Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 12:31 AM - Re: Painting Antenae (GMC)
2. 05:25 AM - Re: Z-13/20 (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
3. 05:40 AM - Re: Apology (Chuck Jensen)
4. 05:53 AM - Re: Alternator system design goals . . . (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
5. 06:00 AM - Re: Re: Audio Isolation Amp (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
6. 07:41 AM - Re: Alternator system design goals . . . (Hinde, Frank George (Corvallis))
7. 08:59 AM - Re: Alternator system design goals . . . (Ken)
8. 09:32 AM - Re: Alternator system design goals . . . (Hinde, Frank George (Corvallis))
9. 10:02 AM - Re: Alternator system design goals . . . (Ken)
10. 10:21 AM - Re: Re: Painting Antenae (Leo Corbalis)
11. 12:17 PM - Re: Alternator system design goals . . . (Hinde, Frank George (Corvallis))
12. 12:51 PM - Re: Alternator system design goals . . . (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
13. 12:54 PM - Re: Alternator system design goals . . . (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
14. 12:57 PM - Re: Alternator system design goals . . . (Ken)
15. 01:01 PM - Re: Apology (Richard Tasker)
16. 01:29 PM - Re: Alternator system design goals . . . (Hinde, Frank George (Corvallis))
17. 01:51 PM - Re: Alternator system design goals . . . (Hinde, Frank George (Corvallis))
18. 01:59 PM - Re: Alternator system design goals . . . (Hinde, Frank George (Corvallis))
19. 02:40 PM - Re: Alternator system design goals . . . (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
20. 02:51 PM - Re: Alternator system design goals . . . (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
21. 03:12 PM - Re: Alternator system design goals . . . (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
22. 04:28 PM - Re: Alternator system design goals . . . (Hinde, Frank George (Corvallis))
23. 05:25 PM - Re: Alternator system design goals . . . (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
24. 05:27 PM - Re: Alternator system design goals . . . (Ken)
25. 08:58 PM - Com antenna ground plane (John Swartout)
26. 09:16 PM - Re: Com antenna ground plane (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
27. 09:19 PM - Re: Com antenna ground plane (Wayne Sweet)
28. 10:01 PM - Re: Apology (Speedy11@aol.com)
Message 1
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Painting Antenae |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: GMC <gmcnutt@shaw.ca>
Anyone have advice on repainting a ADF loop antenna. GPS, marker beacon
and fiberglass comm antenna should also be able to be rejuvenated, yes??
no??.
Thanks,
George in Langley BC
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 |
|
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr@cox.net>
At 09:29 PM 8/9/2005 -0500, you wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Sheldon Olesen
><saolesen@sirentel.net>
>
>Bob...,
>
>I'm building an RV-10 and started planning on using the Z-12
>architecture but I changed to Z-13/20 when it came out recently. Is it
>okay to use a B&C SB-1 standby regulator and a LR-3 instead of the
>two LR-3's shown in Z-13?
The SB-1 is specifically designed to autoswitch an
auxiliary alternator running on a common bus with
the main alternator. It's special features are not
needed in Z-13/20.
>With the battery behind the baggage compartment, I am running a 10awg
>wire for the battery buss alongside a 2awg for the alternator B lead.
> Is this a violation of not running fat and skinny wires together? Is
>there a guideline using the difference of awg of the wires that would help
>keep the fat
>wires away from the skinny wires? For example, if the difference in
>the awg sizes of the two wires is greater than 10awg sizes don't
>bundled them together.
Battery bus? Your battery bus is NOT right beside the
battery? Note the asterisk (*) on the wire segment between
the battery and any of the battery busses in Appendix Z.
This symbol indicates that these wires should be kept as
short as practical because they're major feeders and always
hot.
Bob . . .
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 |
|
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Chuck Jensen" <cjensen@dts9000.com>
Whoa, Dean, thanks for the post. It was just in time. I had a
$2,000,000 order I was going to place with Eric but after reading your
original post I thought "no way". Someone who would take a public
domain design, clean it up, fabricate it into a useful package, then
sell it to the public--well no way was I going to engage and encourage
such outrageous behavior. Activities such as those fairly earn the
appellation of free enterprise and capitalism hung on them. I always
say, 'just because it's done ten thousand times a day, doesn't make it
right'.
Dean, obviously I'm just kidding. When I read your comments, I thought
they were certainly apropos to Paul/gmjet/George et al, though I didn't
understand the connection to Eric. I was amused at the cited offenses
of Eric as they are hardly uncommon and not beyond the pale. In fact,
he's performing a bit of a service for all of us that like to read the
technical stuff, and then buy something we can use. Eric seems to
connect-the-dots for many of us that dream more than we solder. Of
course, if he did 'borrow' a design, he's under no obligation to not use
it, though a thank you or acknowledgement is always in order. Of
course, if he didn't, then he doesn't.
There was nothing that you posted that concerned me about Eric or Eric's
activity, until this most recent post. From the abject apology and
promise to never use his name in public again, I surmise he probably had
a legal explosion in your face with the usual associated rants, threats
and promises of hell-n-damnation. Now, for that behavior, I would
consider withholding a $2,000,000 order.
I like (most of) Eric's postings; knowledgeable, aware of applications
and reasonably soft sell for his commercial enterprise that is not
supposed to be on the forum, but that everyone is very forbearing of.
Unfortunately, Eric's own actions in this matter has every so slightly
diminished my opinion of him (even if your original posting did not).
So much better it would have been if he'd simply contacted you and wrote
"Dean, dude, that was a little over the top, don't you think? I can
assure you I never borrowed or stole anything from you, and if I did, it
was unintentional. Further, had I lifted something from you, I would
certainly have written and thanked you for the great idea. So my
apologies for any misunderstanding that I or my practices may have
caused. If you would be so kind, it would be appreciated if you would
post to the forum that I didn't intentionally do those things."
Being gracious, generous and offering the benefit of the doubt never
goes out of style, even if it's not practiced as often as it should
be--hint, hint.
Chuck Jensen
Do Not Archive
Dean wrote...
Eric is correct, my rant yesterday was a cheap-shot and I apologize.
When I
started the rant my desire was to hopefully, motivate some people into
consolidating everything that has been said into a clear concise
description
that we could all use. My excursion into Eric's business dealings was
uncalled for. One MIGHT infer from my comments that Mr. Jones is a
dishonorable person when in fact I have no evidence of that. I have
never
dealt with the man on a business level. I INFERRED, (from comments made
on
this list AND a request from Eric for the Wig Wag circuit design) that
he
was capitalizing on other people's work and selling it as his own. I do
NOT
for a fact, know this to be the case. Even if that were the case, it's
not
illegal as long as the design data resides in the public domain or has
expired patents. If you are considering a purchase from him please
don't go
somewhere else because of a few off-the-cuff comments I made on this
list.
Talk to other people who have had dealings with the man and find out
what
sort of business person he is. Then.MAKE YOUR OWN DECISION! And
finally.I'd
like to apologize to the listers, instead of providing constructive
discourse, I opened my mouth and inserted my size 10 Nikes. In the
future
I'll stick to technical questions and answers and not get caught up in
the
"Venom Spewing". And yes Eric, I will cease and decist from using YOUR
NAME
in MY POSTS from now on.
Dean Psiropoulos
RV-6A builder and occasional Nike chewer
-----Original Message-----
From: Eric M. Jones [mailto:emjones@charter.net]
Subject: Re: Alternators, OVP, GMCJET, Eric, Paul. OFFLIST
Dean,
I am trying to stay out of the innuendo and personal attacks on the
Aeroelectric List. You personally attacked me and I think you owe me
an
apology. I don't think I did anything to merit your venom. Please
leave my
name out of your posts on the Aeroelectric. If you have some personal
problem with me, please call.
Regards,
Eric M. Jones
www.PerihelionDesign.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: Alternator system design goals . . . |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr@cox.net>
At 04:26 PM 8/9/2005 -0400, you wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Ken <klehman@albedo.net>
>
>Seems like a pretty good summary!
>
> From my wishful thinking list, I'd also be happy if it could be shown
>that a transorb array connected to the alternator output post would
>short out sufficiently hard to cause battery current to trip a B-lead
>fuse once a serious alternator runaway started. (ie. no B-lead contactor
>needed).
Crowbaring the b-lead circuit protection (70A breaker/ANL limiter)
WOULD be a MAJOR event. The fusing constants for these devices
is large. However, in the early days of consideration for on-the-firewall
b-lead protection, the ANL hardware was set aside in favor of
some fast fuses suitable for bolting into the b-lead. See:
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/70-80fusekit.jpg
These fuses are quite fast . . . a feature that stirred up a
bit of a kerfuffle about 6 years ago on some list-server. See:
http://aeroelectric.com/articles/failtoll.pdf
I have pondered the hardware and energy studies for crowbaring
the b-lead of an IR alternator and opening a fast fuse.
Actually, the neatest way (lowest parts count) to run the
IR alternator would be to add a diode in series with the
alternator's output and crowbar the alternator itself to
ground without loading the ship's bus. The lights wouldn't
even flicker. Problem is that adding the diode tosses off
.5 to 1 volt of output. The voltage regulator inside the
alternator senses b-lead voltage, not control lead voltage.
Adding the diode would increment the bus voltage downward
and degrade battery recharging capability. If the designers
had only brought out a bus-sense terminal from the internal
regulator, this would be a no-brainer! The modern
IR alternator is a tantalizing challenge for doing the most
graceful system integration within the design goals I've
set for myself.
>Or I would be happy to cough up for a kilovac contactor if I was
>convinced that is what it takes to reliably tame an OV. That might be
>an acceptable fallback position for many folks.
I am confident that this will not be necessary. There
are numerous tradeoffs to be discovered and weighed
against each other. It's going to take some time. In
the mean time, anyone with Figure Z-24 installed is
encouraged to leave it in place for the moment. Don't
switch the alternator OFF with the engine running except
in case of problems. If you have a system that talks to
an OVM-14 crowbar module in ways that irritate it . . .
PLEASE let me know about it. We need the feedback and
we WILL fix all problems or give you your money back
or both.
I am reminded of some classroom challenges to deduce
the network of components inside a plastic box with
two leadwires coming out. You could use any manner of
test equipment to figure out what was inside and how it
was wired up. Our little IR alternator is a three-lead
device we cannot open and modify. They don't all work
the same way. The goal is to deduce a universal, minimum
parts count, maximum energy efficient way to make them
do electrical form-fit-function replacement of the machines we
grew up with. An interesting and doable endeavor, we
just need DATA.
Bob . . .
Message 5
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Audio Isolation Amp |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr@cox.net>
At 02:54 PM 8/9/2005 -0500, you wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Bill Denton" <bdenton@bdenton.com>
>
>I have some questions regarding Bob's Audio Isolation Amp project...
>
>Before getting into specifics, let me first ask a go-no go question:
>
>I am looking for a "box" that will accept five mono inputs, and give one
>mono output. It would be used to mix the outputs of two COMs plus the alarms
>from some avionics devices, with the output to be fed to the COM input on an
>intercom.
>
>Is this feasible?
Yes . . .
>Now to some specific questions, assuming that what I am proposing is
>feasible:
>
>On the Parts List (Page 1.2), I notice that it refers to a:
>
> 9009-100-2 ECB ASSY - MONO ISO
> AMP DIY FAB
>
>and a:
>
> 9009-100-1 ECB ASSY - STEREO ISO
> AMP DIY FAB
>
>On the web site, the following product is listed: AEC9009-301-1. Which of
>the above part numbers does this correlate to?
Both. The 9009-300-1 ECB (item 1) is called out for both
versions of the isolation amplifier.
>In comparing the SCHEMATIC - STEREO (Page 1.7) and the SCHEMATIC -
>MONOPHONIC (Page 1.8), it appears that you can just build "half" the amp,
>jumper Pins 2 and 3 where U114 would be, and use this as a mono unit. Is
>this correct?
yes
>Would it be necessary to cut any of the traces on the circuit board? If yes,
>where?
no, if it were necessary, the instructions would be very
specific as to where.
> From NOTE 6. RESISTORS R103 THROUGH R107 ARE SELECTED TO EQUALIZE VOLUME
>LEVELS BETWEEN AUDIO SOURCES. Could these be replaced with some type of
>screwdriver adjustable pot to make it easier to balance the levels? If so,
>what type/value/etc pot would be correct for this application? Could these
>pots be mounted on the case so they would be externally adjustable?
You could. Some folks do use pot in their iso-amp products/designs.
The fixed resistors are much less expensive and more compact. I would
have to go to a larger box and I couldn't run the boards 2-up in
the fab process I'm using. Once the values are selected, they're
constant over the lifetime of the airplane. It's more fuss to set
it up but it won't need to be fiddled with again.
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: | Alternator system design goals . . . |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Hinde, Frank George (Corvallis)" <frank.hinde@hp.com>
I'm a little confused here.
Every IR alternator I have seen in my hot rod days had a voltage sensing
terminal. In my ND unit this is called the "s" terminal and is normally
wired to account for losses in the wiring (Van's doesn't use this
terminal in their standard setup)
Would this not take care of the forward loss thru the diode?
Crowbarring a 60A nominal alternator just feels little too "Robocop" for
an airplane application for me... Think I might stick with the Kilovolt
disconnect for the time being.
Gee maybe I could write a PHD theses on the phsychology of wiring
systems in aircraft...:)
Frank
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of
Robert L. Nuckolls, III
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Alternator system design goals . . .
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III"
--> <nuckollsr@cox.net>
At 04:26 PM 8/9/2005 -0400, you wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Ken <klehman@albedo.net>
>
>Seems like a pretty good summary!
>
> From my wishful thinking list, I'd also be happy if it could be shown
>that a transorb array connected to the alternator output post would
>short out sufficiently hard to cause battery current to trip a B-lead
>fuse once a serious alternator runaway started. (ie. no B-lead
>contactor needed).
Crowbaring the b-lead circuit protection (70A breaker/ANL limiter)
WOULD be a MAJOR event. The fusing constants for these devices
is large. However, in the early days of consideration for
on-the-firewall
b-lead protection, the ANL hardware was set aside in favor of
some fast fuses suitable for bolting into the b-lead. See:
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/70-80fusekit.jpg
These fuses are quite fast . . . a feature that stirred up a
bit of a kerfuffle about 6 years ago on some list-server. See:
http://aeroelectric.com/articles/failtoll.pdf
I have pondered the hardware and energy studies for crowbaring
the b-lead of an IR alternator and opening a fast fuse.
Actually, the neatest way (lowest parts count) to run the
IR alternator would be to add a diode in series with the
alternator's output and crowbar the alternator itself to
ground without loading the ship's bus. The lights wouldn't
even flicker. Problem is that adding the diode tosses off
.5 to 1 volt of output. The voltage regulator inside the
alternator senses b-lead voltage, not control lead voltage.
Adding the diode would increment the bus voltage downward
and degrade battery recharging capability. If the designers
had only brought out a bus-sense terminal from the internal
regulator, this would be a no-brainer! The modern
IR alternator is a tantalizing challenge for doing the most
graceful system integration within the design goals I've
set for myself.
>Or I would be happy to cough up for a kilovac contactor if I was
>convinced that is what it takes to reliably tame an OV. That might be
>an acceptable fallback position for many folks.
I am confident that this will not be necessary. There
are numerous tradeoffs to be discovered and weighed
against each other. It's going to take some time. In
the mean time, anyone with Figure Z-24 installed is
encouraged to leave it in place for the moment. Don't
switch the alternator OFF with the engine running except
in case of problems. If you have a system that talks to
an OVM-14 crowbar module in ways that irritate it . . .
PLEASE let me know about it. We need the feedback and
we WILL fix all problems or give you your money back
or both.
I am reminded of some classroom challenges to deduce
the network of components inside a plastic box with
two leadwires coming out. You could use any manner of
test equipment to figure out what was inside and how it
was wired up. Our little IR alternator is a three-lead
device we cannot open and modify. They don't all work
the same way. The goal is to deduce a universal, minimum
parts count, maximum energy efficient way to make them
do electrical form-fit-function replacement of the machines we
grew up with. An interesting and doable endeavor, we
just need DATA.
Bob . . .
Message 7
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Alternator system design goals . . . |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Ken <klehman@albedo.net>
Hinde, Frank George (Corvallis) wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Hinde, Frank George (Corvallis)" <frank.hinde@hp.com>
>
>I'm a little confused here.
>
>Every IR alternator I have seen in my hot rod days had a voltage sensing
>terminal. In my ND unit this is called the "s" terminal and is normally
>wired to account for losses in the wiring (Van's doesn't use this
>terminal in their standard setup)
>
>Would this not take care of the forward loss thru the diode?
>
>
The ones I've played with do not have a sense terminal. If a sense wire
became disconnected it would result in high output so I think the heavy
and presumably more secure B-lead connection is normally used for sensing.
>Crowbarring a 60A nominal alternator just feels little too "Robocop" for
>an airplane application for me... Think I might stick with the Kilovolt
>disconnect for the time being.
>
>
If you can crowbar it you may be able to shut it down (stall it) and
prevent further internal alternator damage. Some alternators start up
just fine without being connected to a battery though so I'm not sure
how universal such an approach would be.
If you just open the B-lead then apparently some melting may occur
within the alternator which presumably could have at least some risk of
causing problems (fire?) outside the alternator. As the voltage
continues to rise more field current flows which causes higher voltage
which causes more field current etc. until something gives... I think I
should do some destructive alternator testing before I send my next old
car to the wreckers ;)
Ken
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: | Alternator system design goals . . . |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Hinde, Frank George (Corvallis)" <frank.hinde@hp.com>
Sounds like fun...On the ground..:)
Eric also sells a what he calls a "whackjack" (which I have installed)
As I understand it this is some kind of zener diode the shorts the
output of the disconnected B lead to ground (it is also sacrificed
during this process), (I'm a mechanical engineer so forgive my flaky
description).
I have set up my #1 alt to have the OV and field wiring switched thru a
DPDT switch (normally never turned off). The idea is if it goes OV I can
shut the field down too, that way I have no weired back feeding via the
alt field wiring. Hoping I should be able to react before any fires get
started...:)
The rest of it is then normal power management, master off... Alternate
feed on, prayers of encouragement towards the SD-8 etc...:)
Frank
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Ken
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Alternator system design goals . . .
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Ken <klehman@albedo.net>
Hinde, Frank George (Corvallis) wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Hinde, Frank George
>--> (Corvallis)" <frank.hinde@hp.com>
>
>I'm a little confused here.
>
>Every IR alternator I have seen in my hot rod days had a voltage
>sensing terminal. In my ND unit this is called the "s" terminal and is
>normally wired to account for losses in the wiring (Van's doesn't use
>this terminal in their standard setup)
>
>Would this not take care of the forward loss thru the diode?
>
>
The ones I've played with do not have a sense terminal. If a sense wire
became disconnected it would result in high output so I think the heavy
and presumably more secure B-lead connection is normally used for
sensing.
>Crowbarring a 60A nominal alternator just feels little too "Robocop"
>for an airplane application for me... Think I might stick with the
>Kilovolt disconnect for the time being.
>
>
If you can crowbar it you may be able to shut it down (stall it) and
prevent further internal alternator damage. Some alternators start up
just fine without being connected to a battery though so I'm not sure
how universal such an approach would be.
If you just open the B-lead then apparently some melting may occur
within the alternator which presumably could have at least some risk of
causing problems (fire?) outside the alternator. As the voltage
continues to rise more field current flows which causes higher voltage
which causes more field current etc. until something gives... I think I
should do some destructive alternator testing before I send my next old
car to the wreckers ;)
Ken
Message 9
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Alternator system design goals . . . |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Ken <klehman@albedo.net>
Hinde, Frank George (Corvallis) wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Hinde, Frank George (Corvallis)" <frank.hinde@hp.com>
>
>Sounds like fun...On the ground..:)
>
>Eric also sells a what he calls a "whackjack" (which I have installed)
>As I understand it this is some kind of zener diode the shorts the
>output of the disconnected B lead to ground (it is also sacrificed
>during this process), (I'm a mechanical engineer so forgive my flaky
>description).
>
>I have set up my #1 alt to have the OV and field wiring switched thru a
>DPDT switch (normally never turned off). The idea is if it goes OV I can
>shut the field down too, that way I have no weired back feeding via the
>alt field wiring. Hoping I should be able to react before any fires get
>started...:)
>
Frank I lost you here. That sounds like an external regulator that you
can turn the field off. There is no issue or concerns if that is the
case as that kills the alternator completely.
But if in fact you have an internal regulator then you can't turn off
the field as it is connected internally within the alternator. It is
only with the internal regulator that you would use a B-lead contactor.
It is only with an internal regulator that you'd consider trying to
crowbar the alternator output to stall it. In my previous post I was
strictly talking about internal regulated alternators.
Ken
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: Painting Antenae |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Leo Corbalis" <leocorbalis@sbcglobal.net>
If your ADF loop is in black streamlined housing. do NOT paint it. The
manufacturer might have some special paint. The black plastic is a static
shield. I'll save the WAR story but it is real. Try your paint on a piece of
paper and then cover the GPS antenna with it to see if the receiver gives
you an OK on the satellite signal strength page.
Leo Corbalis
----- Original Message -----
From: "GMC" <gmcnutt@shaw.ca>
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Re: Painting Antenae
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: GMC <gmcnutt@shaw.ca>
>
>
> Anyone have advice on repainting a ADF loop antenna. GPS, marker beacon
> and fiberglass comm antenna should also be able to be rejuvenated, yes??
> no??.
>
> Thanks,
>
> George in Langley BC
>
>
>
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: | Alternator system design goals . . . |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Hinde, Frank George (Corvallis)" <frank.hinde@hp.com>
Actually so was I...i do have an IR alt...But there is still a field
wire that I am disconnecting if it goes OV toghter with the Kilovolt
opening and the alt B lead shorted to ground via the whackjack
suppressor.
Did'nt realise the field was connected internally as well?...Hopefully
the whackjack will pull it down without it bursting into flames??????
Frank
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Ken
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Alternator system design goals . . .
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Ken <klehman@albedo.net>
Hinde, Frank George (Corvallis) wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Hinde, Frank George
>--> (Corvallis)" <frank.hinde@hp.com>
>
>Sounds like fun...On the ground..:)
>
>Eric also sells a what he calls a "whackjack" (which I have installed)
>As I understand it this is some kind of zener diode the shorts the
>output of the disconnected B lead to ground (it is also sacrificed
>during this process), (I'm a mechanical engineer so forgive my flaky
>description).
>
>I have set up my #1 alt to have the OV and field wiring switched thru a
>DPDT switch (normally never turned off). The idea is if it goes OV I
>can shut the field down too, that way I have no weired back feeding via
>the alt field wiring. Hoping I should be able to react before any fires
>get
>started...:)
>
Frank I lost you here. That sounds like an external regulator that you
can turn the field off. There is no issue or concerns if that is the
case as that kills the alternator completely.
But if in fact you have an internal regulator then you can't turn off
the field as it is connected internally within the alternator. It is
only with the internal regulator that you would use a B-lead contactor.
It is only with an internal regulator that you'd consider trying to
crowbar the alternator output to stall it. In my previous post I was
strictly talking about internal regulated alternators.
Ken
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: | Alternator system design goals . . . |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr@cox.net>
At 07:36 AM 8/10/2005 -0700, you wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Hinde, Frank George (Corvallis)"
><frank.hinde@hp.com>
>
>I'm a little confused here.
>
>Every IR alternator I have seen in my hot rod days had a voltage sensing
>terminal. In my ND unit this is called the "s" terminal and is normally
>wired to account for losses in the wiring (Van's doesn't use this
>terminal in their standard setup)
>
>Would this not take care of the forward loss thru the diode?
Don't know but it's an exciting prospect. Do you have any
documentation that describes functionality of this pin? If sense
pins are left open on some designs, the system either shuts down
or the regulator goes into OV condition. If the "S" pin exists
and it's designed for remote voltage sensing, I'd be very pleased
to have some kind of confirmation.
>Crowbarring a 60A nominal alternator just feels little too "Robocop" for
>an airplane application for me... Think I might stick with the Kilovolt
>disconnect for the time being.
Your initial impressions are understandable. But look at it this
way. In ANY crowbar activity, the goal is to bring the protected lead
to some very low if not zero volts as quickly as practical and with
the least expenditure of ENERGY.
It's easy for folks to get volts, amps, watts, and energy sorta
all stirred into the same pot . . . because they're all defined in
terms of each other. But an oft overlooked component of energy is
that it always includes some reference to TIME. You PAY for kilowatt
HOURS delivered to the back of your house, strobe lights for your
camera or wing tip are measured in Joules (watt-seconds).
Let's consider three different examples of crowbar events recently
discussed. (1) Transorbs on downstream side of circuit breakers,
(2) crowbar ov module on downstream side of field breaker, and
(3) crowbar ov module on output of 60A alternator.
(1) if bus voltage goes up causing a Transorb downstream of a
breaker to go into conduction, the POWER dissipated in the
Transorb is volts x amps. Just for grins, let us assume the
fault current flowing in the Transorb is 10A driven through
a 5A breaker. In: http://aeroelectric.com/articles/spike.pdf
page 3, we examine the specifications for some suggested parts
and find that 10A may take 2 to 10 seconds to open the 5A
breaker. On the same page, we see that fault currents
trough 1500 WATT Transorb have been characterized over a
10 MILLISECOND TO 100 MICROSECOND range. Hmmmm . . . how about
10 seconds? A Transorb is a special version of a zener.
The 1500 Watt (peak) parts have a continuous dissipation
rating on the order of 3-5 watts. 10A at 20 Volts is 200W.
What is likelyhood of the device surviving 200W dissipation
for 10 seconds (2000 watt seconds, 2000 Joules)?
(2) Let's throw a 2v short downstream of a 5A breaker used
for field circuit protection. We've hypothesized and measured
crowbar events that range from 75-300 amps and trip times
that range from 20 to 500 milliseconds. Here, the low current
event takes the longest, the high current event is shortest.
75A x 12V = 900 watts for 500 milliseconds or 450 watt seconds.
300A x 12v = 3600 watts for 20 mS or 72 watt seconds. The
really neat thing about this scenario is that the ENERGY is
not concentrated in one component as in (1) above. Wiring,
breaker resistance and crowbar voltage drops all get to share
small portions of the total energy budget for the event.
(3) Now, suppose we have a runaway 60 amp altenrator that
has been disconnected from the bus and then shorted by some
means as yet to be described. Keep in mind that an alternator
is a constant current device. It physically cannot deliver
a current flow much greater than nameplate rating. So, assume
80A. When presented with an 80A load, how long will it take
for the b-terminal voltage on a self-excited, runaway
alternator to be brought to heal? Great question that
I'd like to explore (and will as part of the testing proposed
in the conduct of this study). I'm betting it will be under
1 millisecond. As the b-terminal sags under load, field excitation
goes down commensurately. The machine simply collapses into
an inert heap of copper and steel with a total energy dump
that's a tiny fraction of any modes discussed before.
Call it "tough love" but crowbaring a diode isolated, runaway
alternator is the fastest, lowest stress, minimum energy
way to bring a potentially catastrophic scenario to
order. I proposed to demonstrate or disprove that hypothesis
in experiments that anyone is welcome to repeat to show
us where we went wrong.
>Gee maybe I could write a PHD theses on the phsychology of wiring
>systems in aircraft...:)
Please do sir! I think the AeroElectric-List has provided
a wealth of examples how ignorance (sorry, I cannot think
of a shorter term to describe lack of knowledge) and
unwillingness to sift the sand of underlying simple-ideas
wastes a lot of emotional resources. I'd rather have
folks reserve emotional capital for the day they put
first daylight under the wheels.
In the mean time, does anyone out there have any data
on the "S" terminal of any internally regulated alternator?
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: | Re: Alternator system design goals . . . |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr@cox.net>
>
>If you can crowbar it you may be able to shut it down (stall it) and
>prevent further internal alternator damage. Some alternators start up
>just fine without being connected to a battery though so I'm not sure
>how universal such an approach would be.
>
>If you just open the B-lead then apparently some melting may occur
>within the alternator which presumably could have at least some risk of
>causing problems (fire?) outside the alternator. As the voltage
>continues to rise more field current flows which causes higher voltage
>which causes more field current etc. until something gives... I think I
>should do some destructive alternator testing before I send my next old
>car to the wreckers ;)
Correct. It's not "may" but "will" . . . We've seen several
instances of destruction of the alternator's field winding
when the regulator lost control of alternator output. I'm
not too worried about fire . . . these wires are small gage
and buried deep in the alternator. Your idea for testing
is tantalizing. If you do have an opportunity to do this,
let's talk about setup, photographing, and documentation
for the library of repeatable tests.
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: | Re: Alternator system design goals . . . |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Ken <klehman@albedo.net>
Yup that's the problem. The internal power fed to the field.
In regards to your original question though it seems that there are
indeed alternators out there that still use a sense line such as
http://www.autoshop101.com/forms/alt_bwoh.pdf
Just out of interest I should investigate the control or IGN line a bit
more. I've read a couple of times that it is used to delay turning on
the field until after the engine is started but I've seen several
schematics that energise that line as soon as the key is turned on.
Makes me think it is really there to tell the regulator to turn off the
field if the engine is switched off and the alternator is not turning.
Well I guess that is almost the same thing but it doesn't necessarily
have to turn it off if it is still turning.
Ken
>snip
>Did'nt realise the field was connected internally as well?...Hopefully
>the whackjack will pull it down without it bursting into flames??????
>
>Frank
>
>
>
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 |
|
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Richard Tasker <retasker@optonline.net>
(Messages below trimmed for clarity)
Actually Chuck, if you scroll down past Dean's apology email you will
see in fact that Eric did send a personal email to Dean requesting an
apology in a perfectly reasonable tone. Dean chose to apologize
publicly on the forum, which I believe was appropriate given his first
"rant".
So I suggest you go ahead with your $2,000,000 order. I am sure Eric
will be very happy :-) .
Finally, while Dean's "rant" was definitely over the top, I am sure that
there a lot of us that were expecting more from Paul than we have
received so far. I am an electrical engineer and would really like to
see the data that was supposedly recorded from the "tests". I refuse to
participate in "discussions" without facts so I am ignoring the whole
matter as best I can.
Dick Tasker
Chuck Jensen wrote:
>There was nothing that you posted that concerned me about Eric or Eric's
>activity, until this most recent post. From the abject apology and
>promise to never use his name in public again, I surmise he probably had
>a legal explosion in your face with the usual associated rants, threats
>and promises of hell-n-damnation.
>
>Chuck Jensen
>
>Do Not Archive
>
>Dean wrote...
>
>Eric is correct, my rant yesterday was a cheap-shot and I apologize.
>
>Dean Psiropoulos
>RV-6A builder and occasional Nike chewer
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Eric M. Jones [mailto:emjones@charter.net]
>To: dean.psiropoulos@verizon.net
>Subject: Re: Alternators, OVP, GMCJET, Eric, Paul. OFFLIST
>
>Dean,
>
>I am trying to stay out of the innuendo and personal attacks on the
>Aeroelectric List. You personally attacked me and I think you owe me an
>apology. I don't think I did anything to merit your venom. Please leave my
>name out of your posts on the Aeroelectric. If you have some personal
>problem with me, please call.
>
>Regards,
>Eric M. Jones
>www.PerihelionDesign.com
>
>
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: | Alternator system design goals . . . |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Hinde, Frank George (Corvallis)" <frank.hinde@hp.com>
Hmmm...some very good points and a logical way of pointing out to an
errant alternator that he's being a very naughty boy!...I still have the
vision of Robocop holding onto the 480 V power terminals to "reset" his
CPU!..:)
Data on a S terminal..Hmm...I thought it was common knowledge? For years
I was wondering what this litt 14GA wire was for that simply paralelled
the 6Ga wire that went from the B terminal to the battery on my old MG.
The little wire came from its own terminal labelled "s".
On this website there is a guy that describes the hookup of 1987 Suzuki
Samuri alt (I have one of these on my Soob conversion and its wired the
same way.
Take a look at this... http://www.f1-rocketboy.com/alternator.htm
Frank
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of
Robert L. Nuckolls, III
Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Alternator system design goals . . .
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III"
--> <nuckollsr@cox.net>
At 07:36 AM 8/10/2005 -0700, you wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Hinde, Frank George
(Corvallis)"
><frank.hinde@hp.com>
>
>I'm a little confused here.
>
>Every IR alternator I have seen in my hot rod days had a voltage
>sensing terminal. In my ND unit this is called the "s" terminal and is
>normally wired to account for losses in the wiring (Van's doesn't use
>this terminal in their standard setup)
>
>Would this not take care of the forward loss thru the diode?
Don't know but it's an exciting prospect. Do you have any
documentation that describes functionality of this pin? If sense
pins are left open on some designs, the system either shuts down
or the regulator goes into OV condition. If the "S" pin exists
and it's designed for remote voltage sensing, I'd be very pleased
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: | Alternator system design goals . . . |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Hinde, Frank George (Corvallis)" <frank.hinde@hp.com>
I have two simple toggle switches one for each ignition.
I wonder if say for Ign #1 I should make this a DP switch and run the
alt Ign wire through the second pole? The wire will be turned off with
the Master sw (and my combined OV/ field wire switch) but that is
several seconds after the engine has stopped turning.
Any thoghts?
For that matter I could make both the ign switches double pole and wire
the second poles in parallel...That way the IGN wire would be turned off
when the last ignition is shut off...I don't like interconecting
critical devices like this though...what do you think?
Frank
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Ken
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Alternator system design goals . . .
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Ken <klehman@albedo.net>
Yup that's the problem. The internal power fed to the field.
In regards to your original question though it seems that there are
indeed alternators out there that still use a sense line such as
http://www.autoshop101.com/forms/alt_bwoh.pdf
Just out of interest I should investigate the control or IGN line a bit
more. I've read a couple of times that it is used to delay turning on
the field until after the engine is started but I've seen several
schematics that energise that line as soon as the key is turned on.
Makes me think it is really there to tell the regulator to turn off the
field if the engine is switched off and the alternator is not turning.
Well I guess that is almost the same thing but it doesn't necessarily
have to turn it off if it is still turning.
Ken
>snip
>Did'nt realise the field was connected internally as well?...Hopefully
>the whackjack will pull it down without it bursting into flames??????
>
>Frank
>
>
>
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: | Alternator system design goals . . . |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Hinde, Frank George (Corvallis)" <frank.hinde@hp.com>
Well I'm not too worried about my $100 alternator...if the whakjack does
not save the alt I really don't care...Now Bob if you think fire is not
an issue it sounds like a "Safe" setup at least?
Assuming the SD-8 gets me home of course..:)
Frank
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of
Robert L. Nuckolls, III
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Alternator system design goals . . .
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III"
--> <nuckollsr@cox.net>
>
>If you can crowbar it you may be able to shut it down (stall it) and
>prevent further internal alternator damage. Some alternators start up
>just fine without being connected to a battery though so I'm not sure
>how universal such an approach would be.
>
>If you just open the B-lead then apparently some melting may occur
>within the alternator which presumably could have at least some risk of
>causing problems (fire?) outside the alternator. As the voltage
>continues to rise more field current flows which causes higher voltage
>which causes more field current etc. until something gives... I think
>I should do some destructive alternator testing before I send my next
>old car to the wreckers ;)
Correct. It's not "may" but "will" . . . We've seen several
instances of destruction of the alternator's field winding
when the regulator lost control of alternator output. I'm
not too worried about fire . . . these wires are small gage
and buried deep in the alternator. Your idea for testing
is tantalizing. If you do have an opportunity to do this,
let's talk about setup, photographing, and documentation
for the library of repeatable tests.
Bob . . .
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: | Alternator system design goals . . . |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr@cox.net>
At 01:58 PM 8/10/2005 -0700, you wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Hinde, Frank George (Corvallis)"
><frank.hinde@hp.com>
>
>Well I'm not too worried about my $100 alternator...if the whakjack does
>not save the alt I really don't care...Now Bob if you think fire is not
>an issue it sounds like a "Safe" setup at least?
>
>Assuming the SD-8 gets me home of course..:)
>
>Frank
If you have an SD-8, it's a no-brainer if you load-shed
to 8A or less. For about 10 years before we did the "All
Electric Airplane on a Budge Article" for SA, one alternator
and a well maintained battery would get most of us home too.
That's the nice thing about failure tolerant design. It makes
us think, plan and predict with understanding and confidence.
This is the last thing a purveyor of the "next great shield
against disaster" wants to happen. It's hard to sell elephant
stampede insurance to folks that don't live in elephant country
. . . but you gotta understand the country where you live.
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: | Alternator system design goals . . . |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr@cox.net>
At 01:27 PM 8/10/2005 -0700, you wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Hinde, Frank George (Corvallis)"
><frank.hinde@hp.com>
>
>Hmmm...some very good points and a logical way of pointing out to an
>errant alternator that he's being a very naughty boy!...I still have the
>vision of Robocop holding onto the 480 V power terminals to "reset" his
>CPU!..:)
>
>Data on a S terminal..Hmm...I thought it was common knowledge? For years
>I was wondering what this litt 14GA wire was for that simply paralelled
>the 6Ga wire that went from the B terminal to the battery on my old MG.
>The little wire came from its own terminal labelled "s".
It's common knowledge for folks who work with these parts.
The closest I've ever come to a stock automotive alternator was
when we did the first teardowns to see how to take the internal
regulator out and modify them for operation as "aircraft" alternators.
There was no interest or need to understand the parts we were taking
out. In recent times, we've been distracted with fielding cabbages
and tomatoes from folks who claimed great understanding of these
alternators but were perhaps also distracted with broader missions.
>On this website there is a guy that describes the hookup of 1987 Suzuki
>Samuri alt (I have one of these on my Soob conversion and its wired the
>same way.
>
>Take a look at this... http://www.f1-rocketboy.com/alternator.htm
This looks like it has excerpts from the article done by Mr.
Sullivan on autoshop101.com
This is great stuff. Thanks for the heads-up guys! If it's common for
the IR Alternator to be fitted with a remote sense wire, then I can
see the potential for some really neat ways to implement these
critters into the positive control, aircraft paradigm.
Bob . . .
Message 21
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Alternator system design goals . . . |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr@cox.net>
At 04:00 PM 8/10/2005 -0400, you wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Ken <klehman@albedo.net>
>
>Yup that's the problem. The internal power fed to the field.
>
>In regards to your original question though it seems that there are
>indeed alternators out there that still use a sense line such as
>
>http://www.autoshop101.com/forms/alt_bwoh.pdf
Nice piece of work. I'm going to write this guy and see if he'll
let me add this document to the library on aeroelectric.com
>Just out of interest I should investigate the control or IGN line a bit
>more. I've read a couple of times that it is used to delay turning on
>the field until after the engine is started but I've seen several
>schematics that energise that line as soon as the key is turned on.
>Makes me think it is really there to tell the regulator to turn off the
>field if the engine is switched off and the alternator is not turning.
>Well I guess that is almost the same thing but it doesn't necessarily
>have to turn it off if it is still turning.
Good questions. The first time I worked with alternator regulators
was on the Cessna generator to alternator conversions. I've got some
notes somewhere from that time that speak to functionality of those
terminals at the time. Of course, these were electro-mechanical
regulators like:
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/ALTREG6.jpg
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/ALTREG2.jpg
I recall that not having a light bulb to provide continuity
between the bus and the "I" terminal would not allow the alternator
to come on line. We later added a resistor in parallel with the
lamp to make sure the alternator comes up even if the bulb is
burned out.
The "S" terminal looked for stator tap voltage to close
the field relay and fully excite the alternator. This was
a "switch" function as opposed to a "sense" function.
I loosely assumed that "S" still had the same functionality
in the modern parts. If it's really a voltage sense terminal,
then there are very interesting prospects to consider.
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: | Alternator system design goals . . . |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Hinde, Frank George (Corvallis)" <frank.hinde@hp.com>
Just a note,
Van's stock 60A alternator does not show a bulb in the IGN line..But
shows the IGN and L (lamp?) leads tied together and fed from the master
switch.
The S lead they leave disconnected.
Not sure if I want a charge light or not but if I do I think using an
LED is a better approach than a bulb...LEDs seem to last forever.
Frank
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of
Robert L. Nuckolls, III
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Alternator system design goals . . .
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III"
--> <nuckollsr@cox.net>
At 04:00 PM 8/10/2005 -0400, you wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Ken <klehman@albedo.net>
>
>Yup that's the problem. The internal power fed to the field.
>
>In regards to your original question though it seems that there are
>indeed alternators out there that still use a sense line such as
>
>http://www.autoshop101.com/forms/alt_bwoh.pdf
Nice piece of work. I'm going to write this guy and see if he'll
let me add this document to the library on aeroelectric.com
>Just out of interest I should investigate the control or IGN line a bit
>more. I've read a couple of times that it is used to delay turning on
>the field until after the engine is started but I've seen several
>schematics that energise that line as soon as the key is turned on.
>Makes me think it is really there to tell the regulator to turn off the
>field if the engine is switched off and the alternator is not turning.
>Well I guess that is almost the same thing but it doesn't necessarily
>have to turn it off if it is still turning.
Good questions. The first time I worked with alternator regulators
was on the Cessna generator to alternator conversions. I've got some
notes somewhere from that time that speak to functionality of those
terminals at the time. Of course, these were electro-mechanical
regulators like:
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/ALTREG6.jpg
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/ALTREG2.jpg
I recall that not having a light bulb to provide continuity
between the bus and the "I" terminal would not allow the alternator
to come on line. We later added a resistor in parallel with the
lamp to make sure the alternator comes up even if the bulb is
burned out.
The "S" terminal looked for stator tap voltage to close
the field relay and fully excite the alternator. This was
a "switch" function as opposed to a "sense" function.
I loosely assumed that "S" still had the same functionality
in the modern parts. If it's really a voltage sense terminal,
then there are very interesting prospects to consider.
Bob . . .
Message 23
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Alternator system design goals . . . |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr@cox.net>
At 04:25 PM 8/10/2005 -0700, you wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Hinde, Frank George (Corvallis)"
><frank.hinde@hp.com>
>
>Just a note,
>
>Van's stock 60A alternator does not show a bulb in the IGN line..But
>shows the IGN and L (lamp?) leads tied together and fed from the master
>switch.
Hmmmm. Interesting. If L is for "lamp" I hope it's current limited
inside the regulator. Pulling down on a lead that's expected to have
a lamp in series with it could be devastating to the reguator's lamp
driver . . . but perhaps it just smokes it and nobody knows or cares.
>The S lead they leave disconnected.
It would be an interesting experiment to hook this lead to
the bus through a fuse and put a switch in it. Measure voltage
at the bus with as many loads on as practical. Measure voltage
with the switch open and then closed. If it's a sense lead, the
bus voltage switch closed will be higher than with the switch
open.
>Not sure if I want a charge light or not but if I do I think using an
>LED is a better approach than a bulb...LEDs seem to last forever.
If you have active notification of low voltage, any other
lights in the charging system are redundant. Even if it were
an incandescent lamp, it will have such a low duty cycle that
one lamp is likely to last the lifetime of the airplane.
Bob . . .
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: Alternator system design goals . . . |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Ken <klehman@albedo.net>
This one has more detail and some description of what happens when the S
or B terminal is disconnected.
http://www.autoshop101.com/forms/h8.pdf
But this is a 20 year old (1983 vintage) alternator that he is
describing. It's a very small sample but I've looked through a few
service manuals and at a ND, a Delco, and a Mitsubishi and so far I
haven't found an alternator newer than 1990 that uses what appears to be
a voltage sense wire.
He has a whole list of automotive stuff at
http://www.autoshop101.com/autoshop15.html
Ken
snip
>>http://www.autoshop101.com/forms/alt_bwoh.pdf
>>
>>
>
> Nice piece of work. I'm going to write this guy and see if he'll
> let me add this document to the library on aeroelectric.com
>
>
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: | Com antenna ground plane |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "John Swartout" <jgswartout@earthlink.net>
I need some advice on my communication radio antenna installation. It
is a Comant antenna, and comes with a gasket that effectively insulates
the base of the antenna from the airplane skin. So the only
metal-to-metal contact between the antenna and the airplane's aluminum
skin will be via the four mounting machine screws. The airplane skin,
and the doubler where the antenna will mount, have both been epoxy
primed inside and out. I'm not sure that the rivets joining the doubler
to the underside of the skin will ensure electrical continuity between
them. Should I drill them out again before riveting to get rid of paint
in the rivet holes? I believe I need to scrape the paint off the
doubler where the washers on the mounting screws contact it, but is it
necessary to have more bare-metal-to-bare metal contact between the
doubler and the skin than what the rivets provide? Thanks.
John
Message 26
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Com antenna ground plane |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr@cox.net>
At 11:56 PM 8/10/2005 -0400, you wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "John Swartout"
><jgswartout@earthlink.net>
>
>I need some advice on my communication radio antenna installation. It
>is a Comant antenna, and comes with a gasket that effectively insulates
>the base of the antenna from the airplane skin. So the only
>metal-to-metal contact between the antenna and the airplane's aluminum
>skin will be via the four mounting machine screws. The airplane skin,
>and the doubler where the antenna will mount, have both been epoxy
>primed inside and out. I'm not sure that the rivets joining the doubler
>to the underside of the skin will ensure electrical continuity between
>them. Should I drill them out again before riveting to get rid of paint
>in the rivet holes? I believe I need to scrape the paint off the
>doubler where the washers on the mounting screws contact it, but is it
>necessary to have more bare-metal-to-bare metal contact between the
>doubler and the skin than what the rivets provide? Thanks.
If it were my airplane, I'd clean the area under the screw
heads in the antenna base casting and around the holes on the underside
of the skin where the nuts will bear.
Rivets swell in holes to the extent that ordinary finishes
like paint and primer are extruded out of the contact area.
I wouldn't worry about ground quality. Don't clean any paint
other finishes from either the underside of the antenna or
on the surface of the fuselage. The 4 mounting bolts are
sufficient.
Pitch the rubber gasket and use a non-hardening, non-reactive
gasket around the periphery of the antenna applied so that it
will squish out when the antenna is mounted.
Torque the mounting screws to values called out in AC43-13
for the screw material and size. Clean up the "squish" and
you're finished.
Bob . . .
Message 27
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Com antenna ground plane |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Wayne Sweet" <w_sweet@comcast.net>
I never use the gasket. I bare the skin under the antenna and make sure the
bottom of the antenna has good contact with the skin. Then I use caulk
around the base of the antenna to keep out water. That's it.
I assume the antenna comes with the gasket for pressurized aircraft.
Wayne
----- Original Message -----
From: "John Swartout" <jgswartout@earthlink.net>
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Com antenna ground plane
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "John Swartout"
> <jgswartout@earthlink.net>
>
> I need some advice on my communication radio antenna installation. It
> is a Comant antenna, and comes with a gasket that effectively insulates
> the base of the antenna from the airplane skin. So the only
> metal-to-metal contact between the antenna and the airplane's aluminum
> skin will be via the four mounting machine screws. The airplane skin,
> and the doubler where the antenna will mount, have both been epoxy
> primed inside and out. I'm not sure that the rivets joining the doubler
> to the underside of the skin will ensure electrical continuity between
> them. Should I drill them out again before riveting to get rid of paint
> in the rivet holes? I believe I need to scrape the paint off the
> doubler where the washers on the mounting screws contact it, but is it
> necessary to have more bare-metal-to-bare metal contact between the
> doubler and the skin than what the rivets provide? Thanks.
>
>
> John
>
>
>
Message 28
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Speedy11@aol.com
In a message dated 8/10/2005 2:57:42 AM Eastern Standard Time,
aeroelectric-list-digest@matronics.com writes:
If you are considering a purchase from him please don't go
somewhere else because of a few off-the-cuff comments I made on this list.
Talk to other people who have had dealings with the man and find out what
sort of business person he is.
To Whom It May Concern,
I have purchased several things from Eric Jones at www.PerihelionDesign.com
and I find everything to be of high quality. Additionally, Eric's service was
prompt and polite. I recommend his products - even to the point of putting a
link on my web site.
Stan Sutterfield
www.rv-8a.net
Do Not Archive
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! --
|