---------------------------------------------------------- AeroElectric-List Digest Archive --- Total Messages Posted Thu 10/27/05: 15 ---------------------------------------------------------- Today's Message Index: ---------------------- 1. 05:47 AM - Re: Re: Controlling IR ND Alternators (Bob) (LarryRobertHelming) 2. 08:07 AM - Re: Re: Thermocouple wiring firewall pentrations (AI Nut) 3. 10:56 AM - Erratic Voltage in Rotax 912 (George Wells@adelphia.net) 4. 11:44 AM - Re: Unnecessary personal invective. (Harold Kovac) 5. 11:55 AM - Re: Re: IGNORE, personal invictive, etc... (N1deltawhiskey@aol.com) 6. 12:39 PM - Re: Re: IGNORE, personal invictive, etc... (Greg Young) 7. 12:50 PM - Re: Re: IGNORE, personal invictive, etc... (Bob White) 8. 12:54 PM - Re: Re: IGNORE, personal invictive, etc... (Richard Tasker) 9. 01:21 PM - Re: Re: IGNORE, personal invictive, etc... (RV Builder (Michael Sausen)) 10. 01:30 PM - Re: Re: IGNORE, personal invictive, etc... (Tim Olson) 11. 02:24 PM - Re: Re: IGNORE, personal invictive, etc... (Richard Tasker) 12. 03:38 PM - Re: Erratic Voltage in Rotax 912 (Paul McAllister) 13. 03:43 PM - Re: Re: IGNORE, personal invictive, etc... (RV Builder (Michael Sausen)) 14. 08:27 PM - Controlling IR ND Alternators () 15. 09:02 PM - Re: Re: Controlling IR ND Alternators (Bob) (Robert L. Nuckolls, III) ________________________________ Message 1 _____________________________________ Time: 05:47:50 AM PST US From: "LarryRobertHelming" Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: Controlling IR ND Alternators (Bob) --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "LarryRobertHelming" > --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" > > > At 07:34 AM 10/26/2005 -0500, you wrote: > snip > > Please allow me to make it quite clear concerning my attitudes and > goals for incorporation of the internally regulated alternator into > aircraft: > > (1) I stipulate that the modern, IR alternators of ANY brand are > exceedingly superior products in performance, price and reliability > to the vast majority of alternators presently flying on the majority > of today's certified light aircraft. Agreed > > (2) I have customers who are interested in incorporating these > products into their projects under the same design goals as > all generators and alternators since day-one. I.e., to allow a > pilot to exercise absolute, quiet, and non-hazardous control over > this source of power and with a minimum regard to cautions, > prohibitions > or concerns. Fair enough. > > (3) There are folks who suggest that comforts and convenience of > control and independent management of an OV condition are > relegated to a past age and no longer relevant or useful. I have > no argument with those who embrace those views as long as it's done > with a clear understanding of the differences and acceptance of > potential consequences. One must also accept a new operating paradigm > for the light aircraft electrical system inconsistent with (2). > Fair enough. > (4) I have a project under way to accomplish (2) . . . the only > reason for pulling the IR alternator integration data from the > 'Connection is that it worked only under a list of cautions, > prohibitions > and concerns. It will go back into the book when the goal is achieved > and blessed by others here on the List. They will sift though all the > simple-ideas to be published in support of the design and pronounced > them understandable and compelling in their execution. > Knowing what the goals are would be nice. I, for one such goal, want something that can actually be purchased at an auto store. The '77 honda civic w/0 air alternator that is externally regulated is an item that is getting harder to find in the rebuild stores for example. I don't want to rebuild the thing myself either. Why not do the test with something of recent vintage? Say 2005 or so? And no I do not have one to send you. > >>I appreciate all Bob has done for the OBAM community. I do feel however >>that at times he does go a bit over the limit in criticizing others, like >>Vans Aircraft for example, because they support builders using IR >>alternators and they continue to advocate use of the circuit breaker >>rather >>than bus architecture. > > Forgive me sir, your words do not offer me a clear image of your > thinking. Can you elaborate on the difference between "circuit breaker" > versus "bus" architecture? I should of called this the bus architecture with fuse blocks. Sorry. > > I have accurately described some opinions offered by Van's and others > as ignorant . . . (or if you find this word offensive, exceedingly > lacking in knowledge) of the ramifications of their recommendations. > It's unfortunate that many followers of these new paradigms > accept the ideas based on the name-brand of those who offer the > capable airframe design and power plant integration organization > but they're clearly not into the advancement of knowledge and > understanding in electrical systems design. A simple examination > of their electrical system kit is a profound demonstration > of this fact. It's 1960' architecture and philosophy with a simplistic > substitution of a modern alternator for an antique generator. Bob, many times you are exceedingly kind using patience I have not seen in many people. Then other times you could use words/phrases, such as, "it could be considered a better approach would be to........ or 'a better approach would be to consider......", but instead you call it bluntly ignorant. The evidence of experience with Vans is that although their's may not be the most elegant or filled with alternate options solution, it must work or thousands of planes would be falling from the sky. And it is cheap to build. Agreed, I don't think Van's solution is the best. > > I've spoken with Van at numerous aviation gatherings and inquired > as to his vision for how far out to the horizon his products should > be flown. My sense was that he'd rather nobody ever launched into > IFR and that the electrical system served the same purpose as it did > in the C-140A . . . run some lights and crank the engine. My > interpretation > of his remarks is re-enforced by the manner in which he suggests > systems be installed in his products. A battery, an engine driven > energy source and a vacuum pump. Now, if Van cares to join the List > an disabuse me of my perceptions, I'm sure we'd all be grateful and > attentive. > > I do not propose to argue with Van's business model. Obviously, > in spite of any perceived or real shortcomings, it's profoundly > successful. But I have customers. You folks here on the List who > want explore more options and hopefully do it from a position of > understanding. It's my job as system designer and integrator to > offer options. It's my duty as teacher to offer simple-ideas that > support those options such that anyone who chooses may make their > own decisions with confidence. > >>I have not heard of Vans issuing advice directories >>on the IR alternators because of problems they are getting back from the >>field. Vans sells thousands of planes and some percentage of those have >>the >>IR alternator. It would be interesting to know from the Vans network what >>the break down is and what the experience has been. I am sure no one >>knows >>all these answers. But the results of a survey would sure be nice to >>know. > > This isn't about Van's. It's not about Niagara Airparts. It's not about > NiponDenso or Mitsubishi alternators. It's not about George or Paul. > It's > about YOU sir. What do YOU want? What are YOUR goals. How can we here > on > the list help YOU select from a clear list of options and install > them on YOUR airplane for operation with understanding and confidence > in having done a good thing? I can be served by knowing the option of how to install and maintain an IR alternator safely in my plane. > > If you're wanting someone tell you what to do, then you're > well advised to install Van's kit as offered with the knowledge > that you will fare no worse than thousands of Van's other customers . . > . > which is NOT a scary number. When I climb into a rented spam can, > I'm very aware of the shortcomings in the electrical system and they > don't bother me in the least. I have Plan-B in my flight bag to deal > with anything that system may toss at me. > > But as soon as you make a single change to that system in terms > of parts selection or architecture, who can you depend on for > support in understanding the value or risks of your proposed > changes? I submit that it will NOT be Van's Aircraft, > Niagara Airparts, or the engineers at ND. Your best source of > assistance is right here on the List where folks with knowledge of > such things and goals similar to yours are willing to spend their > $time$ on your behalf. > > I hope this re-focus of goals and tools for achieving them is > useful to you. Let us not be distracted by brand recognition > or elevation of individuals to technical sainthood. It's the > understanding of ideas that matters. > > Bob . . . Thank you Bob for taking time to respond. I do appreciate your efforts and patience with those of us like myself that are trying to better understand you and your teachings. Larry in Indiana ( your customer -- I got your manual and wired my plane accordingly.) > > > ________________________________ Message 2 _____________________________________ Time: 08:07:16 AM PST US From: AI Nut Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: Thermocouple wiring firewall pentrations --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: AI Nut Dave, in my search for temp probes, I found nothing else that was 1) affordable, while 2) being able to withstand the extremely corrosive environment of hot exhaust gases. 8-) Jim, for some of us, actual temps are critical, at least for the first few hours. In my case, I've added a turbocharger to a Ford engine for my plane and I *must* stay below the max temps in the exhaust, as well as ensuring CHT's stay well out of detonation ranges. So, yeah, it's rather important for me! David M. Jim Baker wrote: >--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Jim Baker" > > > >> While the pins for a D-sub are NOT identical to the >> thermocouple wires being joined, they insert a pair of equal but >> opposing parasitic thermocouples into both leadwires. The >> parasitic thermocouples cancel each other out because they are >> >> >in > > >> such close proximity to each other and have a common local >> temperature. >> >> > >I'd think, perhaps incorrectly, that the object of the EGT and CHT >would be to establish relative readings and not absoulute readings. I >don't really care about a ten degree difference from a precise >measurement as long as I know, from experience, what the >readings are relative to various operating regimes. As an example, I >have a Grand Rapids EIS on a two stroke that is junctioned with >.092 Molex connectors with the proper K and J type cable on either >side of the junction. The Grand Rapids folks say the EIS will >temperature compensate the cold junction(s) (I think???) so who >really knows what the precise temp is....I don't. All I'm looking for is a >baseline and then trends after that. > > >Jim Baker >580.788.2779 >'71 SV, 492TC >Elmore City, OK > > ________________________________ Message 3 _____________________________________ Time: 10:56:56 AM PST US From: "George Wells@adelphia.net" Subject: AeroElectric-List: Erratic Voltage in Rotax 912 --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "George Wells@adelphia.net" I have a Mod 5 KitFox with a 912S and recently installed a dual Amp & Volt meter since I previously only had a Amp meter. While flying today the voltage reading started to rise until it was at the top of the scale at appox 18 volts and the amp meter at appox. 5 amps. After I cycled a few accessories the voltage came back down to around 13.5 - 14 volts and the amps at just a slight positive deflection from 0. My question is does this sound like a rectifier or some other problem ? Thanks georgewells@adelphia.net ________________________________ Message 4 _____________________________________ Time: 11:44:06 AM PST US From: "Harold Kovac" Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Unnecessary personal invective. --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Harold Kovac" AMEN Harold ----- Original Message ----- From: "Chuck Jensen" Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Unnecessary personal invective. > --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Chuck Jensen" > > > Rob, you might want to correct your attribution to: > > George aka gmcjetpilot aka Paul Messenger contributed the following > > Given the writing style (or lack thereof) it's difficult to believe > there could be one, or is that two, or is that three, people whose only > consistency is to "wallow in the mud." Fair warning to all; writers of > this ilk can not be shamed, embarrassed, humiliated or otherwise > discourage by relating the personal disgust we may feel in reading their > drivel. Here's the scary part--IT ENCOURAGES THEM---much like a serial > killer enjoys reading about his murders in the paper. It's their sole, > tenuous claim to fame. > > Chuck > Do Not Archive > > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com > [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Rob W > M Shipley > To: aeroelectric-list@matronics.com > Subject: AeroElectric-List: Unnecessary personal invective. > > --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Rob W M Shipley" > > > > George aka gmcjetpilot contributed the following > > snip > "(Bob that is brilliant, "credentialed crystal ball gazers". Who are you > directing > > that weak back-stab at, in typical condescending verbose style. All > those > big words. Are you trying to impress, be clever or cover your > insecurity. > Just stop with your petty little crap.) > > > (Bob you ARE the MASTER of anecdotal stories. What the hell. > Lets see some data or facts Bob. How many STORIES are we talking > about. You are full of STORIES. The rest of this document is full of > prejudice > & opinion lacking facts.) > > > (As far as "credentialed" are you jealous? I guess not. We all know you > think education is stupid and engineers useless. "When I was working > on the Piaggio P.180 Avanti..." stories you tell to validate your > creditability, > > Bob is your "credentialed". I am not ashamed of my engineering education > or my professional experience.) > > > (I only asked you if you where an engineer Bob because you implied you > have engineering "credentials" and abilities, which where apparent you > don't have from what you write. This in no way takes away from your > experience as a technician.) > > > HERE IS THE HYPOCRISY, WHAT BOB WROTE ON HIS SITE " > > and also snip > > "......Bob has spewed more useless ignorant comments. " > > > George, > > I am heartily fed up with your petty attacks on Bob Nuckolls. I cannot > imagine why you feel it necessary to descend to this type of personal > diatribe. It is absolutely inappropriate in addressing Bob or anyone > else. > > Neither I nor any of the other listers believe Bob has an unimpeachable > inside track on engineering truth and debate and dissent is the path to > greater understanding. For this to be conducted meaningfully emotion and > invective need to be exchanged for data and reason. > > I personally find him to be honest, sincere and generous in his > willingness > to discuss and a great contributor to the list. He is above all else a > gentleman in the way he conducts himself. You are not, sir. You demean > the > list and yourself. > > Please discuss fact, debate evidence and be polite to other listers or > take > your unpleasant invective elsewhere. > > Rob > Rob W M Shipley > N919RV (res) Fuselage .....still! > La Mesa, CA. (next to San Diego) > > I am using the free version of SPAMfighter for private users. > It has removed 7699 spam emails to date. > Paying users do not have this message in their emails. > Try www.SPAMfighter.com for free now! > > > ________________________________ Message 5 _____________________________________ Time: 11:55:58 AM PST US From: N1deltawhiskey@aol.com Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: IGNORE, personal invictive, etc... --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: N1deltawhiskey@aol.com OK, I will divulge my ignorance. Have seen the comment in some messages but so what? Does it have some special effect? Doug In a message dated 26-Oct-05 19:59:36 Pacific Standard Time, retasker@optonline.net writes: Haven't any of you heard of DO NOT ARCHIVE ? ________________________________ Message 6 _____________________________________ Time: 12:39:15 PM PST US Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Re: IGNORE, personal invictive, etc... From: "Greg Young" --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Greg Young" Yes, the phrase "do not archive" anywhere in the body of the message keeps it from being added to the archive. The object is to lower improve the the useful-to-noise ratio for searches. Abbreviations such as "DNA" do NOT work, it must be "do no archive" Greg. ________________________________ From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com on behalf of N1deltawhiskey@aol.com Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: IGNORE, personal invictive, etc... --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: N1deltawhiskey@aol.com OK, I will divulge my ignorance. Have seen the comment in some messages but so what? Does it have some special effect? Doug In a message dated 26-Oct-05 19:59:36 Pacific Standard Time, retasker@optonline.net writes: Haven't any of you heard of DO NOT ARCHIVE ? ________________________________ Message 7 _____________________________________ Time: 12:50:03 PM PST US From: Bob White Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: IGNORE, personal invictive, etc... --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Bob White I know what it means (don't keep this message in the permanent archive), but I have another question. If I respond to a message that says "do not archive, do I have to say it again? In other words, does it have to be on a line by itself or can it be buried in the message? Bob W. Just in case do not archive On Thu, 27 Oct 2005 14:52:07 EDT N1deltawhiskey@aol.com wrote: > --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: N1deltawhiskey@aol.com > > OK, I will divulge my ignorance. Have seen the comment in some messages but > so what? Does it have some special effect? > > Doug > > In a message dated 26-Oct-05 19:59:36 Pacific Standard Time, > retasker@optonline.net writes: > Haven't any of you heard of DO NOT ARCHIVE ? > > > > > > > > -- http://www.bob-white.com N93BD - Rotary Powered BD-4 (projected engine start in November) Custom Cables for your rotary installation - http://www.roblinphoto.com/shop/ ________________________________ Message 8 _____________________________________ Time: 12:54:14 PM PST US From: Richard Tasker Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: IGNORE, personal invictive, etc... --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Richard Tasker As a matter of fact, yes. Every message ever sent to the Matronics server mail lists, and there are a lot of lists hosted by Matronics, is saved on the server for later searching by anyone for previously answered questions. This could get to be a lot of storage so Matt (the owner of said server) asks that when a message is sent that has no particular historical or useful significance (like the name calling and other unseemly things that have been going on here lately) the sender of said message include "do not archive" somewhere in the message. This triggers his mail software to NOT store it in the archives. The following is directly from the Matronics web site Q&A: * ****************************************** *** The "DO NOT ARCHIVE" Message Flag *** ***************************************** At times, your message may concern something that is revelent (sic) only to a very small number of persons or to a limited area, and you may not wish to archive it. In such a case, simply put the following phrase anywhere in the message: do not archive Your message will not be appended to the archive, but will be sent to List email distribution as normal. Dick Tasker N1deltawhiskey@aol.com wrote: >--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: N1deltawhiskey@aol.com > >OK, I will divulge my ignorance. Have seen the comment in some messages but >so what? Does it have some special effect? > >Doug > ________________________________ Message 9 _____________________________________ Time: 01:21:04 PM PST US SPAM: If the email is for spam, please report to abuse@dnsExit.com -By mail relay service at: http://www.dnsExit.com/Direct.sv?cmd=mailRelay Accounts will be suspended immediately if found spamming. Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Re: IGNORE, personal invictive, etc... From: "RV Builder (Michael Sausen)" --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "RV Builder (Michael Sausen)" no -----Original Message----- From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Bob White Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: IGNORE, personal invictive, etc... --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Bob White I know what it means (don't keep this message in the permanent archive), but I have another question. If I respond to a message that says "do not archive, do I have to say it again? In other words, does it have to be on a line by itself or can it be buried in the message? Bob W. Just in case do not archive On Thu, 27 Oct 2005 14:52:07 EDT N1deltawhiskey@aol.com wrote: > --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: N1deltawhiskey@aol.com > > OK, I will divulge my ignorance. Have seen the comment in some > messages but so what? Does it have some special effect? > > Doug > > In a message dated 26-Oct-05 19:59:36 Pacific Standard Time, > retasker@optonline.net writes: > Haven't any of you heard of DO NOT ARCHIVE ? > > -- http://www.bob-white.com N93BD - Rotary Powered BD-4 (projected engine start in November) Custom Cables for your rotary installation - http://www.roblinphoto.com/shop/ ________________________________ Message 10 ____________________________________ Time: 01:30:25 PM PST US From: Tim Olson Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: IGNORE, personal invictive, etc... --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Tim Olson Yes, if you add the words "do not archive" to any message, then it won't last for eternity in the matronics servers archives. So when you have nothing useful to say, or only a short comment that you wouldn't care to have read by someone 20 years from now, just add those words. Tim Olson -- RV-10 #40170 DO NOT ARCHIVE N1deltawhiskey@aol.com wrote: > --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: N1deltawhiskey@aol.com > > OK, I will divulge my ignorance. Have seen the comment in some messages but > so what? Does it have some special effect? > > Doug > > In a message dated 26-Oct-05 19:59:36 Pacific Standard Time, > retasker@optonline.net writes: > Haven't any of you heard of DO NOT ARCHIVE ? > ________________________________ Message 11 ____________________________________ Time: 02:24:14 PM PST US From: Richard Tasker Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: IGNORE, personal invictive, etc... --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Richard Tasker Meaning, no you do not have to add it again. It can be anywhere in the message. Dick Tasker RV Builder (Michael Sausen) wrote: >--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "RV Builder (Michael Sausen)" > > no > >-----Original Message----- >From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Bob White >To: aeroelectric-list@matronics.com >Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: IGNORE, personal invictive, etc... > >--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Bob White > >I know what it means (don't keep this message in the permanent archive), but I have another question. If I respond to a message that says "do not archive, do I have to say it again? In other words, does it have to be on a line by itself or can it be buried in the message? > >Bob W. > >Just in case >do not archive > >On Thu, 27 Oct 2005 14:52:07 EDT >N1deltawhiskey@aol.com wrote: > > > >>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: N1deltawhiskey@aol.com >> >>OK, I will divulge my ignorance. Have seen the comment in some >>messages but so what? Does it have some special effect? >> >>Doug >> >>In a message dated 26-Oct-05 19:59:36 Pacific Standard Time, >>retasker@optonline.net writes: >>Haven't any of you heard of DO NOT ARCHIVE ? >> >> >> >> > > >-- >http://www.bob-white.com >N93BD - Rotary Powered BD-4 (projected engine start in November) Custom Cables for your rotary installation - http://www.roblinphoto.com/shop/ > > > > ________________________________ Message 12 ____________________________________ Time: 03:38:10 PM PST US From: "Paul McAllister" Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Erratic Voltage in Rotax 912 --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Paul McAllister" George, The regulators have a history of being troublesome, and sometimes short lived, particularly if they are in a hot location. You might think about swapping it out. Paul ________________________________ Message 13 ____________________________________ Time: 03:43:52 PM PST US SPAM: If the email is for spam, please report to abuse@dnsExit.com -By mail relay service at: http://www.dnsExit.com/Direct.sv?cmd=mailRelay Accounts will be suspended immediately if found spamming. Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Re: IGNORE, personal invictive, etc... From: "RV Builder (Michael Sausen)" --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "RV Builder (Michael Sausen)" Yes :-) --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Richard Tasker Meaning, no you do not have to add it again. It can be anywhere in the message. Dick Tasker RV Builder (Michael Sausen) wrote: >--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "RV Builder (Michael Sausen)" > > no > >-----Original Message----- >From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Bob White >To: aeroelectric-list@matronics.com >Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: IGNORE, personal invictive, etc... > >--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Bob White > >I know what it means (don't keep this message in the permanent archive), but I have another question. If I respond to a message that says "do not archive, do I have to say it again? In other words, does it have to be on a line by itself or can it be buried in the message? > >Bob W. > >Just in case >do not archive > >On Thu, 27 Oct 2005 14:52:07 EDT >N1deltawhiskey@aol.com wrote: > > > >>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: N1deltawhiskey@aol.com >> >>OK, I will divulge my ignorance. Have seen the comment in some >>messages but so what? Does it have some special effect? >> >>Doug >> >>In a message dated 26-Oct-05 19:59:36 Pacific Standard Time, >>retasker@optonline.net writes: >>Haven't any of you heard of DO NOT ARCHIVE ? >> >> >> >> > > >-- >http://www.bob-white.com >N93BD - Rotary Powered BD-4 (projected engine start in November) Custom Cables for your rotary installation - http://www.roblinphoto.com/shop/ > > > > ________________________________ Message 14 ____________________________________ Time: 08:27:04 PM PST US From: Subject: AeroElectric-List: Controlling IR ND Alternators --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: AeroElectric-List message previously posted by: "LarryRobertHelming" <<.......skip....Although Bob has posted that he would remove from his book the chapter on IR alternator and it's installation, I feel Bob's book should cover the IR alternator and its installation because of its usefulness to experimental plane builders. Bob has stated he has no experience with the IR alt. and it does not meet his performance/control goals. I think Bob is big enough to take it upon himself and LEARN about it and for the OBAM interests cover it for those who decide it meets their goals........skip.....>> 10/27/2005 Hello Larry, You refer to "the IR alternator" and "it" as though it was some clearly identifiable entity with a known configuration and characteristics. But there are multiple versions of automotive and industrial IR alternators from each alternator manufacturer with a variety of different external wire connections that perform various unspecified or undocumented functions. Some of these IR alternators may be wired identically externally, but perform differently under either normal or failure mode conditions because the internal voltage regulators are different. Some of these IR alternators are brand new from the OEM, others have been rebuilt or modified in an unknown fashion by rebuilders who may also be unknown. The part number of a rebuilt or modified IR alternator may be identical to the part number of a new IR alternator. Two apparently identical IR alternators may have entirely different performance characteristics during partial or complete failure. Given the above state of affairs I would appreciate it if you would list just a few of the things about IR alternators that you feel would be helpful and should be included in a book written for builders of amateur built experimental aircraft. Thank you. OC ________________________________ Message 15 ____________________________________ Time: 09:02:36 PM PST US From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: Controlling IR ND Alternators (Bob) --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" At 07:37 AM 10/27/2005 -0500, you wrote: >--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "LarryRobertHelming" > > > >Knowing what the goals are would be nice. I, for one such goal, want >something that can actually be purchased at an auto store. The '77 honda >civic w/0 air alternator that is externally regulated is an item that is >getting harder to find in the rebuild stores for example. I don't want to >rebuild the thing myself either. Why not do the test with something of >recent vintage? Say 2005 or so? And no I do not have one to send you. Very good. Your goals are my goals. See below. > >>I appreciate all Bob has done for the OBAM community. I do feel however > >>that at times he does go a bit over the limit in criticizing others, like > >>Vans Aircraft for example, because they support builders using IR > >>alternators and they continue to advocate use of the circuit breaker > >>rather than bus architecture. > > > > Forgive me sir, your words do not offer me a clear image of your > > thinking. Can you elaborate on the difference between "circuit breaker" > > versus "bus" architecture? > >I should of called this the bus architecture with fuse blocks. Sorry. Okay, understand. Breakers are just fine, fuses are also fine. Both will do the intended function of keeping wires from catching fire. I've demonstrated a favoritism for fuseblocks as offering an equivalent level of safety with a much lower cost of ownership. I've never twisted anyone's arm NOT to go the breaker/bus-bar route and would never whack on Van for favoring breakers. > > > > I have accurately described some opinions offered by Van's and others > > as ignorant . . . (or if you find this word offensive, exceedingly > > lacking in knowledge) of the ramifications of their recommendations. > > It's unfortunate that many followers of these new paradigms > > accept the ideas based on the name-brand of those who offer the > > capable airframe design and power plant integration organization > > but they're clearly not into the advancement of knowledge and > > understanding in electrical systems design. A simple examination > > of their electrical system kit is a profound demonstration > > of this fact. It's 1960' architecture and philosophy with a simplistic > > substitution of a modern alternator for an antique generator. > >Bob, many times you are exceedingly kind using patience I have not seen in >many people. Then other times you could use words/phrases, such as, "it >could be considered a better approach would be to........ or 'a better >approach would be to consider......", but instead you call it bluntly >ignorant. The evidence of experience with Vans is that although their's may >not be the most elegant or filled with alternate options solution, it must >work or thousands of planes would be falling from the sky. And it is cheap >to build. Agreed, I don't think Van's solution is the best. Let's focus the discussion the true point of disagreement: the functionality of the IR alternator. Van's advice as relayed to into dozens of conversations I've had on the 'net and at airshows over the years was that there are no good reasons for clinging to the old design rules and that the risks of running an IR alternator "barefoot" in an airplane are so small as to drive significance of any concerns to zero. As a system designer who has been through the thought processes for certification dozens of times, I have stated that this architecture could not be certified. Without going into the laundry list of reasons why, suffice it to say that MY design goals are to craft a means by which the IR alternator can be seamlessly integrated into the old design rules. It's not going to be difficult. However, for an organization like Van's to brush these goals aside when folks like yourself want to fly IFR with the same levels of control and confidence as for spam-cans is, in my never humble opinion, ignorant. I do not use this term lightly and only in cases were ignorance is masquerading as good advice to customers who are paying for that advice. As the premier supplier of high-performance, low-cost-of-ownership aircraft to the masses I don't believe it's unreasonable to expect better of them. Suppose you went into a automobile dealer's showroom and the salesman describes a really neat, low cost, high performance air conditioning system. But it has only an ON/OFF switch and there may be times under which you might loose control and the A/C just stays on. Suppose there was a placard next to the switch that says "DO NOT TURN MOVE FROM OFF TO ON AT SPEEDS GREATER THAN 50 MPH, HOSES MAY BLOW". Now, the car you left in the parking lot has an A/C ON/OFF switch, no warning placard, and a cold-to-hot temperature adjusting knob. Wouldn't you feel a bit short-changed when the new car lacks features of your old car? > > This isn't about Van's. It's not about Niagara Airparts. It's not about > > NiponDenso or Mitsubishi alternators. It's not about George or Paul. > > It's about YOU sir. What do YOU want? What are YOUR goals. How can > we here on > > the list help YOU select from a clear list of options and install > > them on YOUR airplane for operation with understanding and confidence > > in having done a good thing? > >I can be served by knowing the option of how to install and maintain an IR >alternator safely in my plane. Very well my friend. That's the goal . . . and not just one part number of an ND alternator but ANY brand and part number whether new or "rebuilt". The same switches and functionality we enjoyed with the older systems will be retained. > > > > I hope this re-focus of goals and tools for achieving them is > > useful to you. Let us not be distracted by brand recognition > > or elevation of individuals to technical sainthood. It's the > > understanding of ideas that matters. > >Thank you Bob for taking time to respond. I do appreciate your efforts and >patience with those of us like myself that are trying to better understand >you and your teachings. Not a problem. And thank you for taking the time to participate. You folks are helping me learn as well. You have helped me identify the need and value of working to "find things out". This ultimately expands all of our horizons. I'll be posting the first few pages of a new comic book this weekend. It's entitled "Understanding the Alternator". I have no idea of magnitude and scope of the task so we'll just begin with one figure and paragraph at a time and see where it leads us. It will become the basis for a re-write on the alternator chapter in the 'Connection. This is going to be fun. Comments, suggestions and considered critical review will be welcome. Bob . . . DO NOT ARCHIVE