Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 02:40 AM - Re: Internally regulated alternator OVP protection (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
2. 06:12 AM - Re: AeroElectric-List Digest: (Giffen A Marr)
3. 06:31 AM - Re: Internally regulated alternator OVP (Mark Sletten)
4. 06:53 AM - Re: Re: Internally regulated alternator OVP protection (Chuck Jensen)
5. 07:33 AM - Re:Focus on the message - - not the messenger (George Braly)
6. 09:00 AM - Re: Re:Focus on the message - - not the messenger (OldBob Siegfried)
7. 09:20 AM - Re: Re:Focus on the message - - not the (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
8. 09:33 AM - Technical Content vs Personal stuff (Larry McFarland)
9. 09:40 AM - Re: Re: Extra Voltage! (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
10. 11:40 AM - Re: Paul Messinger...Protection module required! (P. Van Caulart)
11. 11:40 AM - Re: Paul Messinger...Protection module required! (P. Van Caulart)
12. 01:17 PM - Re: Re: Wire crimper suggestions? (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
13. 03:32 PM - CBA-II battery tester and $low$ NiMh cells (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
14. 03:59 PM - Re: CBA-II battery tester and $low$ NiMh cells (Chuck Jensen)
15. 03:59 PM - Re: basic reasoning for system architecture (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
16. 03:59 PM - Re: CBA-II battery tester and $low$ NiMh cells (BobsV35B@aol.com)
17. 04:13 PM - Re: Internally regulated alternator OVP protection ()
18. 04:26 PM - Re: Re: Internally regulated alternator OVP protection (George Braly)
19. 06:42 PM - Re: CBA-II battery tester and $low$ NiMh (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
20. 07:02 PM - Re: CBA-II battery tester and $low$ NiMh (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
21. 07:42 PM - Re: basic reasoning for system architecture (B Tomm)
22. 07:47 PM - Re: Re: Internally regulated alternator OVP (Jim's Shaw Mail)
23. 08:29 PM - audio iso amp (Tony Johnson)
24. 09:55 PM - Re: Internally regulated alternator OVP protection (Eric Ruttan)
25. 10:00 PM - Re: basic reasoning for system architecture (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
Message 1
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Internally regulated alternator OVP protection |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <b.nuckolls@cox.net>
At 09:41 AM 4/23/2005 -0700, you wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Paul Messinger" <paulm@olypen.com>
>
>Again you have misquoted my work and notes. You have again failed (as usual)
>to reply to specific issues and specific solutions. Selective snipping has
>changed the entire meaning of what I have said in your reply. This was the
>reason for my stopping posting and this post is a one time reply.
>
>What I had sent Eric was a "press release".
>
>The Kilovac contactor was stated to have the ability to break the
>potentially high voltage arc (which "normal low voltage contactors cannot
>do) resulting from a runaway alternator. You have seen that (arc) for your
>self and so stated on this list some time ago.
The only arc studies I've conducted and posted here concern that
which is generated between opening contacts of switches controlling
relays and contactors. I've not studied the arc characteristics
between main contacts of the b-lead contactor . . . because it takes
an alternator test stand to do it . . .
>I do not remember the exact
>words but you commented to the effect there was concern about the ability to
>quench the arc.
You raised the question and I agreed that it needed to
be explored.
> I ran a test and the arc did not self quench.
Can you share the test set-up? Scope traces? Did you repeat
the test with load dump mitigation in place? Did it help
or make any difference at all? Which contactor was tested?
Was there arc suppression installed across the coil? Did
you explore any other arc-suppression technologies?
If I went out to my garden, stuck some seeds in the ground
and reported back to you that "they didn't grow", wouldn't
you wonder about soil quality, sunlight, watering, and a whole
bunch of other things?
> 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.
But if the goal is to place hard limits on an alternator's
ability to produce a load-dump event commensurate with
the value you've mentioned for the kinder, gentler electrical
system, then would not the el-cheapo contactor also benefit?
It's a fine contactor up to 24 volts . . .
>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.
What solution? I've yet to see a single test report. A single test setup
schematic . . . and I have a lot of trouble getting answers
to specific questions. Let's start with those above. You speak
in grand terms about solutions but with no details. If I call
the folks with those "solutions", will they tell me about them . . .
or will those doors close over proprietary ideas? If you're
going to discuss things here on the list, it should be with
the idea of teaching folks how to do the best-we-know-how-to-do.
It's insufficient to state that "all the problems have been
solved" and then not explain how individuals can solve them
(except if they buy your products).
> The automotive
>market is a wealth of proven solutions but it does take some looking to find
>the right one for a specific problem.
I presume you've found some . . . but do we understand correctly
that they are part of some proprietary activity or are these
>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.
I think I followed the gist of this. If all the folks you've
mentioned have identified specific suppliers of product that
they believe meets anyone's reliability REQUIREMENTS for use
in aircraft, what's the secret? Are there specific alternator
brands and part numbers? Is there product flow from specific
re-building operations that are so blessed? This would be
most valuable information to share with the OBAM aviation
community.
>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.
Out of the many examples sold, are you telling me that
there's virtually 100% rejection of my warranty offer
and not a soul was interested in telling me how bad my
product was? I don't buy it. Give me names and phone numbers.
I'll call each one, apologize for inconveniencing him/her,
gather some details as to circumstances and mail each
one a $50 check to cover the cost of the OV module
and a token extra for inconvenience. Hopefully I can
get some of the "failed" product back for analysis.
>
>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.
I've always maintained that we have a duty as consumers to
be responsible for alerting both the buyers and sellers
of problems with products. Folks often get on the list an
ask, "I'm having a problem with this electro-whizzie from
Company XYZ, has anyone else had the problem . . .and what did
you do about it?"
My first question of them is "Have you talked with the
manufacturer?" As a manufacturer I'm intently interested
in feedback from all my customers both the satisfied and
unhappy ones. I can't help anyone who won't even bother
to call and let me know how I can help . . . even if
to simply refund their money.
>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.
A test conducted to a test plan and followed up with measured
results is a "controlled" test. Are you suggesting that
I or anyone else would dry-lab or sabotage a competing
product's testing to service some agenda? Besides, we're not
talking about testing your products, we're talking about mine.
You say you've demonstrated problems with my designs but
as far as I know, you dry-labbed it or hit it with a hammer . . .
haven't seen your test setup or report. I make my living
at the discovery, sorting and application of simple ideas to
the benefit of everyone who has an interest. To stoop to the
behavior you suggest for any reason would be like shooting
myself in the foot.
>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.
I'm pleased if he is pleased. But did he communicate with
B&C about his problem? Did he return the failed unit
so that B&C would stand any chance whatsoever in understanding
potential weaknesses with their design so that it could
be fixed?
The LR-3 is not my product. I designed that for a customer and
as an honorable consultant, I am bound to their wishes for
non-disclosure. I publish diagrams and bills-of-materials
for my products. I'll also help anyone who has a B&C product
to resolve integration and service issues short of violating
a client's confidence. I've told everyone who has a problem
with a B&C device to call them first and if they don't get
satisfaction, tell me. I'll drive up to Newton and jump right
in somebody's lap. So forgive my skepticism when you
paint me or B&C with that broad brush of consumer misery
and discontent.
>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?
Don't know. Haven't seen any data. No technical papers. Is
it a proprietary secret? If so, then we're still doomed to
figure it out for ourselves.
>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. :-)
I'm pleased for their apparent success . . . but given that so many
folks have failed to let me know about the myriad of problems you
claim for my product, I sincerely hope that Van's customers are more
forthcoming with him should on of his alternators toast a system.
But then, it could it "be easier to go down a different path" and
chalk it up to experience . . . and leave the supplier totally in
the dark?
>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.
You say this but I'm still curious about the energy in the
load-dump event under various conditions and on various products
when installed as we used them on airplanes.
>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!)
I don't question anyone's documented results. You've published
not a whit of test data or justification for the selection of
any parts that you propose will solve the load-dump question.
When I do a test at RAC I have to detail the test to the smallest
detail and then review the science that supports my recommendations.
I'm doing a presentation for the majority of the sparky community
next Friday where I'm going to show that a paragraph in AC43.13 is
dead wrong . . . and about eight centuries of cumulative experience in
the room will have bags of tomatoes and cabbages at the ready
if I stub my toe. You better believe that no question to me will
go unanswered and with all the care I can muster.
>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.
What alternator? Turning at what RPM? Did you try other alternators?
Do you know what the effects of aftermarket regulators are? Are you
suggesting that I can pick any 40A machine and apply the same technique
with confidence that it will work? Do you have recommendations for
60A machines . . . or larger? I'm not suggesting that what you tested
for wasn't good data . . . but I write for thousands of folks some of
which may NOT have a clone of your system installed in their airplane.
Hence the need for real critical design review and recommendations that
cover the broadest possible range of applications.
>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.
But you haven't "shown" us diddily-squat. I though you were going
to help us understand how to get the job done. Schematics, bills
of materials, results of testing and reasoning behind your
recommendations. At the moment, the only hard contribution to
this discussion is that you recommend an array of 1.5KW transorbs
which you say you couldn't smoke . . . but nobody knows how
you tested them so I have no basis for joining your recommendation.
I don't know the breadth of its applicability. I've
never said your testing was bad or the ideas weren't useful . . .
only that I don't understand how they were developed and therefore
cannot lend my endorsement. Lack of endorsement is not rock throwing,
it's just an admission that I still don't know the foundations
for what you propose.
>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??
I wasn't aware that the posted document was a "press release".
It was labeled as posted on your behalf and I presumed with
your permission if not by your instruction. It appeared to
me that you were tossing bombs in again after saying that
you were going to bow out until you were ready to make all
things known to us. If Eric blind-sided you then he blind-
sided us both and I apologize for the quotation but it wasn't
"out of context" . . . You were making it clear then (and
I don't see that it's changed now) that you plan to contribute
no data to this conversation until some future time and then
only that which does not violate some degree of company
proprietary status. So to that extent, I violated no
privacy with the quotation for that much been public
knowledge for some time.
Bob . . .
Message 2
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | RE: AeroElectric-List Digest: |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Giffen A Marr" <gamarr@charter.net>
Guy's
I really get tired of scrolling through all of the messages which contain
huge amounts of previous messages. If you want to use excerpts when
communicating fine, just get rid of the rest. It is really, really easy. It
is called "Control-Shift-End" and then "Delete". Besides it will save Bob a
lot of server space.
Thanks
Giff Marr
LIVP/20B 32%
Message 3
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Internally regulated alternator OVP |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Mark Sletten" <marknlisa@hometel.com>
I learned everything I need to know about Mr. Messinger when he acted on
his need to share all his wonderful industry awards. Those to whom
awards mean the most learn humility in their acceptance. Those who
deserve awards the most rarely need to display them to earn other's
respect.
Mark & Lisa Sletten
Legacy FG N828LM
http://www.legacyfgbuilder.com
Message 4
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Internally regulated alternator OVP protection |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Chuck Jensen" <cjensen@dts9000.com>
Guy, you wrote...
I don't really believe Paul does this maliciously, but is simply caught between
his ego and his greed.
Yes, Yes, quite a spot to be in. In our hearts and soul, we probably all have
a touch of both. Most just try to control theirs a bit better than Paul M. does.
Apparently Mr. Messinger may have some credentials, though I have not checked them
personally. Nonetheless, we should always be cognizant of the fact that there
is a difference between credentials and credibility. One does not lead inexorably
to the other.
Chuck
Do Not Archive
Message 5
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | RE:Focus on the message - - not the messenger |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "George Braly" <gwbraly@gami.com>
I have a modest suggestion.
In other exchange forums that have been highly successful (the best example of
which is AVSIG on Compuserve ) there are only two fundamental rules:
1) use real names; and,
2) no personal attacks.
I suggest that everyone focus on the substance of the content, and leave the personal
characterizations aside.
I know that gets frustrating when the substance is unsubstantiated without apparent
good reason, but remembering to focus on the message and not the messenger
is essential to good intellectually honest exchanges on these types of forums.
Regards, George Braly
---
Message 6
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: RE:Focus on the message - - not the messenger |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: OldBob Siegfried <oldbob@beechowners.com>
Good Morning All,
George, as usual, has said what I wish I would have
said. I have very much enjoyed the stimulating
conversations that have arisen due to this discussion.
I do not know either gentleman personally, but I
think I would enjoy both.
People who do not have strong opinions are rarely much
fun to converse with.
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
AKA Bob Siegfried
LL22
Do Not Archive
--- George Braly <gwbraly@gami.com> wrote:
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "George
> Braly" <gwbraly@gami.com>
>
>
> I have a modest suggestion.
>
> In other exchange forums that have been highly
> successful (the best example of which is AVSIG on
> Compuserve ) there are only two fundamental rules:
>
> 1) use real names; and,
>
> 2) no personal attacks.
>
> I suggest that everyone focus on the substance of
> the content, and leave the personal
> characterizations aside.
>
> I know that gets frustrating when the substance is
> unsubstantiated without apparent good reason, but
> remembering to focus on the message and not the
> messenger is essential to good intellectually honest
> exchanges on these types of forums.
>
> Regards, George Braly
>
>
> ---
>
>
>
> browse
> Subscriptions page,
> FAQ,
>
>
>
>
>
>
Message 7
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: RE:Focus on the message - - not the |
messenger
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <b.nuckolls@cox.net>
messenger
At 09:32 AM 4/24/2005 -0500, you wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "George Braly" <gwbraly@gami.com>
>
>
>I have a modest suggestion.
>
>In other exchange forums that have been highly successful (the best
>example of which is AVSIG on Compuserve ) there are only two fundamental rules:
>
>1) use real names; and,
>
>2) no personal attacks.
>
>I suggest that everyone focus on the substance of the content, and leave
>the personal characterizations aside.
>
>I know that gets frustrating when the substance is unsubstantiated without
>apparent good reason, but remembering to focus on the message and not the
>messenger is essential to good intellectually honest exchanges on these
>types of forums.
Thank you my friend. May I lend my endorsement to your
suggestions and observations? I've mentioned several times
on this and other lists that there are 4 purposes for the
crafting spoken or printed words: To inform, entertain,
persuade or to hurt. I'd like to believe that we're all here
to share simple-ideas to maximize the numbers of people who
benefit . . . and have fun doing it. I miss those guys on
AVSIG . . . if only there were more hours in the day.
I do wish Paul well . . . in my later years I'm becoming
more acutely aware of the need for critical review of how
I use time, skills and resources. I don't NEED to enhance
my material condition so it's much more satisfying
to enhance my knowledge and skills and share with whoever
finds it useful to do so . . . that's a real turn-on!
Bob . . .
Message 8
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Technical Content vs Personal stuff |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Larry McFarland <larrymc@qconline.com>
Hi guys,
Seldom on this list do I see the "Do Not Archive".
This should be used any time you need to comment to personal issues
or debate a subject. Archives should only contain technical content
and people should not have to sort thru the fluff of argument or anger
to get to the crux of an idea or concept because one tends to not trust
any of it. Let's leave that stuff off by adding "Do not archive".
Thanks,
Larry McFarland - 601HDS
do not archive
Message 9
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Extra Voltage! |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <b.nuckolls@cox.net>
At 11:20 PM 4/23/2005 -0400, you wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: <bakerocb@cox.net>
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "Bob McDevitt" <mcdevitt@sympatico.ca>
>To: <bakerocb@cox.net>
>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.
Great point! In years gone by, multimeters with an AC measurement
capability would rectify the incoming signal to DC for sensing and
display as AC Volts on the face of the instrument. However, EVERY
rectifier will also pass DC which has a different energy component
as a relatively static value as compared to the dynamic nature of
AC. Every technician was taught that if there was also a DC component
riding on the line being examined for AC . . . that one needed to
put a capacitor in series with the instrument to block DC so that
an accurate AC reading could be acquired.
Many upscale instruments like the Simpson and Tripplet offered
a built in capacitor in series with the voltage input jack
and labeled it "OUTPUT". Here's a picture of an instrument
I've had for over 40 years . . . and haven't used in 25.
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Simpson_260_Output.jpg
Modern digital instruments using the simple rectifier for
converting AC to DC for measurement and display are subject
to the same errors. The easiest way to see if your instrument
is so afflicted is with the simple check OC suggested above.
Measure a battery with the instrument set to read AC. If the
reading is not zero, then know that AC measurements with any
DC component present also will probably be in error.
Bob . . .
Message 10
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Paul Messinger...Protection module required! |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "P. Van Caulart" <etivc@iaw.on.ca>
AE Connection listers;
IMHO what is urgently required to advance OBAM aircraft electrical
systems is a Paul Messinger protection module (call it a PM
2). This
device needs to be able to sense Digest disharmony, clamp rhetoric
spikes and ground out antagonistic waveforms. Surly there is enough
pooled talent out there to accomplish this task. I for one would welcome
such a device.
PVC
Message 11
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Paul Messinger...Protection module required! |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "P. Van Caulart" <etivc@iaw.on.ca>
AE Connection listers;
IMHO what is urgently required to advance OBAM aircraft electrical
systems is a Paul Messinger protection module (call it a PM
2). This
device needs to be able to sense Digest disharmony, clamp rhetoric
spikes and ground out antagonistic waveforms. Surly there is enough
pooled talent out there to accomplish this task. I for one would welcome
such a device.
PVC
Message 12
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Wire crimper suggestions? |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <b.nuckolls@cox.net>
At 06:37 PM 4/22/2005 -0400, you wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "John Swartout"
><jgswartout@earthlink.net>
>
>Bob, are you familiar with the crimping tool described (but not named)
>in a September 1999 Experimenter magazine article, p. 27, by Bill
>Benedict, reprinted from The RVator, first issue, 1999? The crimping
>tool is forged steel (not stamped) looks a bit like a standard pair of
>pliers--fairly wide-jawed and curved on the outside (non-business side)
>of the jaws. The crimping part has a half-circle groove perpendicular
>to the long axis of the tool on one jaw, into which the terminal is
>laid, and the other jaw has a bump across the jaw, which nests into the
>groove on the other jaw but has a smaller radius. The writer says this
>tool maintains the round shape of the connector barrel, and prevents it
>from separating at the seam if you use it on cheap industrial terminals.
>It doesn't crimp perpendicular to the terminal barrel, but crimps the
>whole barrel lengthwise. Makes sense to me. Know where I can get one?
>He says they cost $10 to $21.
Stein has already answered this eloquently. I'll only add that
the tool you mention is designed for installation of un-insulated
terminals on solid wire. Here are several tools of the genre'
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/crimp_pliers_3.JPG
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/crimp_pliers_2.JPG
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/crimp_pliers_1.JPG
These are not intended for use with the PIDG style
terminals and while the electrical crimp may be okay,
it's not designed to close the insulation grip and
the finished crimp looks pretty awful too.
Bob . . .
Message 13
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | CBA-II battery tester and $low$ NiMh cells |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <b.nuckolls@cox.net>
In the six weeks or so since Paul turned us on to the CBA-II
battery tester, I've smoked one, dissected it, purchased a second
one and have been running 24/7 tests on a variety of batteries
and cells.
I've conducted several max power discharges of larger batteries
and have been unable to smoke this one. Good.
Some time ago, I had to give up on my favorite alkaline AA
cells as portable-energy-of-choice. My current digital camera
has a very high discharge rate on AA cells and the internal
impedance effects of the chemistry make alkaline cells a poor choice
no matter how cheaply they can be purchased.
Thrashing around on e-bay, I found several offers for bulk
packaged, NiMh cells at very attractive prices. Bought the last
batch for just over $1 per cell for devices rated at 2300 mah.
Got a set out of the packaging and decided to see what the
CBA-II could tell me about them.
Cycled a set of 4 cells through the quick charger and then
tested each cell at 200 mA discharge rate. Man! What crummy
cells. All of them ran well under 1000 mah. Then I recalled
that most rechargeable chemistries need to be stirred up
after being placed in service. Even a new SVLA battery will
test at less than rated capacity when brand new.
So, I charged them again and retested. Hmmm . . . marked
improvement in capacity but no where near rated. Further
investigation revealed:
The ratings on these cells is for the 20-hour
discharge mode or about 110 milliamps discharge. I discovered
that the fast chargers I have (two different models) only put
80-90% of rated charge back into the cell by the time the
"charging" light goes out. You need to leave them in overnight
on the "sustaining" charge rate to top off the cell. Or, I'm
now moving them to one of those old 50 ma ni-cad trickle chargers
over night to recover use of the fast charger.
Further, some of the el-cheapo cells needed to be deep cycled
5 times before their chemistry was fully active.
You think watching grass grow is exciting? Try watching
batteries run down. I'm formulating some requirements for
another $low$ tester that will take 8 AA cells and automatically
cycle them under software control and measure the capacity for
each cell at the end of each discharge cycle. You'll be able
to put some long unused and/or brand new cells in the gizmo
and come back in a few days to see how good the cells really
are and have them be fully charged as well.
You'll also be able to group sets of cells for similar
capacities so that you don't accidently place an extraordinarily
weak cell into an application with a bunch of really good ones
and find that you can only use a small fraction of the energy
contained in the group.
This exercise has been enlightening and fortunately not
all that time consuming since I can do lots of other things
while awaiting results of a protracted test. But I sure don't
want to try an manage a whole bunch of cells on a one-cell
analyzer!
More comments on the CBA-II are forthcoming. Giles, have you
had a chance to play with your CBA-II yet?
Bob . . .
Message 14
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | CBA-II battery tester and $low$ NiMh cells |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Chuck Jensen" <cjensen@dts9000.com>
That would be a useful device; that being a tester/recharger. I have so many rechargeables
floating around for four headsets, volt meter and sundry other things,
and I suspect someare junk, but I don't know which ones.
Have you arrived at final conclusion on the 'attractively priced batteries?"
Chuck
-----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: CBA-II battery tester and $low$ NiMh cells
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <b.nuckolls@cox.net>
In the six weeks or so since Paul turned us on to the CBA-II
battery tester, I've smoked one, dissected it, purchased a second
one and have been running 24/7 tests on a variety of batteries
and cells.
I've conducted several max power discharges of larger batteries
and have been unable to smoke this one. Good.
Some time ago, I had to give up on my favorite alkaline AA
cells as portable-energy-of-choice. My current digital camera
has a very high discharge rate on AA cells and the internal
impedance effects of the chemistry make alkaline cells a poor choice
no matter how cheaply they can be purchased.
Thrashing around on e-bay, I found several offers for bulk
packaged, NiMh cells at very attractive prices. Bought the last
batch for just over $1 per cell for devices rated at 2300 mah.
Got a set out of the packaging and decided to see what the
CBA-II could tell me about them.
Cycled a set of 4 cells through the quick charger and then
tested each cell at 200 mA discharge rate. Man! What crummy
cells. All of them ran well under 1000 mah. Then I recalled
that most rechargeable chemistries need to be stirred up
after being placed in service. Even a new SVLA battery will
test at less than rated capacity when brand new.
So, I charged them again and retested. Hmmm . . . marked
improvement in capacity but no where near rated. Further
investigation revealed:
The ratings on these cells is for the 20-hour
discharge mode or about 110 milliamps discharge. I discovered
that the fast chargers I have (two different models) only put
80-90% of rated charge back into the cell by the time the
"charging" light goes out. You need to leave them in overnight
on the "sustaining" charge rate to top off the cell. Or, I'm
now moving them to one of those old 50 ma ni-cad trickle chargers
over night to recover use of the fast charger.
Further, some of the el-cheapo cells needed to be deep cycled
5 times before their chemistry was fully active.
You think watching grass grow is exciting? Try watching
batteries run down. I'm formulating some requirements for
another $low$ tester that will take 8 AA cells and automatically
cycle them under software control and measure the capacity for
each cell at the end of each discharge cycle. You'll be able
to put some long unused and/or brand new cells in the gizmo
and come back in a few days to see how good the cells really
are and have them be fully charged as well.
You'll also be able to group sets of cells for similar
capacities so that you don't accidently place an extraordinarily
weak cell into an application with a bunch of really good ones
and find that you can only use a small fraction of the energy
contained in the group.
This exercise has been enlightening and fortunately not
all that time consuming since I can do lots of other things
while awaiting results of a protracted test. But I sure don't
want to try an manage a whole bunch of cells on a one-cell
analyzer!
More comments on the CBA-II are forthcoming. Giles, have you
had a chance to play with your CBA-II yet?
Bob . . .
Message 15
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: basic reasoning for system architecture |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <b.nuckolls@cox.net>
>
>OK ....... now we're having fun :-) You were doing great up
>to the point of adding that second alternator. All of the
>design goals you assumed are correct to that point. For
>clarity and future brevity let me summarize:
>1) battery and charger for starting engine
>2) alternator for night flight
>3) panel mounted com and nav
> a) GNS530
> b) Xcom second com (like to monitor 2 channels while flying
> with uddies)
> c) xponder
> d) audio panel
>4) modern components
> a) Odyssey battery in aft baggage area (W&B on a Rocket)
>5) no vacuum system
> a) BMS Sport or similar for horizon
> b) TruTrak 2-axis A/P
> c) electric t&b
>6) tandem aircraft dictates limits to amount of fancy stuff
>7) active notification of low voltage and a well considered
>plan-B
>8) pair of capable hand-helds in the flight bag
>9) e-bus with dual power paths
>10) easy to understand and use electrical system (I added
>this one)
>
>I fly with my wife in the back seat, whom I love dearly
>(yup, I'm a very lucky man). She is a budding pilot in her
>own right. We like going places and this Rocket should be
>our primary mode of travel in the foreseeable future. This
>adds up to wanting just that baby step extra in the way of
>back-up. So I guess this is where my worry bucket goes
>beyond Z-11 ?? Or am I being dumb here ??
Not sure I understand why it would. We all learned to
fly in spam cans and they had about the simplest
systems out there . . . not complicated but no options
either. If you have a Z-ll installed, then there are no
more switches than you'll find in a certified ship.
DC Master (bat and alt) and e-bus alt feed (was avionics
master).
>Here is where I got lost. Rockets have a peculiar W they
>fly nose-heavy (most guys I know fly with weight in back) so
>if given the choice between a second alternator or battery
>I'd go with the battery (if placed in aft cg). But this
>conclusion is based on W&B consideration alone.
That's a dandy driver. I think all my RV-8 readers
went to rear mounted batteries for the same reason.
> Secondly, I
>plan on a higher than stock compression engine; so a second
>battery COULD be useful.
. . . or a bigger first battery. By placing it in the
back, it's EASY to upsize as needed. Piper put 32 a.h.
batteries in some of their singles when they found that
the direct-drive Prestolight wouldn't crank the engine
well enough in cold weather. Going to the larger battery
was easier than upsizing battery cables or changing
out the starter.
> These two factors point to the
>second battery IF I wanted to empty my worry bucket. I
>don't know if there are other considerations I should be
>aware of. I'm not assuming this second battery is the right
>solution; it just seems to satisfy the worry bucket with
>little compromise. If there are good system reasons that
>say a second alternator allows a better system in some way
>..... I'm all ears and I'll toss that dumb second battery !!
> Bearing in mind my design goal #10 of course.
Having two batteries negates the need to design for
alternator only operations. A pair of 17 a.h. batteries
will weigh slightly more than a 32 a.h. battery. I'm not
sure I'd worry about this much. I spoke with Skip at
Concord last week on another matter and asked him about
the dreaded open battery syndrome. He said there were
some instances of cross-over connectors opening during
accidental battery faults or hard starts on turbine
engines.
This prompted a redesign of their crossover fabrication
techniques. They now have the largest cross-over area
in the industry. See:
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Concord_Crossovers_1.jpg
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Concord_Crossovers_2.jpg
Incidently, the other brand we've come to know and love
spot welds their crossovers as a multi-layered weld made
up of the extension tabs right off the top of each plate.
Simpler and easy to automate but much more susceptible to poor
welds and reduced crossover area than the five-piece,
hand welded technique in used on Concords today.
I also asked Skip about open batteries. He told me that
aside from the few cross-over failures early on, the
only batteries that were sent back had been abused
in some way for a cell to go bad. But it's entirely
possible that the majority of his unhappy customers
would rather "go the easier route" and chalk their
dissatisfaction to supplier indifference/incompetence
than to find out what's really going on.
>What am I missing ??
Not a thing I can see. My recommendation?
Go with Z-11, rear mounted battery, 2AWG feeders
to the front. Install battery in simple tray that
captures the footprint. Strap it down with two, 2"
web-straps and nylon buckles. If you need to upsize
the battery later, it's really easy to do. The battery
can lay down or stand on end. I'd position it to drop
the height above the mounting surface to a minimum, i.e.
lay on side. I don't think you need two. Try a 24 a.h.
battery to start.
Z-13 is an easy upgrade later, so is adding a second
battery or upsizing the first battery. You're going
to have a system with no more switches than the present
certified fleet with much more attractive options.
Bob . . .
Message 16
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: CBA-II battery tester and $low$ NiMh cells |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: BobsV35B@aol.com
In a message dated 4/24/2005 5:33:19 P.M. Central Standard Time,
b.nuckolls@cox.net writes:
In the six weeks or so since Paul turned us on to the CBA-II
battery tester, I've smoked one, dissected it, purchased a second
one and have been running 24/7 tests on a variety of batteries
and cells.
I've conducted several max power discharges of larger batteries
and have been unable to smoke this one. Good.
Good Afternoon Bob,
I noted in the advertisement that the CBA-II is only rated for maximum of
150 watts. Is the new one capable of any higher wattages? The ICA test which
Concorde specifies for their RG35A calls for a one hour test at rated
amperage of 29 amps
It appears that the biggest 14.2 volt battery that could be tested with the
CBA-II is about 10.5 AH.
Any comment?
I did order one in the hopes that I could learn enough from it to properly
evaluate what is actually needed for normal GA aircraft batteries.
I also have a Concorde Model 12/24CT which I have used a few times. It is
easy to use, but it does not have any graphing capability.
Incidentally, I looked over the Beech 18 serial number 11 that we have at
the museum. The cockpit is in very poor condition and I doubt if anything in
there is in any manner similar to the way it left the factory, but I could see
no evidence of two isolated electrical systems.
I did talk to our historian and he is aware of the salt mine storage
facility. We have made moves that we hope will allow us access to the Twin Beech
data.
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
AKA
Bob Siegfried
Ancient Aviator
Stearman N3977A
Brookeridge Airpark LL22
Downers Grove, IL 60516
630 985-8502
Message 17
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Internally regulated alternator OVP protection |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: <gmcjetpilot@yahoo.com>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>"Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <b.nuckolls@cox.net>
>(cant)smoothly integrate an internally regulated alternator
(Really there is no problem, just hook up two wires.)
>"Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <b.nuckolls@cox.net>
> my best recommendation at this time is that it not be done.mode that can cause
a >runaway voltage condition.
(The internal regulated alternator has a very sophisticated internal OV protection
and do not need external protection to prevent run away voltage condition.)
>From: "George Braly" <gwbraly@gami.com>
>We looked at the internal regulators They ALL have a major single point failure
(What single failure point? Really. WHAT are you TALKING About? What model of alternator?
That is a broad general statement with no facts. Sure would like to
know what We found out.)
=====================================================
Experts tend to demand absolute scientific proof and facts from others. I assume
you have actual facts or specifics? Is this your theory? Specifics please?
(what model of equipment, system design, what failed, cause of failure, effect)
First it is a misleading to say they (internally regulated alternators) have no
OV protection without external devices. Has anyone checked the specs or really
know what is inside one of these devices? They list impressive controls & protections.
(voltage regulation, over-volt, over-load/temp, shutdown control, low
volt)
I have to point out there are few facts pointing to internal regulators and an
OV problem. Single point failure claim aside most experimental aircraft have one
crank shaft. If there is a real problem I would love to see proof. The anecdotal
descriptions are inconclusive and questionable, with no facts or relevance
to small ND alternators with internal VRs and OV protection.
**It is OK to install an internal regulated alternator (with internal OV protection)
with no additional external OV protection. Yes I said it. It is OK. Prove
me wrong.**
I can easily point to a failure with an external regulated alternator and crow
bar which will result in a serious OV condition. This is as likely to occur or
even more likely to happen to an external regulator / "crow bar" set-up than
an internal one. Yep.
The concern of OVER VOLTAGE and internal regulated alternators is overstated and
exaggerated. Take a deep breath and stop worrying. Chance of something bad happening
is slim to nil. The negative attitude towards the internally regulated
alternator is unjustified.
===================================================
To make it clear I am specifically talking about modern internally regulated alternators
like the Nippondenso (ND), with internal regulators. These VRs incorporate
integrated circuits (IC) in a discrete sealed module with a heat sink (cooling
fins). They provide: Voltage regulation, OV protection, over load protection,
shut off control, load dump protection & low voltage warning light. This
is right on there specs. BTW, OV is set at 17 volts, and the the load dump
protection is for internal shut downs not an external disconnect of the b-lead.
Second-guessing the professional engineers that designed these devices is not necessary.
The I-VR alternator design does NOT need add-on band-aid protection.
Internal voltage regulators use specialized IC chips, not discreet transistors
and components of old. This allows designers to have more capability, reliability
in a compact package, allowing mounting the VR on the alternator. Why cant
you have all the features of a external voltage regulator and OV protection
integrated in a device mounted on the alternator? The answer is you can, and
most new (auto) alternators are well protected. Modern cars have more computers
and electronics than most GA planes.
WHAT IS ALL THE FUSS? The concern the experts have is that you have no (direct)
access to the field wire with an I-VR alternator. I believe the story goes like
this: You have an OV condition and the internal OV protection also fails at
the same time? You wont be able to turn the alternator off (in theory), because
the boot-strap power to the field will keep it going. Therefore you have no
control. So, the only way-out of a runaway voltage condition (if it can even
happen) is disconnecting the b-output wire from the buss. That sounds scary but
unlikely. There are a lot of unknowns in this equation, like what happened
to the internal OV protection? Dual failure? How do you know this is likely? How
do you know what is going on inside the voltage regulator IC? Have you analyzed
them? Is there some wire begging to short out to make this happen. I don't
think so. These little gems are a work of art and well made.
If you dont know how these ICs work, how can you claim to know how it might fail?
Dont you think the Japanese have already figured this all out? Do you think
they would design their module to have OV protection that will not work when
there was an OV condition? That does not make sense. I herd on this list about
tests of internal regulated alternators, but I have never see results? How do
you test for something you dont know how or if it can happen? I guess it is
hard to do and that is why we have no data. I also hear the Japanese are real
good with electronic design, manufacturing and reliability. I have no doubt they
have fail-safe design that will shut-down with all predictable faults, such
as when it detects a b-lead cut, (open circuit for no reason when using an external
add-on crow bar). That is why Vans Aircraft does not recommend it, because
its not needed and negative interaction with the integrated OV protection.
There is no need for protection of the prot
ection.
Bob N. says his crow bar is pretty flawless and thousands have been bought (flying?)
with only a few problems. Well, a million or so internal regulated ND alternators
are on machines all over the world, including experimental airplanes,
working every day with no problems. Pretty good. For the above scenario to happen
you would have two failures at once, an OV condition and loss of the internal
OV protection at the same time. Has this ever happened. If you say yes,
prove it. I hear a story about thousands of dollars of damage done to this plane
due to an OV condition, but no details. Who's plane, what alternator? What
failed? Come on, this is not rocket science.
THERE IS A VERY realistic possibility an external VR alternator will cause an OV
condition even with a "crow bar". If the external VR fails (and they do) causing
an OV and at the same time the crow bar fails to work you could have the
dreaded runaway voltage. Thats possible? Yes it is very possible if you are honest
about it. Wings can fall off to. No guarantees in life. It is a dual failure,
but than that is your assumption with the internal design.
***There is no inherent superiority of external voltage regulators to internal ones. External VR's fail all the time and often use inferior designs and manufacturing techniques compared to the state-of-art internal VRs. External VR's like the B&C use individual components soldered to a board I believe. That is not as sophisticated compared to IC chips and the state of art VR's in the auto and marine industry (some can control dual batteries and alternators). This one is $60 with internal OV protection (not $240): http://www.transpo.de/cgi-win/product.exe?V1200
Also the little crow bar is not beyond failure. It is crude but effective device
that causes a dead short to pop a CB, but you cant guarantee it will work any
better than the circuit inside the IC chip of a Denso voltage regulator. I sold
a bunch and have only a few complaints is not scientific. How many are I service?
How many have prevented a known OV condition? I am guessing zero, but
they have fried some good alternators. I know it was pilot error, but a device
that is subject to miss use will be abused.
I guess there is some security to seeing the field wire and the OV device attached
dangling from it's wires. However all these functions exist inside the alternator
with an internal VR. With an internal-VR alternator you have control of
the field wire, thru the internal VR and integrated OV protection. That is good
enough. Plus it will shut down with over load/temp conditions and warn of
low volts. Cool, and these ND alternators only cost about $95-$189 new, not $400.
Modern electronics are bullet proof and very resilient to heat and vibration. The
electronic IC chips are in sealed cases and have a heat sink. These solid-state
devices run at low power. An air blast tube directed to the rear cooling
fins would assure temp is not an issue. Also, the internal dual cooling fans
of the Denso alternators are superior to the single external fan design of other
alternators. The diodes (rectifier) are separate from the voltage regulator
and are common to all alternators. These diodes run much hotter and are more
critical than the electronics in the VR module, but they still last a long time,
as long as you dont over load the rectifier. Interesting point is the external
regulator can't protect the alternator from over heating like an internal
one can. Another advantage of the internal regulator.
Now the experts have told us that if you have an internally regulated alternator
you must add the "B-lead OV disconnect", on top of the existing internal OV
protection the alternator has. Now we are told you need to add load dump protection
to **protect us from the protection**. Come on give me a break. Again all
these protections are in an internally regulated ND alternator.
My experience with ND alternators on many cars and one plane is they are reliable.
The plane is 8 years and still going. Of several cars with ND alternators
only one finally failed after +12 years and 220,000 miles. It just stopped making
juice; it did not fail by making a million volts.
Do you want more components, more wires, more relays, and redundant protection
devices, which can and do shut alternators off at the wrong time? More stuff means
more potential problems, to paraphrase an expert.
Wiring is real easy with an I-VR. You dont need a drawing to connect it. Here is what you do: bolt it to the engine, connect b-lead to the master relay, connect IGN lead to 12V. That is it. Done deal. Of course there are the required fuses/CB and switch. If you want a diagram look here: http://www.niagaraairparts.com/alt-instr.pdf
Bottom line it is easy to smoothly integrate an alternator with internal regulator
and protections, providing a compact reliable safe source of power.
Cheers George
PS. leave Paul alone, I don't know Paul or any of you, but give it a break. I guess
I'll get run-out of AE town.
Message 18
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Internally regulated alternator OVP protection |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "George Braly" <gwbraly@gami.com>
I don't have a clue to the real name of "gmcjetpilot" @ YAHOO.
I generally do not try to respond to people that use anything other than their
real names in these discussions.
Regards, George Braly
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of gmcjetpilot@yahoo.com
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Re: Internally regulated alternator OVP protection
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: <gmcjetpilot@yahoo.com>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>"Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <b.nuckolls@cox.net>
>(cant)smoothly integrate an internally regulated alternator
(Really there is no problem, just hook up two wires.)
>"Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <b.nuckolls@cox.net>
> my best recommendation at this time is that it not be done.mode that can cause
a >runaway voltage condition.
(The internal regulated alternator has a very sophisticated internal OV protection
and do not need external protection to prevent run away voltage condition.)
>From: "George Braly" <gwbraly@gami.com>
>We looked at the internal regulators They ALL have a major single point failure
(What single failure point? Really. WHAT are you TALKING About? What model of alternator?
That is a broad general statement with no facts. Sure would like to
know what We found out.)
=====================================================
Experts tend to demand absolute scientific proof and facts from others. I assume
you have actual facts or specifics? Is this your theory? Specifics please?
(what model of equipment, system design, what failed, cause of failure, effect)
First it is a misleading to say they (internally regulated alternators) have no
OV protection without external devices. Has anyone checked the specs or really
know what is inside one of these devices? They list impressive controls & protections.
(voltage regulation, over-volt, over-load/temp, shutdown control, low
volt)
I have to point out there are few facts pointing to internal regulators and an
OV problem. Single point failure claim aside most experimental aircraft have one
crank shaft. If there is a real problem I would love to see proof. The anecdotal
descriptions are inconclusive and questionable, with no facts or relevance
to small ND alternators with internal VRs and OV protection.
**It is OK to install an internal regulated alternator (with internal OV protection)
with no additional external OV protection. Yes I said it. It is OK. Prove
me wrong.**
I can easily point to a failure with an external regulated alternator and crow
bar which will result in a serious OV condition. This is as likely to occur or
even more likely to happen to an external regulator / "crow bar" set-up than
an internal one. Yep.
The concern of OVER VOLTAGE and internal regulated alternators is overstated and
exaggerated. Take a deep breath and stop worrying. Chance of something bad happening
is slim to nil. The negative attitude towards the internally regulated
alternator is unjustified.
===================================================
To make it clear I am specifically talking about modern internally regulated alternators
like the Nippondenso (ND), with internal regulators. These VRs incorporate
integrated circuits (IC) in a discrete sealed module with a heat sink (cooling
fins). They provide: Voltage regulation, OV protection, over load protection,
shut off control, load dump protection & low voltage warning light. This
is right on there specs. BTW, OV is set at 17 volts, and the the load dump
protection is for internal shut downs not an external disconnect of the b-lead.
Second-guessing the professional engineers that designed these devices is not necessary.
The I-VR alternator design does NOT need add-on band-aid protection.
Internal voltage regulators use specialized IC chips, not discreet transistors
and components of old. This allows designers to have more capability, reliability
in a compact package, allowing mounting the VR on the alternator. Why cant
you have all the features of a external voltage regulator and OV protection
integrated in a device mounted on the alternator? The answer is you can, and
most new (auto) alternators are well protected. Modern cars have more computers
and electronics than most GA planes.
WHAT IS ALL THE FUSS? The concern the experts have is that you have no (direct)
access to the field wire with an I-VR alternator. I believe the story goes like
this: You have an OV condition and the internal OV protection also fails at
the same time? You wont be able to turn the alternator off (in theory), because
the boot-strap power to the field will keep it going. Therefore you have no
control. So, the only way-out of a runaway voltage condition (if it can even
happen) is disconnecting the b-output wire from the buss. That sounds scary but
unlikely. There are a lot of unknowns in this equation, like what happened
to the internal OV protection? Dual failure? How do you know this is likely? How
do you know what is going on inside the voltage regulator IC? Have you analyzed
them? Is there some wire begging to short out to make this happen. I don't
think so. These little gems are a work of art and well made.
If you dont know how these ICs work, how can you claim to know how it might fail?
Dont you think the Japanese have already figured this all out? Do you think
they would design their module to have OV protection that will not work when
there was an OV condition? That does not make sense. I herd on this list about
tests of internal regulated alternators, but I have never see results? How do
you test for something you dont know how or if it can happen? I guess it is
hard to do and that is why we have no data. I also hear the Japanese are real
good with electronic design, manufacturing and reliability. I have no doubt they
have fail-safe design that will shut-down with all predictable faults, such
as when it detects a b-lead cut, (open circuit for no reason when using an external
add-on crow bar). That is why Vans Aircraft does not recommend it, because
its not needed and negative interaction with the integrated OV protection.
There is no need for protection of the prot
ection.
Bob N. says his crow bar is pretty flawless and thousands have been bought (flying?)
with only a few problems. Well, a million or so internal regulated ND alternators
are on machines all over the world, including experimental airplanes,
working every day with no problems. Pretty good. For the above scenario to happen
you would have two failures at once, an OV condition and loss of the internal
OV protection at the same time. Has this ever happened. If you say yes,
prove it. I hear a story about thousands of dollars of damage done to this plane
due to an OV condition, but no details. Who's plane, what alternator? What
failed? Come on, this is not rocket science.
THERE IS A VERY realistic possibility an external VR alternator will cause an OV
condition even with a "crow bar". If the external VR fails (and they do) causing
an OV and at the same time the crow bar fails to work you could have the
dreaded runaway voltage. Thats possible? Yes it is very possible if you are honest
about it. Wings can fall off to. No guarantees in life. It is a dual failure,
but than that is your assumption with the internal design.
***There is no inherent superiority of external voltage regulators to internal ones. External VR's fail all the time and often use inferior designs and manufacturing techniques compared to the state-of-art internal VRs. External VR's like the B&C use individual components soldered to a board I believe. That is not as sophisticated compared to IC chips and the state of art VR's in the auto and marine industry (some can control dual batteries and alternators). This one is $60 with internal OV protection (not $240): http://www.transpo.de/cgi-win/product.exe?V1200
Also the little crow bar is not beyond failure. It is crude but effective device
that causes a dead short to pop a CB, but you cant guarantee it will work any
better than the circuit inside the IC chip of a Denso voltage regulator. I sold
a bunch and have only a few complaints is not scientific. How many are I service?
How many have prevented a known OV condition? I am guessing zero, but
they have fried some good alternators. I know it was pilot error, but a device
that is subject to miss use will be abused.
I guess there is some security to seeing the field wire and the OV device attached
dangling from it's wires. However all these functions exist inside the alternator
with an internal VR. With an internal-VR alternator you have control of
the field wire, thru the internal VR and integrated OV protection. That is good
enough. Plus it will shut down with over load/temp conditions and warn of
low volts. Cool, and these ND alternators only cost about $95-$189 new, not $400.
Modern electronics are bullet proof and very resilient to heat and vibration. The
electronic IC chips are in sealed cases and have a heat sink. These solid-state
devices run at low power. An air blast tube directed to the rear cooling
fins would assure temp is not an issue. Also, the internal dual cooling fans
of the Denso alternators are superior to the single external fan design of other
alternators. The diodes (rectifier) are separate from the voltage regulator
and are common to all alternators. These diodes run much hotter and are more
critical than the electronics in the VR module, but they still last a long time,
as long as you dont over load the rectifier. Interesting point is the external
regulator can't protect the alternator from over heating like an internal
one can. Another advantage of the internal regulator.
Now the experts have told us that if you have an internally regulated alternator
you must add the "B-lead OV disconnect", on top of the existing internal OV
protection the alternator has. Now we are told you need to add load dump protection
to **protect us from the protection**. Come on give me a break. Again all
these protections are in an internally regulated ND alternator.
My experience with ND alternators on many cars and one plane is they are reliable.
The plane is 8 years and still going. Of several cars with ND alternators
only one finally failed after +12 years and 220,000 miles. It just stopped making
juice; it did not fail by making a million volts.
Do you want more components, more wires, more relays, and redundant protection
devices, which can and do shut alternators off at the wrong time? More stuff means
more potential problems, to paraphrase an expert.
Wiring is real easy with an I-VR. You dont need a drawing to connect it. Here is what you do: bolt it to the engine, connect b-lead to the master relay, connect IGN lead to 12V. That is it. Done deal. Of course there are the required fuses/CB and switch. If you want a diagram look here: http://www.niagaraairparts.com/alt-instr.pdf
Bottom line it is easy to smoothly integrate an alternator with internal regulator
and protections, providing a compact reliable safe source of power.
Cheers George
PS. leave Paul alone, I don't know Paul or any of you, but give it a break. I guess
I'll get run-out of AE town.
---
---
Message 19
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | CBA-II battery tester and $low$ NiMh |
cells
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <b.nuckolls@cox.net>
cells
At 06:58 PM 4/24/2005 -0400, you wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Chuck Jensen" <cjensen@dts9000.com>
>
>That would be a useful device; that being a tester/recharger. I have so
>many rechargeables floating around for four headsets, volt meter and
>sundry other things, and I suspect someare junk, but I don't know which ones.
>
>Have you arrived at final conclusion on the 'attractively priced batteries?"
This is my first pass at them so I cannot speak to service
life . . . my initial impressions of capacity were poor but
at the moment, I'm hopeful. Cell fabrication is a highly
automated process and I suspect that there are few corners
one can cut in the materials to improve on profit margins.
It may well be that you can't buy a really bad NiMh cell
just like it's hard to find a really bad alkaline cell.
See http://aeroelectric.com/articles/AA_Bat_Test.pdf
The cells I'm working with right now came off ebay from
these folks:
http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&category=48620&item=5769405150&rd=1
Bob . . .
Message 20
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: CBA-II battery tester and $low$ NiMh |
cells
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <b.nuckolls@cox.net>
cells
At 06:59 PM 4/24/2005 -0400, you wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: BobsV35B@aol.com
>
>
>In a message dated 4/24/2005 5:33:19 P.M. Central Standard Time,
>b.nuckolls@cox.net writes:
>
>In the six weeks or so since Paul turned us on to the CBA-II
>battery tester, I've smoked one, dissected it, purchased a second
>one and have been running 24/7 tests on a variety of batteries
>and cells.
>
>I've conducted several max power discharges of larger batteries
>and have been unable to smoke this one. Good.
>
>
>Good Afternoon Bob,
>
>I noted in the advertisement that the CBA-II is only rated for maximum of
>150 watts. Is the new one capable of any higher wattages? The ICA test
>which
>Concorde specifies for their RG35A calls for a one hour test at rated
>amperage of 29 amps
Yup, the only test you can run with you CBA-II is an endurance test
assuming that your e-bus doesn't run over 7.5 amps or so. Actually,
the continuous rating for the CBA-II is 100 watts. I don't know how
that 150 watt intermittent condition is even achieved . . . the software
won't let you set up for anything over 100W.
>It appears that the biggest 14.2 volt battery that could be tested with the
>CBA-II is about 10.5 AH.
>
>Any comment?
If you want to know the 10 hour rate . . . sure. But if you're wanting
to track the battery's ability to support your e-bus, then discharge it
at the e-bus rate. Test it new and use that for a benchmark to gage
how fast it is fading. There's nothing magic about the 1 hour test . . .
you could use those numbers to track battery condition but I don't see
that they're very meaningful.
>I did order one in the hopes that I could learn enough from it to properly
>evaluate what is actually needed for normal GA aircraft batteries.
I'm not sure there's value in testing the battery for conditions other
than how you expect to use it. We know that apparent capacity varies
considerably with load. See:
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Capacity_vs_Voltage.gif
This makes it difficult to do any direct translation from a 1 hour
benchmark of capacity when your e-bus or emergency loads are at some
discharge rate other than 1 hour. It seems most meaningful to find
out how much your airplane needs in the endurance mode and to test
at that rate . . . and then pitch the battery when it no longer meets
your 30 minute FAA suggested endurance or some other higher number
that you choose to impose.
To pitch a battery at 85% of capacity when it runs your e-loads
for an hour at 70% capacity is silly . . . yeah, mandated but
none-the-less silly.
>I also have a Concorde Model 12/24CT which I have used a few times. It is
>easy to use, but it does not have any graphing capability.
What's the value in the graphs . . . other than gee-whiz? I'm
going to develop an enhanced version of the cap checker in
the chapter on batteries. The bottom line is "how long does the
battery take to get down to 11 volts when carrying a e-bus load?"
The cap checker in the book now is not calibrated but does give
you a relative value to benchmark to for evaluating loss of
performance with age. It doesn't take anything much more complicated
to deliver real life numbers.
The curve is neat but the only thing we're interested in is that
intersection with 11.0 volts. That can be a simple comparator and
timer mechanism teamed with a set of resistors tailored to emulate
your e-loads . . . I don't think it needs to be complicated to
be very useful.
>Incidentally, I looked over the Beech 18 serial number 11 that we have at
>the museum. The cockpit is in very poor condition and I doubt if
>anything in
>there is in any manner similar to the way it left the factory, but I
>could see
>no evidence of two isolated electrical systems.
>
>I did talk to our historian and he is aware of the salt mine storage
>facility. We have made moves that we hope will allow us access to the
>Twin Beech
>data.
I know that has happened but I'm not sure under what circumstances.
I was eating a $100 hamburger at the Beaumont Hotel east of Wichita
about 10-15 years ago when a whole gaggle of Model 18's and 17's taxied
up outside for some $500 hamburgers. These were immaculately restored
machines. The owners cited lots of support from Beech for data. Hmmm . . .
that could have been while Olive Ann Beech was still alive. It's almost
a sure bet that a phone call to her asking for help with these airplanes
would have produced a flurry of very accommodating activity at the factory.
It's a far different world today . . . but it's worth trying.
I don't have any "pull" out there but I'm willing to rattle on any
cage you might identify as containing useful information or assistance.
Bob . . .
Message 21
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | basic reasoning for system architecture |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: B Tomm <fvalarm@rapidnet.net>
Bob,
When you talk about possibly adding a second rear mounted battery in the
future, I assume that this second battery would connect to the same 2 AWG
feeds right at the first battery. In other words, you would still only
have one set of feeds going to the firewall? Is this correct?
Bevan
RV7A
electrically dependant engine
-----Original Message-----
From: Robert L. Nuckolls, III [SMTP:b.nuckolls@cox.net]
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: basic reasoning for system architecture
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III"
<b.nuckolls@cox.net>
>
>OK ....... now we're having fun :-) You were doing great up
>to the point of adding that second alternator. All of the
>design goals you assumed are correct to that point. For
>clarity and future brevity let me summarize:
>1) battery and charger for starting engine
>2) alternator for night flight
>3) panel mounted com and nav
> a) GNS530
> b) Xcom second com (like to monitor 2 channels while flying
> with uddies)
> c) xponder
> d) audio panel
>4) modern components
> a) Odyssey battery in aft baggage area (W&B on a Rocket)
>5) no vacuum system
> a) BMS Sport or similar for horizon
> b) TruTrak 2-axis A/P
> c) electric t&b
>6) tandem aircraft dictates limits to amount of fancy stuff
>7) active notification of low voltage and a well considered
>plan-B
>8) pair of capable hand-helds in the flight bag
>9) e-bus with dual power paths
>10) easy to understand and use electrical system (I added
>this one)
>
>I fly with my wife in the back seat, whom I love dearly
>(yup, I'm a very lucky man). She is a budding pilot in her
>own right. We like going places and this Rocket should be
>our primary mode of travel in the foreseeable future. This
>adds up to wanting just that baby step extra in the way of
>back-up. So I guess this is where my worry bucket goes
>beyond Z-11 ?? Or am I being dumb here ??
Not sure I understand why it would. We all learned to
fly in spam cans and they had about the simplest
systems out there . . . not complicated but no options
either. If you have a Z-ll installed, then there are no
more switches than you'll find in a certified ship.
DC Master (bat and alt) and e-bus alt feed (was avionics
master).
>Here is where I got lost. Rockets have a peculiar W they
>fly nose-heavy (most guys I know fly with weight in back) so
>if given the choice between a second alternator or battery
>I'd go with the battery (if placed in aft cg). But this
>conclusion is based on W&B consideration alone.
That's a dandy driver. I think all my RV-8 readers
went to rear mounted batteries for the same reason.
> Secondly, I
>plan on a higher than stock compression engine; so a second
>battery COULD be useful.
. . . or a bigger first battery. By placing it in the
back, it's EASY to upsize as needed. Piper put 32 a.h.
batteries in some of their singles when they found that
the direct-drive Prestolight wouldn't crank the engine
well enough in cold weather. Going to the larger battery
was easier than upsizing battery cables or changing
out the starter.
> These two factors point to the
>second battery IF I wanted to empty my worry bucket. I
>don't know if there are other considerations I should be
>aware of. I'm not assuming this second battery is the right
>solution; it just seems to satisfy the worry bucket with
>little compromise. If there are good system reasons that
>say a second alternator allows a better system in some way
>..... I'm all ears and I'll toss that dumb second battery !!
> Bearing in mind my design goal #10 of course.
Having two batteries negates the need to design for
alternator only operations. A pair of 17 a.h. batteries
will weigh slightly more than a 32 a.h. battery. I'm not
sure I'd worry about this much. I spoke with Skip at
Concord last week on another matter and asked him about
the dreaded open battery syndrome. He said there were
some instances of cross-over connectors opening during
accidental battery faults or hard starts on turbine
engines.
This prompted a redesign of their crossover fabrication
techniques. They now have the largest cross-over area
in the industry. See:
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Concord_Crossovers_1.jpg
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Concord_Crossovers_2.jpg
Incidently, the other brand we've come to know and love
spot welds their crossovers as a multi-layered weld made
up of the extension tabs right off the top of each plate.
Simpler and easy to automate but much more susceptible to poor
welds and reduced crossover area than the five-piece,
hand welded technique in used on Concords today.
I also asked Skip about open batteries. He told me that
aside from the few cross-over failures early on, the
only batteries that were sent back had been abused
in some way for a cell to go bad. But it's entirely
possible that the majority of his unhappy customers
would rather "go the easier route" and chalk their
dissatisfaction to supplier indifference/incompetence
than to find out what's really going on.
>What am I missing ??
Not a thing I can see. My recommendation?
Go with Z-11, rear mounted battery, 2AWG feeders
to the front. Install battery in simple tray that
captures the footprint. Strap it down with two, 2"
web-straps and nylon buckles. If you need to upsize
the battery later, it's really easy to do. The battery
can lay down or stand on end. I'd position it to drop
the height above the mounting surface to a minimum, i.e.
lay on side. I don't think you need two. Try a 24 a.h.
battery to start.
Z-13 is an easy upgrade later, so is adding a second
battery or upsizing the first battery. You're going
to have a system with no more switches than the present
certified fleet with much more attractive options.
Bob . . .
Message 22
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Internally regulated alternator OVP |
protection
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Jim's Shaw Mail" <jcorner@shaw.ca> protection
I gave to agree with George's comments below....If I didn't know better
I would say that Paul M had returned under an assumed name.
Wait a minute, I don't know better! :-)
Jim Corner
Do not archive
On Apr 24, 2005, at 5:25 PM, George Braly wrote:
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "George Braly"
> <gwbraly@gami.com>
>
>
> I don't have a clue to the real name of "gmcjetpilot" @ YAHOO.
>
> I generally do not try to respond to people that use anything other
> than their real names in these discussions.
>
> Regards, George Braly
>
>
Message 23
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Tony Johnson" <tonyjohnson@cfl.rr.com>
I have seen Bob Nuckolls plans for an audio iso amp. I am wondering if that
device will accomplish my goal of bringing all the audio warning devices
together, amplifying those that need amplification?
I had planned to use a Flighcom 403 intercom, which will take stereo music
inputs and warning tones. However, the nav radio I plan to use (VAL INS)
seems to need amplification for its audio output. I can accomplish
everything but the amplification of the nav radio audio with the Flightcom
403. I don't think that the Flightcom 403 intercom will amplify the nav
radio.
Would the audio iso amp be the appropriate device for that? It seems that
the iso amp does more than I might need, so I might need to use only a bit
of its capability, that is to run all my warning tones thru, then forward
them to the aux input of the Flightcom 403 intercom.
Any ideas would be appreciated.
Thanks,
Tony Johnson
RV8A "Badboy"
Orlando
Message 24
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Internally regulated alternator OVP protection |
1.25 RCVD_NUMERIC_HELO Received: contains an IP address used for HELO
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Eric Ruttan <ericruttan@chartermi.net>
Mr. George Braly;
A quick and easy trick is to google the email address.
He stated his name was George. All the hits I found were named the same.
I happen to agree that we should not be picking on Paul as there is just
so much pickable material in his posts regarding unanswered questions, I
cant see how we could have time to pick on him personally.
Mr. George;
You make some very good points, all of which have been covered very well.
You agree the problems with the OV and Internal Regulated alternators
were pilot error. Would you agree this pilot error can be designed out
simply?
Bob has said he cannot guarantee what is in the IR, so cannot speak to
its reliability.
Can you in good conscience tell us we do not need external OV protection?
Eric
George Braly wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "George Braly" <gwbraly@gami.com>
>
>
>I don't have a clue to the real name of "gmcjetpilot" @ YAHOO.
>
>I generally do not try to respond to people that use anything other than their
real names in these discussions.
>
>Regards, George Braly
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of gmcjetpilot@yahoo.com
>To: aeroelectric-list@matronics.com
>Subject: AeroElectric-List: Re: Internally regulated alternator OVP protection
>
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: <gmcjetpilot@yahoo.com>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>>"Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <b.nuckolls@cox.net>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>>(cant)smoothly integrate an internally regulated alternator
>>
>>
>
>
>(Really there is no problem, just hook up two wires.)
>
>
>
>
>>"Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <b.nuckolls@cox.net>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>>my best recommendation at this time is that it not be done.mode that can cause
a >runaway voltage condition.
>>
>>
>
>
>(The internal regulated alternator has a very sophisticated internal OV protection
and do not need external protection to prevent run away voltage condition.)
>
>
>
>
>>From: "George Braly" <gwbraly@gami.com>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>>We looked at the internal regulators They ALL have a major single point failure
>>
>>
>
>
>(What single failure point? Really. WHAT are you TALKING About? What model of
alternator? That is a broad general statement with no facts. Sure would like to
know what We found out.)
>
>
>=====================================================
>
>
>Experts tend to demand absolute scientific proof and facts from others. I assume
you have actual facts or specifics? Is this your theory? Specifics please?
(what model of equipment, system design, what failed, cause of failure, effect)
>
>
>First it is a misleading to say they (internally regulated alternators) have no
OV protection without external devices. Has anyone checked the specs or really
know what is inside one of these devices? They list impressive controls & protections.
(voltage regulation, over-volt, over-load/temp, shutdown control,
low volt)
>
>
>I have to point out there are few facts pointing to internal regulators and an
OV problem. Single point failure claim aside most experimental aircraft have
one crank shaft. If there is a real problem I would love to see proof. The anecdotal
descriptions are inconclusive and questionable, with no facts or relevance
to small ND alternators with internal VRs and OV protection.
>
>
>**It is OK to install an internal regulated alternator (with internal OV protection)
with no additional external OV protection. Yes I said it. It is OK. Prove
me wrong.**
>
>
>I can easily point to a failure with an external regulated alternator and crow
bar which will result in a serious OV condition. This is as likely to occur or
even more likely to happen to an external regulator / "crow bar" set-up than
an internal one. Yep.
>
>
>The concern of OVER VOLTAGE and internal regulated alternators is overstated and
exaggerated. Take a deep breath and stop worrying. Chance of something bad
happening is slim to nil. The negative attitude towards the internally regulated
alternator is unjustified.
>
>
>===================================================
>
>
>To make it clear I am specifically talking about modern internally regulated alternators
like the Nippondenso (ND), with internal regulators. These VRs incorporate
integrated circuits (IC) in a discrete sealed module with a heat sink
(cooling fins). They provide: Voltage regulation, OV protection, over load protection,
shut off control, load dump protection & low voltage warning light. This
is right on there specs. BTW, OV is set at 17 volts, and the the load dump
protection is for internal shut downs not an external disconnect of the b-lead.
>
>
>Second-guessing the professional engineers that designed these devices is not
necessary. The I-VR alternator design does NOT need add-on band-aid protection.
Internal voltage regulators use specialized IC chips, not discreet transistors
and components of old. This allows designers to have more capability, reliability
in a compact package, allowing mounting the VR on the alternator. Why cant
you have all the features of a external voltage regulator and OV protection
integrated in a device mounted on the alternator? The answer is you can, and
most new (auto) alternators are well protected. Modern cars have more computers
and electronics than most GA planes.
>
>
>WHAT IS ALL THE FUSS? The concern the experts have is that you have no (direct)
access to the field wire with an I-VR alternator. I believe the story goes like
this: You have an OV condition and the internal OV protection also fails at
the same time? You wont be able to turn the alternator off (in theory), because
the boot-strap power to the field will keep it going. Therefore you have no
control. So, the only way-out of a runaway voltage condition (if it can even
happen) is disconnecting the b-output wire from the buss. That sounds scary
but unlikely. There are a lot of unknowns in this equation, like what happened
to the internal OV protection? Dual failure? How do you know this is likely?
How do you know what is going on inside the voltage regulator IC? Have you analyzed
them? Is there some wire begging to short out to make this happen. I don't
think so. These little gems are a work of art and well made.
>
>
>If you dont know how these ICs work, how can you claim to know how it might fail?
Dont you think the Japanese have already figured this all out? Do you think
they would design their module to have OV protection that will not work when
there was an OV condition? That does not make sense. I herd on this list about
tests of internal regulated alternators, but I have never see results? How
do you test for something you dont know how or if it can happen? I guess it is
hard to do and that is why we have no data. I also hear the Japanese are real
good with electronic design, manufacturing and reliability. I have no doubt they
have fail-safe design that will shut-down with all predictable faults, such
as when it detects a b-lead cut, (open circuit for no reason when using an external
add-on crow bar). That is why Vans Aircraft does not recommend it, because
its not needed and negative interaction with the integrated OV protection.
There is no need for protection of the prot
> ection.
>
>
>Bob N. says his crow bar is pretty flawless and thousands have been bought (flying?)
with only a few problems. Well, a million or so internal regulated ND alternators
are on machines all over the world, including experimental airplanes,
working every day with no problems. Pretty good. For the above scenario to
happen you would have two failures at once, an OV condition and loss of the internal
OV protection at the same time. Has this ever happened. If you say yes,
prove it. I hear a story about thousands of dollars of damage done to this plane
due to an OV condition, but no details. Who's plane, what alternator? What
failed? Come on, this is not rocket science.
>
>
>THERE IS A VERY realistic possibility an external VR alternator will cause an
OV condition even with a "crow bar". If the external VR fails (and they do) causing
an OV and at the same time the crow bar fails to work you could have the
dreaded runaway voltage. Thats possible? Yes it is very possible if you are
honest about it. Wings can fall off to. No guarantees in life. It is a dual failure,
but than that is your assumption with the internal design.
>
>
>***There is no inherent superiority of external voltage regulators to internal ones. External VR's fail all the time and often use inferior designs and manufacturing techniques compared to the state-of-art internal VRs. External VR's like the B&C use individual components soldered to a board I believe. That is not as sophisticated compared to IC chips and the state of art VR's in the auto and marine industry (some can control dual batteries and alternators). This one is $60 with internal OV protection (not $240): http://www.transpo.de/cgi-win/product.exe?V1200
>
>
>Also the little crow bar is not beyond failure. It is crude but effective device
that causes a dead short to pop a CB, but you cant guarantee it will work any
better than the circuit inside the IC chip of a Denso voltage regulator. I
sold a bunch and have only a few complaints is not scientific. How many are I
service? How many have prevented a known OV condition? I am guessing zero, but
they have fried some good alternators. I know it was pilot error, but a device
that is subject to miss use will be abused.
>
>
>I guess there is some security to seeing the field wire and the OV device attached
dangling from it's wires. However all these functions exist inside the alternator
with an internal VR. With an internal-VR alternator you have control
of the field wire, thru the internal VR and integrated OV protection. That is
good enough. Plus it will shut down with over load/temp conditions and warn of
low volts. Cool, and these ND alternators only cost about $95-$189 new, not $400.
>
>
>Modern electronics are bullet proof and very resilient to heat and vibration.
The electronic IC chips are in sealed cases and have a heat sink. These solid-state
devices run at low power. An air blast tube directed to the rear cooling
fins would assure temp is not an issue. Also, the internal dual cooling fans
of the Denso alternators are superior to the single external fan design of other
alternators. The diodes (rectifier) are separate from the voltage regulator
and are common to all alternators. These diodes run much hotter and are more
critical than the electronics in the VR module, but they still last a long time,
as long as you dont over load the rectifier. Interesting point is the external
regulator can't protect the alternator from over heating like an internal
one can. Another advantage of the internal regulator.
>
>
>Now the experts have told us that if you have an internally regulated alternator
you must add the "B-lead OV disconnect", on top of the existing internal OV
protection the alternator has. Now we are told you need to add load dump protection
to **protect us from the protection**. Come on give me a break. Again all
these protections are in an internally regulated ND alternator.
>
>
>My experience with ND alternators on many cars and one plane is they are reliable.
The plane is 8 years and still going. Of several cars with ND alternators
only one finally failed after +12 years and 220,000 miles. It just stopped making
juice; it did not fail by making a million volts.
>
>
>Do you want more components, more wires, more relays, and redundant protection
devices, which can and do shut alternators off at the wrong time? More stuff
means more potential problems, to paraphrase an expert.
>
>
>Wiring is real easy with an I-VR. You dont need a drawing to connect it. Here is what you do: bolt it to the engine, connect b-lead to the master relay, connect IGN lead to 12V. That is it. Done deal. Of course there are the required fuses/CB and switch. If you want a diagram look here: http://www.niagaraairparts.com/alt-instr.pdf
>
>
>Bottom line it is easy to smoothly integrate an alternator with internal regulator
and protections, providing a compact reliable safe source of power.
>
>
>Cheers George
>
>
>PS. leave Paul alone, I don't know Paul or any of you, but give it a break. I
guess I'll get run-out of AE town.
>
>
>---
>
>
>---
>
>
>
>
Message 25
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | basic reasoning for system architecture |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <b.nuckolls@cox.net>
At 07:40 PM 4/24/2005 -0700, you wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: B Tomm <fvalarm@rapidnet.net>
>
>Bob,
>
>When you talk about possibly adding a second rear mounted battery in the
>future, I assume that this second battery would connect to the same 2 AWG
>feeds right at the first battery. In other words, you would still only
>have one set of feeds going to the firewall? Is this correct?
Yes.
Do I recall correctly that you're considering p-mags?
Bob . . .
Other Matronics Email List Services
These Email List Services are sponsored solely by Matronics and through the generous Contributions of its members.
-- Please support this service by making your Contribution today! --
|