and OAT |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: w_sweet@comcast.net
Yesk, I have the D10A and the OAT working in my MII. The OAT seems reasonable as
well as the TAS.
I installed the OAT probe in the left wing tip.
Wayne
-------------- Original message --------------
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Werner Schneider"
>
> Dear all,
>
> we had the Dynon D-10 with the EDC and bought the OAT probe last year, never
> got the OAT to work properly. Now we did upgrade to the D-10A with the
> EDC-10A and we still have the same problem (however one combo was working
> for 30 minutes until the D-10A stoped working.
>
> Anybody out there which has the this combination working?
>
> Many thanks
>
> Werner
>
>
>
>
>
>
Yesk, I have the D10A and the OAT working in my MII. The OAT seems reasonable as
well as the TAS.
I installed the OAT probe in the left wing tip.
Wayne
-------------- Original message --------------
-- AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Werner Schneider" <GLASTAR@GMX.NET>
Dear all,
we had the Dynon D-10 with the EDC and bought the OAT probe last year, never
got the OAT to work properly. Now we did upgrade to the D-10A with the
EDC-10A and we still have the same problem (however one combo was working
for 30 minutes until the D-10A stoped working.
Anybody out there which has the this combination working?
Many thanks
Werner
rchive Search Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ,
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: Extra Voltage! |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: <bakerocb@cox.net>
----- Original Message -----
From: "Bob McDevitt" <mcdevitt@sympatico.ca>
Subject: Re: Extra Voltage!
>I tried the dummy load, and sure enough the problem went away. Just for
> interests sake, I found and analogue voltmeter and it did not exhibit the
> phantom voltage. I did however discover another very strange phenonomem.
> By
> accident I had my DVM on AC volts when I measured the battery voltage, it
> read 24 volts! I tried with several different batteries and voltmeters and
> the same result, any explanation? I also tried it with a flashlight
> battery
> and it read 3 volts.
> Thanks for your help and suggestions. Bob
4/23/2005
Hello Bob, How are you measuring these battery voltages that give you a high
reading when the DVM is set on AC? In the airplane? With the engine running?
You are saying that the same thing happens with some other DVM's as well?
If the engine is running and you are measuring aircraft system voltage and
getting a reading on the AC setting maybe your alternator is putting out
some ripple current and voltage because one or more of the diodes in the
alternator is going, or has gone, bad.
When I take my Radio Shack DVM and check a 9 volt battery with the DVM set
on DC I get a reading of 9 volts plus or minus just a bit. When I check a 9
volt battery with the DVM set on AC I get a reading of essentially zero.
Using a new 9 volt battery as a standard to see how a voltmeter reads should
be a pretty valid check.
OC
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: Dynon and OAT |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "John Schroeder" <jschroeder@perigee.net>
Werner -
We just turned on our Dynon D-10A, EDC & OAT two days ago and it all works
as advertised. We are also using it as an encoder for the transponder
(Garmin 330) and that works well. I would suggest checking the wiring from
the edc to the oat. The OAT sensor uses the EDC as its power source, and
the company does not recommend lengthening the cable that comes already
installed on the OAT. It is OK to shorten it. If you install a plug to be
able to disconnect the sensor from the cable, be sure to solder a short
wire on to both ends of the shield and pinning those wires into the plug.
You need to provide continuity of the shield thru the plug. Soldering a
wire to the shield is much easier than trying to crimp or solder the
shield to a pin.
Hope this helps.
John
On Sat, 23 Apr 2005 22:19:59 +0200, Werner Schneider <glastar@gmx.net>
wrote:
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Werner Schneider"
> <glastar@gmx.net>
>
> Dear all,
>
> we had the Dynon D-10 with the EDC and bought the OAT probe last year,
> never
> got the OAT to work properly. Now we did upgrade to the D-10A with the
> EDC-10A and we still have the same problem (however one combo was working
> for 30 minutes until the D-10A stoped working.
>
> Anybody out there which has the this combination working?
>
> Many thanks
>
> Werner
>
>
--
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! --
|