---------------------------------------------------------- AeroElectric-List Digest Archive --- Total Messages Posted Sat 04/23/05:18 ---------------------------------------------------------- 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 _____________________________________ Time: 06:59:57 AM PST US From: "William Slaughter" Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Re: Wire crimper suggestions? --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "William Slaughter" 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" --> 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" 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" 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 _____________________________________ Time: 07:21:01 AM PST US From: 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" >>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 _____________________________________ Time: 07:32:40 AM PST US Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: Internally regulated alternator OVP protection From: James H Nelson --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: James H Nelson 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 _____________________________________ Time: 07:55:25 AM PST US From: "Ron Raby" Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: Wire crimper suggestions? --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Ron Raby" 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" Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Re: Wire crimper suggestions? > --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "William Slaughter" > > > 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" > --> > > 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" > > > 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" > > > 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 _____________________________________ Time: 08:01:28 AM PST US From: "Bill Schlatterer" Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Re: Internally regulated alternator OVP protection --> 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 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 . . . ________________________________ Message 6 _____________________________________ Time: 09:54:12 AM PST US From: "Paul Messinger" Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: Internally regulated alternator OVP protection --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Paul Messinger" 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" 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 . . . > > > ________________________________ Message 7 _____________________________________ Time: 09:59:28 AM PST US From: luckymacy@comcast.net (lucky) Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: 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" 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" 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 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 _____________________________________ Time: 10:05:58 AM PST US Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Re: Bottom line on Over Voltage protection From: "George Braly" --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "George Braly" 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" >>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 _____________________________________ Time: 10:18:13 AM PST US From: Fiveonepw@aol.com Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: 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 ____________________________________ Time: 12:50:03 PM PST US From: PTACKABURY@aol.com Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: 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 ____________________________________ Time: 01:20:47 PM PST US From: "Werner Schneider" Subject: AeroElectric-List: Dynon and OAT --> 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 ________________________________ Message 12 ____________________________________ Time: 02:09:10 PM PST US protection Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: Internally regulated alternator OVP protection From: Gerry Holland --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Gerry Holland > 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 ____________________________________ Time: 04:25:26 PM PST US From: Guy Buchanan protection Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: Internally regulated alternator OVP protection --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Guy Buchanan protection At 02:08 PM 4/23/2005, you wrote: >--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Gerry Holland > > > 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 ____________________________________ Time: 05:36:57 PM PST US From: Robert McCallum Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: Internally regulated alternator OVP protection --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Robert McCallum 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 ____________________________________ Time: 07:17:12 PM PST US From: Guy Buchanan protection Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: Internally regulated alternator OVP protection --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Guy Buchanan protection At 05:35 PM 4/23/2005, you wrote: >--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Robert McCallum > > >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 ____________________________________ Time: 07:49:40 PM PST US From: w_sweet@comcast.net Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: 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" 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 ____________________________________ Time: 08:21:38 PM PST US From: Subject: AeroElectric-List: Re: Extra Voltage! --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: ----- Original Message ----- From: "Bob McDevitt" 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 ____________________________________ Time: 08:36:43 PM PST US Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Dynon and OAT From: "John Schroeder" --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "John Schroeder" 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 wrote: > --> 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 > > --