Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 03:28 AM - Re: Van's ND alternator failure ()
2. 04:28 AM - Re: Do I Need an Ammeter? (Stewart, Michael (ISS Atlanta))
3. 05:26 AM - Re: With or without DYNON Internal Backup Battery (Werner Schneider)
4. 05:57 AM - Required FAA Paperwork ()
5. 07:10 AM - Re Do I Need An Ammeter? (Hall effect is very accurate) ()
6. 07:11 AM - Re: Re: Van's ND alternator failure (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
7. 08:27 AM - Re: Simple Audio System (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
8. 08:27 AM - Re: Do I Need an Ammeter? (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
9. 09:31 AM - Re: Z-19 Eng Bat (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
10. 09:39 AM - Re: Do I Need an Ammeter? (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
11. 09:45 AM - Re: Electronics International Capacitive Fuel (D Wysong)
12. 09:47 AM - Re: Re Do I Need An Ammeter? (Hall effect is very accurate) (Matt Prather)
13. 09:59 AM - Re: Electronics International Capacitive Fuel Level Probes P-300C (Mark R Steitle)
14. 10:21 AM - Re: Do I Need an Ammeter? (Stewart, Michael (ISS Atlanta))
15. 10:30 AM - Re: Re Do I Need An Ammeter? (Hall effect is very accurate) (Fiveonepw@AOL.com)
16. 11:18 AM - Re: Do I Need an Ammeter? (David Lloyd)
17. 11:30 AM - Re: Do I Need an Ammeter? (David Lloyd)
18. 11:30 AM - Re: Re Do I Need An Ammeter? (Hall effect is very accurate) (Terry Watson)
19. 11:40 AM - Re: Re Do I Need An Ammeter? (Hall effect is very accurate) (RV Builder (Michael Sausen))
20. 12:06 PM - Regulator VR (Jerry2DT@aol.com)
21. 12:12 PM - Re: Do I Need an Ammeter? (Earl_Schroeder)
22. 03:54 PM - Question on Z-35 (SMITHBKN@aol.com)
23. 04:45 PM - Re: With or without DYNON Internal Backup Battery (rv-9a-online)
24. 05:02 PM - Alternator with External Regulator? (Tammy Goff)
25. 05:22 PM - Generator question (Ron)
26. 05:39 PM - Re: Alternator with External Regulator? (Earl_Schroeder)
27. 06:15 PM - Re: Alternator with External Regulator? (Wayne Sweet)
28. 06:15 PM - Garmin 300XL and Database intent ()
29. 07:35 PM - Troubleshooting/agonizing over minutia...(was something about ammeters, IIRC) (Fiveonepw@aol.com)
30. 07:43 PM - Re: Do I Need an Ammeter? (Speedy11@aol.com)
31. 07:59 PM - Re: Electronics International Capacitive Fuel Level Probes P-300C (John Schroeder)
32. 08:07 PM - Re: Question on Z-35 (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
33. 08:09 PM - Re: Do I Need an Ammeter? (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
34. 08:28 PM - Re: Regulator VR (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
35. 08:30 PM - Re: Alternator with External Regulator? (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
36. 09:01 PM - Re: Master Relay Mount (DonVS)
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: Van's ND alternator failure |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: <gmcjetpilot@yahoo.com>
>From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net>
>Subject: Van's ND alternator failure
>His Glasair is fitted with the B&C system. He reports no problems with it.
Of course there could never be a problem with a B&C product, but what does that
have to do with the issue at hand, besides a little unbiased advertisement?
Just Kidding Bob :-)
>Within 4 hours of installing an alternator from Van's on the RV, he was out
flying over the countryside and noted an acid smell in the cockpit. He first assumed
the odor was from a local Kaolin plan which uses sulphuric acid in its
manufacturing processes and often smells like this.
Did he have any other OV indications except his nose, the manufacturing plant
and the voltmeter?
>After a few minutes, he noted that his present position was upwind of the plant.
He started looking around the panel and noted that the voltmeter was pegged.
Hummmm, but no other damage to any other item? The ND alternator has an OV set
point of 18 volts. In other words if the prime voltage regulation fails is goes
to a max OV limit of 18 volts. It could be very possible that the alternator
reached this level and remained there (for quite) awhile, as your customer
and his nose cruised around the countryside.
>He reports that after shutting the alternator OFF, the voltage dropped to levels
appropriate to battery only operations and he landed without further deterioration
of the situation.
Turned it off with what? (Just curious) I assume he removed power from The IGN
wire, and that worked? Hummmmm I am surprised since when this happened or like
events happened the IGN wire became ineffective? Interesting.
>The alternator shop said that the regulator had failed (but obviously not in a
way that prevented the pilot from shutting it off) and had overheated the stator
windings as well. The Odyssey battery case was bulged out. No other damage
was done to the airplane's accessories
The Odyssey can be damaged with anything over 15 volts (per their technical literature
which states 15 volt is the MAX voltage for charging). Now I can imagine
if 18 volts was allowed to abuse the battery for a while it might protest.
Bob, this just point to the wisdom of your recommendation for a good OV/LO volt
(idiot) light on the panel.
>After $150 work on alternator and new battery, the system operates normally.
>He asked if there was a way to prevent this from happening again and I gave him
a brief rundown on topical conversations that had transpired on the List over
the past year. I told him we were working on a methodology for operating the
ND and similar machines under the same design goals as alternators in certified
aircraft but that the solution was still perhaps months off.
>I sent him a copy of the original Z-24 along with operating limitations for not
operating the alternator control switch while the alternator was loaded and
at high RPMs. I don't know if he plans to install this system as an interim fix.
That was nice of you Bob. I would love to get the failed VR. What is the chance
of that? I am not happy it happened but would love to take the thing and test
it and may be do an autopsy. Ill pay for shipping.
>Just wanted to post this additional data point for incorporation as appropriate
into future deliberations on the subject.
There was another similar event to this, just recent on another list, but the
gentleman turned the Vans alternator ON/OFF while flying just to SEE? It failed
right after he turned it back ON and it went right to a higher voltage. I dont
know if it is the brand of rebuilds Van uses or what? I do know there is several
aftermarket makers of VRs for ND alternators. I think TRANSPO is one of
the better one. I notice the same VR from one maker is $19 and another is $39.
I wonder if quantity is an issue with the parts in Vans alternator. Clearly
this is unacceptable performance and there seems to be alternators, bought from
Van's, in any issue involving a ND alternator?
Thanks for the info Bob, Regards George
>Bob . . .
---------------------------------
Message 2
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Do I Need an Ammeter? |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Stewart, Michael (ISS Atlanta)" <mstewart@iss.net>
>Frankly, given the choice, Id take amps over volts as long as I had an
>alarm, which I do, that tells me when my amps are too low or too high.
Where do you set the alarm for "too low" and "too high" and
how did you arrive at these values?
Bob . . .
I found that with my basic running, I pull 13 amps on my all glass
panel. I also found that with everything on I can pull 47. So I set the
boundaries above and below that. I arrived at these values through my
initial flight testing. I can and do often look at the amps to confirm
that I suspect is the draw. I have found on occasion that when the
number shown, and the number in my head don't match, something is
amiss(usually I have failed to do something like turn the aux pump off
or whatever.) With a voltage number I would not get that. No matter what
I do, 14.1v is what I see. I have alarms for the voltage too. I run
14.1v +-.2 volts and set the alarms accordingly.
My summary is that my amps tells me much more than my volts. The number
often tells me that I have forgotten something. I suppose that this
would not work in a complex G-V. I also suspect that I am much more in
tuned with my current draw than most as I an all electric single engine
piston 2 seater and I know to the amp what the number should be no
matter What Im doing. Obviously both amps and voltage are important but
IF I had to prioritize, Id take amps over volts as an indication of
whats going on with my electrons.
====
And would not a low voltage
warning set at 13.0 (or 26.0) volts be more indicative of the
alternator's ability to support the current system loads?
Bob
That I am not sure of Bob. I am not familiar with the failure modes and
the rates as you are. Would an alternator continue to show my normal 13
amps AND only deliver 13 volts? Beats me.
Best,
Mike
Do not archive
Message 3
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: With or without DYNON Internal Backup Battery |
?
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Werner Schneider <glastar@gmx.net>
Hello Gilles,
just talked with the guy which did the measurement I was wrong, charging
the depleted internal battery showed 50-70mA
the keepalive was around 10 mA. Sho with a fully charged battery you
should be fine for more then a month.
br Werner
Gilles Thesee wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Gilles Thesee <Gilles.Thesee@ac-grenoble.fr>
>
>Hi Werner and all,
>
>
>
>>the keepalive does recharge the internal battery and there was one
>>software version with a fault there. Indeed the Dynon does use some
>>50-70 mA
>>
>>
>>
>That's enough to run the battery flat within a week.
>When designing our ship's circuits, the question arose about the panel
>clock keepalive. I'm happy with my decision to rely on the internal
>battery instead of running the keepalive from the ship's main battery.
>
>
>
>>Can I take you also on the Battery tester just living in Switzerland
>>about 80 minutes away from Grenoble and want to visit my friends from
>>work, he is flying from LFLG.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>Sure, you're welcome.
>
>Regards,
>Gilles Thesee
>Grenoble, France
>http://contrails.free.fr
>
>
>
>
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: | Required FAA Paperwork |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: <bakerocb@cox.net>
Responding to AeroElectric-List message copied below and previously posted
by: John Markey markeypilot@yahoo.com
<<Good Folks: A friend flying a fast Glasair I recently installed a GARMIN
430-series gps.
The plane originally was approved for night IFR. The shop that did the
installation
is now closed and they messed up the paperwork to the FAA. I think the foul
up is irrelevant because he doesn't need to file anyway since the plane is
experimental.
MUST he file any additional paperwork with the FAA on this change, or is
he "good
to go" given the original signoff for IFR in his operating limits?
Thanks, John Markey
Glasair IIS N661CC @ VPZ>>
12/2/2005
Hello John, Short answer first. No, your friend does not have to file any
additional IFR approval paperwork with the FAA for the installation of a
Garmin 430 GPS in his Glasair amateur built experimental airplane.
To explain:
1) Your friend did not need and did not have any specific ".....orginal
signoff for IFR in his operating limitations." He did not need, and should
not have attempted to obtain, any such subsequent FAA approved sign off.
2) His Operating Limitations, which were part of his original special
airworthiness certificate issued by either an FAA or DAR inspector, should
contain words like the following from the then current version of FAA Order
8130.2_:
"After completion of phase I flight testing, unless appropriately equipped
for night and/or instrument flight in accordance with 91.205, this
aircraft is to be operated under VFR, day only."
"Aircraft instruments and equipment installed and used under 91.205 must
be inspected
and maintained in accordance with the requirements of part 91. Any
maintenance or inspection of this equipment must be recorded in the aircraft
maintenance records."
3) Those sentences are the grand sum total of IFR approval for his aircraft.
There are some other instructions in his Operating Limitations that would
apply when operating the aircraft IFR such as:
"In addition, this aircraft must be operated in accordance with applicable
air traffic and general operating rules of part 91and all additional
limitations herein prescribed under the provisions of 91.319(e)."
"When filing instrument flight rules (IFR), the experimental nature of this
aircraft must be listed in the remarks section of the flight plan."
As long as his aircraft is in compliance with his Operating Limitations and
the instructions in the current version of the AIM he is legal to fly IFR
with no further aircraft approval or paperwork from the FAA.
4) I might point out that included in the AIM for IFR GPS operations are the
requirements that the pilot comply with instructions in his AFM and AFM
supplement and pilot guides. Since your friend is in control of what is in,
or not in, his planes AFM and supplement that should present no problem.
Since the pilot guide for his Garmin GPS is published by Garmin, complying
with that guide should be no problem.
5) Common sense would require that the pilot follow some installation
guidance such as that provided in AC 20-138A and a perform a healthy dose of
VFR / VMC flight testing before attempting any IFR operations.
Please let me know if I can be of further help.
OC
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 Do I Need An Ammeter? (Hall effect is very accurate) |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: <gmcjetpilot@yahoo.com>
Ammeter or no ammeter, I like them and my vote is to
put it on the alternator output. I don't care what the
battery "current" is, since most of the time it would read a
slight charge. If the alternator fails the volt meter is the
prime electrical measurement of interest. Really an
ammeter on the battery is not too much use in my opinion.
Given just one ammeter, how hard the alternator is working,
where all electrical power comes from when the engine's
running is more important.
HOW DOES A HALL EFFECT CURRENT SENSOR
WORK? What is the difference to a ammeter shunt? Shunts
have been around forever, where hall effect for current
measurement is fairly new.
I know the hall effect method of measuring current is a little
mysterious but it is dead nuts accurate. The term hall effect
gets misused but in this case, current sensors, they are
true hall effect devices. Magnetic fields are not as simple
to understand as Ohms law, but the physics is not difficult.
They are the preferred way to measure current with high
tech devices. Shunts do work and are dead simple but they
are old fashion. Old is not always bad, but the hall effect has
some unique advantages over the traditional way to measure
current.
Some implied that the Hall effect is not accurate or that the old
shunt method is better, that is not correct in my opinion.
The Hall effect is very accurate and not subject to extraneous
readings. Also it is lighter and has less connections than a shunt.
A shunt by its very nature produces a voltage drop across it.
Hall effect is an elegant simple device and the wire just passes
thru with no break. The down side is it may not work with a
standard ammeter (which is really a voltmeter).
Here how it works:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hall_effect
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/magnetic/hall.html
http://www.ampsense.com/HANDBOOK%204.pdf
It is a little more technical than just a shunt which is just ohms
law, where V=IR. If you know R (the shunt) you measure V
(drop across the shunt) with a little volt meter in the panel, you
know current (I=V/R). So lets say the shunt is equal to a .001
ohm resistor. So at 50 amp the voltage drop across the shunt is
50 mV. So if you have volt gage that is scaled to show 50 amps
at 50mV you have an ammeter. A digital panel meter that reads
mV will read the mV as amps digitally. With a shunt we affect
the circuit by the voltage drop. A halls effect has no affect on
the circuit.
Shunt
http://www.emproshunts.com/webstore/item.aspx?sku=MLA-50-50
http://img530.imageshack.us/img530/6522/20040416a882kz.jpg
(above from RV-9A builder)
Most stand alone amp meters still use the shunt because it is
simple, cheap and has been around since dirt. I can buy or make
a shunt for a few bucks and use a digital panel meter for another
few bucks and make my own amp meter. Using a hall effect
sensor may take a little more sophistication in the meter display
to scale or "offset" the null or zero point. However with modern
engine monitors it is easy to adjust scale of offset factors to use
a hall effect sensor. This is the wave of the present / future.
The hall effect actually uses the current in the wire and it's
effect in a magnetic field to sense current. When the current in
the wire goes thru the hall effect sensor, perpendicular to the
magnetic field in the sensor, another current is produced. Since
the hall effect device is a closed loops with the only current
being the wire passing thru it, they are not effected by outside
currents as some might think, since the magnetic field is focused
inside the sensors loop. In a word they are accurate and not
subject to interference.
Examples of hall effect sensors
http://www.ampsolution.com/AMP200,300.pdf
http://www.ampsense.com/
I played around with the hall effect on my engine monitor and
it's dead nuts accurate when tested. They are very small, light
and don't require breaks in the wire like a shunt. This is a big
advantage. Hall effect devices do work different than a shunt
and therefore a simple millivoltmeter may not work. Also if you
want to measure current in two directions you need a meter that
can "offset" the null point and add a negative sign, since the hall
effect does not reverse the output "signal" current, it only sends
the magnitude. The prime use of an ammeter is the output
from the alternator, which is in one direction only, reverse current
is not needed. If you want to measure +/- current you need to
do a little more fancy process at the meter to read it.
With microprocessor based engine monitors it's not an issue to
"program" it, to scale and read the output of the sensor. The
sensor output is just a small current relative and proportional
(linear) to the current measured, like a shunt.
The main advantage the old method has the shunt is "self
powered". The hall effect needs a 5v signal to work. As was
mentioned if you have an engine monitor you will likely use a
hall effect current sensor.
George
---------------------------------
Message 6
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Van's ND alternator failure |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr@cox.net>
At 03:26 AM 12/2/2005 -0800, you wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: <gmcjetpilot@yahoo.com>
>
> >From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net>
> >Subject: Van's ND alternator failure
>
> >His Glasair is fitted with the B&C system. He reports no problems with it.
>
> Of course there could never be a problem with a B&C product, but what
> does that have to do with the issue at hand, besides a little unbiased
> advertisement? Just Kidding Bob :-)
Those were his words . . . the thrust of his queries
were to help him decide whether or not I recommended
replacing a system that had just produced a problem
with one that had not.
>
>
> >Within 4 hours of installing an alternator from Van's on the RV, he
> was out flying over the countryside and noted an acid smell in the
> cockpit. He first assumed the odor was from a local Kaolin plan which
> uses sulphuric acid in its manufacturing processes and often smells like this.
>
>
> Did he have any other OV indications except his nose, the manufacturing
> plant and the voltmeter?
No . . . or if he did, it was not mentioned. This is
a simple day-vfr machine and was fitted with a minimal
panel. I think the only radios were a transponder and
a Microair transceiver. They were not damaged.
>
>
> >After a few minutes, he noted that his present position was upwind of
> the plant. He started looking around the panel and noted that the
> voltmeter was pegged.
>
> Hummmm, but no other damage to any other item? The ND alternator has an
> OV set point of 18 volts. In other words if the prime voltage regulation
> fails is goes to a max OV limit of 18 volts. It could be very possible
> that the alternator reached this level and remained there (for quite)
> awhile, as your customer and his nose cruised around the countryside.
Yup . . .
> >He reports that after shutting the alternator OFF, the voltage dropped
> to levels appropriate to battery only operations and he landed without
> further deterioration of the situation.
>
> Turned it off with what? (Just curious) I assume he removed power from
> The IGN wire, and that worked? Hummmmm I am surprised since when this
> happened or like events happened the IGN wire became ineffective? Interesting.
He was not specific . . . since this was a Van's alternator,
I assume it was wired per Van's recommendations.
> >The alternator shop said that the regulator had failed (but obviously
> not in a way that prevented the pilot from shutting it off) and had
> overheated the stator windings as well. The Odyssey battery case was
> bulged out. No other damage was done to the airplane's accessories
>
>
> The Odyssey can be damaged with anything over 15 volts (per their
> technical literature which states 15 volt is the MAX voltage for
> charging). Now I can imagine if 18 volts was allowed to abuse the battery
> for a while it might protest. Bob, this just point to the wisdom of your
> recommendation for a good OV/LO volt (idiot) light on the panel.
The certified aviation community has suggested for decades
that an "over voltage condition" is any time-magnitude that
lies above the envelope described in
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Curves/MSTD704_28V_OV.jpg
(cut voltages in half for 14v systems)
. . . hence the selection of 16/32 as the nominal static
voltage trip points for ov protection offered by suppliers
to the certified aviation community.
While I've strongly suggested an idiot light for active
NOTIFICATION of low voltage, I'd much prefer automatic and
active RESPONSE to over voltage thus negating the value
of an ov warning light . . . if present in the system, it
would be illuminated for only milliseconds.
> >After $150 work on alternator and new battery, the system operates normally.
>
> >He asked if there was a way to prevent this from happening again and I
> gave him a brief rundown on topical conversations that had transpired on
> the List over the past year. I told him we were working on a methodology
> for operating the ND and similar machines under the same design goals as
> alternators in certified aircraft but that the solution was still perhaps
> months off.
>
> >I sent him a copy of the original Z-24 along with operating limitations
> for not operating the alternator control switch while the alternator was
> loaded and at high RPMs. I don't know if he plans to install this system
> as an interim fix.
>
>
> That was nice of you Bob. I would love to get the failed VR. What is
> the chance of that? I am not happy it happened but would love to take the
> thing and test it and may be do an autopsy. Ill pay for shipping.
My thoughts exactly. I asked about it. These events transpired a few
weeks ago and were worked in a commercial overhaul shop. Likelihood that
the trash barrels have not been emptied (assuming the technician
would know exactly which regulator came out of the problem
alternator) is somewhere between zero and none.
>
>
> >Just wanted to post this additional data point for incorporation as
> appropriate into future deliberations on the subject.
>
> There was another similar event to this, just recent on another list,
> but the gentleman turned the Vans alternator ON/OFF while flying just to
> SEE? It failed right after he turned it back ON and it went right to a
> higher voltage. I dont know if it is the brand of rebuilds Van uses or
> what? I do know there is several aftermarket makers of VRs for ND
> alternators. I think TRANSPO is one of the better one. I notice the same
> VR from one maker is $19 and another is $39. I wonder if quantity is an
> issue with the parts in Vans alternator. Clearly
> this is unacceptable performance and there seems to be alternators,
> bought from Van's, in any issue involving a ND alternator?
This underscores certified aviation's obsession with ISO,
QTP, QA manuals, TSO, PMA, etc ad nauseam. If one does not
enjoy the benefits of purchasing products from a capable
and honorable supplier, then certifications of one kind or
another must be relied on as substitutes. For folks who
ignorant of the technology, certification is all they
have . . . and sometimes it isn't enough.
Bob . . .
( There are many hypotheses in science which are wrong. )
( That's perfectly all right; they're the aperture to )
( finding out what's right. )
( -Carl Sagan- )
http://www.aeroelectric.com
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: Simple Audio System |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr@cox.net>
>Comments/Questions: I'm planning on having two comm radios and would like
>a simple audio panel to switch transmission between the two but also
>monitor the second. All the off the shelf audio panels seem to have much
>more than I need. Any direction would be much appreciated.
See http://aeroelectric.com/articles/Rev11/18Audio_R11.pdf
Figure 18-7 for headphone wiring, figure 18-11 for
mic/ptt wiring.
Bob . . .
--------------------------------------------------------
< Throughout history, poverty is the normal condition >
< of man. Advances which permit this norm to be >
< exceeded -- here and there, now and then -- are the >
< work of an extremely small minority, frequently >
< despised, often condemned, and almost always opposed >
< by all right-thinking people. Whenever this tiny >
< minority is kept from creating, or (as sometimes >
< happens) is driven out of a society, the people >
< then slip back into abject poverty. >
< >
< This is known as "bad luck". >
< -Lazarus Long- >
<------------------------------------------------------>
http://www.aeroelectric.com
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: | Do I Need an Ammeter? |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr@cox.net>
At 07:26 AM 12/2/2005 -0500, you wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Stewart, Michael (ISS Atlanta)"
><mstewart@iss.net>
>
>
> >Frankly, given the choice, Id take amps over volts as long as I had an
> >alarm, which I do, that tells me when my amps are too low or too high.
>
> Where do you set the alarm for "too low" and "too high" and
> how did you arrive at these values?
>
>I found that with my basic running, I pull 13 amps on my all glass
>panel. I also found that with everything on I can pull 47. So I set the
>boundaries above and below that. I arrived at these values through my
>initial flight testing. I can and do often look at the amps to confirm
>that I suspect is the draw. I have found on occasion that when the
>number shown, and the number in my head don't match, something is
>amiss(usually I have failed to do something like turn the aux pump off
>or whatever.) With a voltage number I would not get that. No matter what
>I do, 14.1v is what I see. I have alarms for the voltage too. I run
>14.1v +-.2 volts and set the alarms accordingly.
How accordingly? What are your specific setpoint values?
>My summary is that my amps tells me much more than my volts. The number
>often tells me that I have forgotten something. I suppose that this
>would not work in a complex G-V. I also suspect that I am much more in
>tuned with my current draw than most as I an all electric single engine
>piston 2 seater and I know to the amp what the number should be no
>matter What Im doing. Obviously both amps and voltage are important but
>IF I had to prioritize, Id take amps over volts as an indication of
>whats going on with my electrons.
You've accurately described the functionality of both instruments.
The point I would make is that the ammeter is a good indicator of
how much electro-stuff is turned on. You use the ammeter to raise
flags that some device not needed at the moment has been inadvertently
left on. Obviously this fits your operational protocols and design
goals. An ammeter alarm with adjustable set-points could have some
utility . . . but limited. See next point.
>====
> And would not a low voltage
> warning set at 13.0 (or 26.0) volts be more indicative of the
> alternator's ability to support the current system loads?
>Bob
>
>That I am not sure of Bob. I am not familiar with the failure modes and
>the rates as you are. Would an alternator continue to show my normal 13
>amps AND only deliver 13 volts? Beats me.
Only if the regulator's failure mode includes an ability to
simply shift the point of regulation. For example, suppose you
had a little screw on the back of the alternator that allowed
you to set the voltage regulator down to 12.8 volts. Then, yes.
The loads displayed on the ammeter would change very little while
the system voltage is too low to properly charge the battery.
Alarms on current are insufficiently discriminating to bring
all failures to a pilot's attention.
There are no common failure modes in integrated circuits or other
surface mount devices that "drift" . . . they either work or run
out into the weeds.
The way I use airplanes, I can't rely on ammeter or voltmeter
readings for operational assistance in flight. The reason
is that the rentals I use have no voltmeter and there's
a mix of
(1) Battery-ammeters with limited operational utility but
the ONLY warning offered when the readings go negative
and
(2) loadmeters with more utility but with variable significance
depending on the airplane. For folks that fly the same airplane
all the time, loadmeter readings can become a useful part of
the pilot's sense of system condition including a poor
degree of warning - a zero reading is significant.
The two conditions that all but guarantee comfortable completion
of any flight is that the voltage is above 13.0 volts (greater than a
battery-only bus) and less than 16.0 (not in a runaway
condition).
This is why I've suggested that addressing these two points
covers 99.9% of concerns about system functionality with active
notification of low volts and active response to high volts while
airborne. Adding more numbers never hurts for normal operations
but they're never enough for a full diagnostic study and
they MIGHT be a no-value-added distraction or even mis-leading
if things are not going well.
Bob . . .
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: Z-19 Eng Bat |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr@cox.net>
At 09:59 AM 12/1/2005 -0700, you wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Mark R. Supinski"
><mark.supinski@gmail.com>
>
>I am implementing a Z-19 based layout for an all-electric experimental.
>
>One area I am puzzling over is the Eng Bat switch. Specifically, I am not
>implementing the Low Voltage Monitor module. Instead, I have an engine
>controller which includes this functionality, and also will drive an
>external lamp to flash when voltage (or many other issues) fall below a
>preset value. Thus I will drive the lamp found in Z-19 from this device.
>
>My question is: what is the point of the ON vs. AUTO setting in my case?
>Looking at the schematic, it seems the only function performed in the AUTO
>case is to activate the low voltage monitor?? I believe that in my case I
>only need a simple on/off switch to ground the contactor -- I cannot see
>what AUTO does for me in addition to this.
See
http://aeroelectric.com/Catalog/AEC/9005/9005.html
The device is called a "Low Voltage Warning / Auxiliary Battery
Management Module". One has the option of using only the low volts
warning feature or adding an automatic aux battery isolation
subsequent to an alternator failure.
>Am I correct, or am I missing something essential here?
Keep in mind that the z-figures are intended to show architectures
and how some features like electronic ignition, different kinds of
alternator/regulator combinations, lv warning, etc. These individual
features can be mixed/matched between the various architectures
as your needs and accessories dictate.
Bob . . .
Message 10
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Do I Need an Ammeter? |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr@cox.net>
At 10:25 PM 12/1/2005 -0800, you wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Dan Beadle"
><Dan.Beadle@hq.InclineSoftworks.com>
>
>I subscribe to the "annual battery replacement" program that you
>propose. You do need to know where the battery starts from. But I
>disagree with the simple Plan B. If you trust the battery, due to
>replacement, Plan B give you a minimum endurance. I can still do better
>than that by consulting the ammeter and shutting down optional circuits.
>I need position lights on Plan B (The failure may happen at night an
>this is a regulatory requirement - I know - I could say PIC discretion
>to dump the position lights at night - but I want o invoke that with due
>consideration).
Then your Plan-B is not a "plan" but a "suite of options".
In Chapter 17 I've suggested that when the alternator
quits, you're #1 goal is to reach airport of intended
destination without breaking a sweat. The equipment needed
to achieve this goal is a tiny fraction of total electrical
system loads and does not include exterior lighting.
Your perception of the value of position lights adds
about 6A of load (in a 14v airplane) to the battery that
might more than double the e-bus loads and cut
alternator-out endurance by more than 50%.
>If the Plan B gives me an hour and I can shed some more load to get 2
>hours, why not be able to tell what it is from the ammeter?
Because you KNOW what each device/system in your airplane
needs. If it's ON, it requires a known supply of power, if
it's OFF that value goes to zero.
There's no need to "tune" alternator-out loads based
on an ammeter reading when you have pre-planned operating
configurations backed by a battery of known performance.
>Finally, most loads on the circuits are over-stated - Peak Values. Use
>the ammeter to see what the real loads are.
Absolutely! Get measurements in the shop while you're building
your airplane. Do the load analysis to KNOW what your system
requirements are for the various failure modes. Write the "plan"
on the ground to assure an outcome as opposed to shuffling
the deck of options while airborne hoping for a good outcome.
>I agree that looking at the trend over time from pilot perspective is a
>non-starter. Pilots are busy and time "warps".
Exactly. The Plan-B/E-bus operating philosophy has been
crafted to get you to a condition where you're "cleared
to land". After that, the concrete ahead belongs to you
and you can bring back any additional accessories you
like without affecting the outcome of the flight even
if the battery finally tosses in the towel.
This idea of an endurance bus versus an essential bus
is not well understood but the differences between them
are significant. Endurance-buses are intended to prevent an
emergency from developing, an essential bus assumes you're
already IN an emergency condition. There's obvious value
for "staying ahead of the airplane" at the controls . . .
I'll suggest it's even easier to "stay ahead of the
electrical system".
Bob . . .
Message 11
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Electronics International Capacitive Fuel |
Level Probes P-300C
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: D Wysong <hdwysong@gmail.com>
Ah, HA! I stand corrected, Mark. Thanks for the data! My last
statement should have read "capacitive fuel probes won't generate a PWM
signal without additional circuitry." As usual, the confusion about EI
the P-300C probes was on MY end! :-)
So, to decode it all:
-- Van's fuel probes are simple capacitors (i.e. - Van is NOT reselling
EI probes). If you need PWM output, hook the probe to the $45 dongle
from Van's. If you need 0-5 VDC proportional output, hook the probe to
a $70 dongle (purchased in pairs for $140) from BM.
-- EI and Vision Microsystems probes provide PWM output. This PWM
output can be fed into BM units via the high frequency inputs. If you
need/want 0-5 VDC proportional output instead, hook them to a $$$ dongle
from Princeton.
-- If you haven't purchased probes and want 0-5 VDC proportional output
look to Princeton or Westach.
Unless you're bolting on a turbine engine or something else that
requires the BM high freq inputs for instrumentation you should be good
to go. If all else fails, at least the solution is only a dongle away.
Thanks again for those scope traces!
D
------------
Mark R Steitle wrote:
> Hi D,
> I'm responding to you directly so I can include some screen shots of the
> output from my EI capacitive fuel probes. I sent them to John also.
>
> I was told by EI that the output was a pwm signal, so I don't understand
> your last sentence. Anyway, they do generate a signal that the BMA E/1
> can read on the frequency input channel. At least, it sure appears to
> work. I'll be able to tell for sure when I get the wings on and I'm
> able to add fuel to the tanks. The lab tests turned out positive.
>
> Mark
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of D
> Wysong
> Sent: Thursday, December 01, 2005 7:54 PM
> To: aeroelectric-list@matronics.com.Level.Probes.P-300C
> Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Electronics International Capacitive
> Fuel Level Probes P-300C
>
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: D Wysong <hdwysong@gmail.com>
>
> Hi John -
>
> It sounds like Mark is using frequency inputs available on the BM unit
> instead of the proportional analog (0-5 VDC) inputs for his fuel level
> signals.
>
> That was a work-around for the BM units late last decade (... before the
>
> external DC dongles were created) when folks were trying to integrate
> their Vision Microsystems probes. Those probes, however, are PWM
> generators.
>
> A P-300C (EI capacitive fuel probe) won't generate a PWM signal without
> additional circuitry. So... I reckon I'm puzzled, too! :-)
>
> D
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Message 12
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Re Do I Need An Ammeter? (Hall effect is very accurate) |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Matt Prather" <mprather@spro.net>
Hi George,
Comment below:
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: <gmcjetpilot@yahoo.com>
>
> the circuit by the voltage drop. A halls effect has no affect on the
> circuit.
>
Nit to pick.. I think it's one of the fundamental principles of physics
that observing a system changes the behavior of the system. Some methods
of observation are less intrusive than others. I will admit that the hall
effect sensor intrudes very little on the system we are discussing, but I
believe it is untrue to say that a sensor has "no" effect on the system
being measured.
Regards,
Matt-
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: | Electronics International Capacitive Fuel Level |
Probes P-300C
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Mark R Steitle" <mark.steitle@austin.utexas.edu>
D,
Super!!! I though I had missed something somewhere(I'm not an EE or
anything close), but this makes me feel better. Thanks for your
feedback.
Mark S.
Do Not Archive
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of D
Wysong
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Electronics International Capacitive
Fuel Level Probes P-300C
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: D Wysong <hdwysong@gmail.com>
Ah, HA! I stand corrected, Mark. Thanks for the data! My last
statement should have read "capacitive fuel probes won't generate a PWM
signal without additional circuitry." As usual, the confusion about EI
the P-300C probes was on MY end! :-)
So, to decode it all:
-- Van's fuel probes are simple capacitors (i.e. - Van is NOT reselling
EI probes). If you need PWM output, hook the probe to the $45 dongle
from Van's. If you need 0-5 VDC proportional output, hook the probe to
a $70 dongle (purchased in pairs for $140) from BM.
-- EI and Vision Microsystems probes provide PWM output. This PWM
output can be fed into BM units via the high frequency inputs. If you
need/want 0-5 VDC proportional output instead, hook them to a $$$ dongle
from Princeton.
-- If you haven't purchased probes and want 0-5 VDC proportional output
look to Princeton or Westach.
Unless you're bolting on a turbine engine or something else that
requires the BM high freq inputs for instrumentation you should be good
to go. If all else fails, at least the solution is only a dongle away.
Thanks again for those scope traces!
D
------------
Mark R Steitle wrote:
> Hi D,
> I'm responding to you directly so I can include some screen shots of
the
> output from my EI capacitive fuel probes. I sent them to John also.
>
> I was told by EI that the output was a pwm signal, so I don't
understand
> your last sentence. Anyway, they do generate a signal that the BMA
E/1
> can read on the frequency input channel. At least, it sure appears to
> work. I'll be able to tell for sure when I get the wings on and I'm
> able to add fuel to the tanks. The lab tests turned out positive.
>
> Mark
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of D
> Wysong
> Sent: Thursday, December 01, 2005 7:54 PM
> To: aeroelectric-list@matronics.com.Level.Probes.P-300C
> Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Electronics International Capacitive
> Fuel Level Probes P-300C
>
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: D Wysong <hdwysong@gmail.com>
>
> Hi John -
>
> It sounds like Mark is using frequency inputs available on the BM unit
> instead of the proportional analog (0-5 VDC) inputs for his fuel level
> signals.
>
> That was a work-around for the BM units late last decade (... before
the
>
> external DC dongles were created) when folks were trying to integrate
> their Vision Microsystems probes. Those probes, however, are PWM
> generators.
>
> A P-300C (EI capacitive fuel probe) won't generate a PWM signal
without
> additional circuitry. So... I reckon I'm puzzled, too! :-)
>
> D
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
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: | Do I Need an Ammeter? |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Stewart, Michael (ISS Atlanta)" <mstewart@iss.net>
With a voltage number I would not get that. No matter what
>I do, 14.1v is what I see. I have alarms for the voltage too. I run
>14.1v +-.2 volts and set the alarms accordingly.
How accordingly? What are your specific setpoint values?
>Bob
I have a high point of 14.3v, and a low of 13.9v. Neither of which I
have seen in any normal flight condition.
Mike
Do not archive
Message 15
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Re Do I Need An Ammeter? (Hall effect is very accurate) |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Fiveonepw@aol.com
In a message dated 12/2/05 11:48:46 AM Central Standard Time,
mprather@spro.net writes:
> I think it's one of the fundamental principles of physics
> that observing a system changes the behavior of the system.
>>>
I have personally verified this for over 25 years as an automation
electrician, but never had it so simply expressed- thank you Matt for this gem!
Mark Phillips - do not archive
Message 16
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Do I Need an Ammeter? |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "David Lloyd" <skywagon@charter.net>
Maybe I missed part of this thread on "set" points for voltage alarming.
My 2 cents....
In cold weather or when the battery is down, I have seen the high charge
voltage at 14.1 to 14.3 range as pretty normal; 14.1 as pretty close to
ideal for cold temps.
On a hot day or when the battery is being just carried with a charge, the
charge level voltage is approx. 13.1 volts.
If I had an accurate high and low battery voltage alarm capability.... I
would probably set the high alarm about 0.1 volt above the highest "normal";
maybe about 14.4 v., in this example, and the lowest alarm set about 12.8
v. The lower value having a little more tolerance because of start up
loads, etc. initially draining the battery and stressing it.
David
----- Original Message -----
From: "Stewart, Michael (ISS Atlanta)" <mstewart@iss.net>
Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Do I Need an Ammeter?
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Stewart, Michael (ISS Atlanta)"
> <mstewart@iss.net>
>
> With a voltage number I would not get that. No matter what
>>I do, 14.1v is what I see. I have alarms for the voltage too. I run
>>14.1v +-.2 volts and set the alarms accordingly.
>
> How accordingly? What are your specific setpoint values?
>
>>Bob
>
> I have a high point of 14.3v, and a low of 13.9v. Neither of which I
> have seen in any normal flight condition.
>
> Mike
> Do not archive
>
>
>
Message 17
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Do I Need an Ammeter? |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "David Lloyd" <skywagon@charter.net>
Thanks Bob for the leads.......
----- Original Message -----
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr@cox.net>
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Do I Need an Ammeter?
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III"
> <nuckollsr@cox.net>
>
> At 04:54 PM 12/1/2005 -0800, you wrote:
>
>>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "David Lloyd"
>><skywagon@charter.net>
>>
>>Probably mentioned before.... there are single meters, that with a push
>>button will show both amps (current flow and direction) and buss voltage.
>>
>>Who makes a good idiot light for system voltage that will indicate both
>>high
>>and low alarm settings???
>
> If you have ov protection, the conventional wisdom that you
> don't need ov indication too. An ov condition trips the system
> off line which generates an immediate lv condition.
>
> However, B&C offers an OV/LV sensor in one package that I
> designed for them about 15 years ago for the ultralight
> market. See:
>
> http://bandc.biz/cgi-bin/ez-catalog/cat_display.cgi?6X358218
>
> http://bandc.biz/BC207-1install.pdf
>
> For turnkey lv warn and aux battery management see:
>
> http://aeroelectric.com/Catalog/AEC/9005/9005.html
>
> For DIY lv warn and aux battery management see:
>
> http://aeroelectric.com/Catalog/AEC/9005/9005-701B.pdf
> http://aeroelectric.com/articles/lvwarn/LVWarn-ABMM.html
> and
> http://aeroelectric.com/articles/lvwarn/9021-620.pdf
>
> Bob . . .
>
>
>
Message 18
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re Do I Need An Ammeter? (Hall effect is very accurate) |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Terry Watson" <terry@tcwatson.com>
And I thought that was just one of the more esoteric aspects of quantum
mechanics, applicable only in very special circumstances.
If I observe a steam locomotive's piston cranking the wheels, how am I
changing the behavior of the system? Maybe putting a pressure gauge on the
system to see if the pressure varies throughout the cycle could be said to
minutely change the behavior of the system, but just observation?
OK, I've wasted enough of everybody's time.
Terry
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Fiveonepw@aol.com
In a message dated 12/2/05 11:48:46 AM Central Standard Time,
mprather@spro.net writes:
> I think it's one of the fundamental principles of physics
> that observing a system changes the behavior of the system.
>>>
I have personally verified this for over 25 years as an automation
electrician, but never had it so simply expressed- thank you Matt for this
gem!
Mark Phillips - do not archive
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: | Re Do I Need An Ammeter? (Hall effect is very accurate) |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "RV Builder (Michael Sausen)" <rvbuilder@sausen.net>
Unless we are going to start measuring things at a quantum level, I wouldn't worry
too much about the superposition state effecting the direct state . Hmm,
was that a bird flapping it's wings in Tokyo just then. :-)
Do not archive
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Fiveonepw@aol.com
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re Do I Need An Ammeter? (Hall effect is very accurate)
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Fiveonepw@aol.com
In a message dated 12/2/05 11:48:46 AM Central Standard Time, mprather@spro.net
writes:
> I think it's one of the fundamental principles of physics that
> observing a system changes the behavior of the system.
>>>
I have personally verified this for over 25 years as an automation electrician,
but never had it so simply expressed- thank you Matt for this gem!
Mark Phillips - do not archive
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 |
|
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Jerry2DT@aol.com
List and Bob...
The guy at NAPA AV Dept. *thinks* the regulator he sold me, Echlin VR440,
interchanges with Ford VR166 per Z-11 and Bob's note 21. Would it matter if it
isn't as long as terms are wired the same?
Jerry Cochran
Wilsonville, OR
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: Do I Need an Ammeter? |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Earl_Schroeder <Earl_Schroeder@juno.com>
David,
I guess that is one reason the B&C offers a temperature 'probe' to be
located at the battery terminal.. ;-)
Not intended to stir the pot but I use a simple indication of current
reference suggested by Jim Weir at Oshkosh many moons ago. Just install
a sensitive volt meter to read the drop across the wire from the
alternator to the bus or from the battery to the bus or use two meters
as I do. Of course it doesn't give accurate current flow [unless you
take the time to calibrate it] but does give an indication if the flow
is more or less than the reference mark you placed [on a previous normal
flight with normal stuff turned on with a FAA approved grease pencil] on
the face of the meter. I find myself glancing at it after the wheels
are tucked away each time I climb out for comparisons. Once it varied
on the high side a bit so I glanced at it more often and found comfort
when it slowly lowered to the normal mark. This was after I made more
than the normal attempts to get the 0-320 to light off so even that was
'normal'. I do have the B&C voltage reg with OV and 'idiot' light for
low voltage warning.
Earl
David Lloyd wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "David Lloyd" <skywagon@charter.net>
>
>Maybe I missed part of this thread on "set" points for voltage alarming.
>My 2 cents....
>In cold weather or when the battery is down, I have seen the high charge
>voltage at 14.1 to 14.3 range as pretty normal; 14.1 as pretty close to
>ideal for cold temps.
>On a hot day or when the battery is being just carried with a charge, the
>charge level voltage is approx. 13.1 volts.
>
>
>
>
>
>
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: | Question on Z-35 |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: SMITHBKN@aol.com
Can someone with more understanding than I tell me if the auxillary battery
in the Z-35 architecture is recharged while the aircraft is operating, or in
this setup will the battery never see the alternator and thus never be
recharged while in the plane?
Jeff
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: | Re: With or without DYNON Internal Backup Battery |
?
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: rv-9a-online <rv-9a-online@telus.net>
Here's my advice on the keep alive:
I originally wired my D10A using the keep alive power connected to the
battery through a fusible link. Even with up to date software, it
discharged my main battery.
I have the internal battery, and for some reason, it continued to draw
about 100 mA, even when charged. It sounds like the software bug, but
Dynon is going to check the hardware. I also have a real time clock
problem which may be related.
The 'fix' was to disconnect the keep alive power, and run the clock on
the internal battery only. No danger of running the main battery down.
In conclusion, if you have an internal battery, do not connect the keep
alive power.
Vern Little RV-9A
Werner Schneider wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Werner Schneider <glastar@gmx.net>
>
>Hello Gilles,
>
>just talked with the guy which did the measurement I was wrong, charging
>the depleted internal battery showed 50-70mA
>the keepalive was around 10 mA. Sho with a fully charged battery you
>should be fine for more then a month.
>
>br Werner
>
>
>Gilles Thesee wrote:
>
>
>
>>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Gilles Thesee <Gilles.Thesee@ac-grenoble.fr>
>>
>>Hi Werner and all,
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>the keepalive does recharge the internal battery and there was one
>>>software version with a fault there. Indeed the Dynon does use some
>>>50-70 mA
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>That's enough to run the battery flat within a week.
>>When designing our ship's circuits, the question arose about the panel
>>clock keepalive. I'm happy with my decision to rely on the internal
>>battery instead of running the keepalive from the ship's main battery.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>Can I take you also on the Battery tester just living in Switzerland
>>>about 80 minutes away from Grenoble and want to visit my friends from
>>>work, he is flying from LFLG.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>Sure, you're welcome.
>>
>>Regards,
>>Gilles Thesee
>>Grenoble, France
>>http://contrails.free.fr
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
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: | Alternator with External Regulator? |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Tammy Goff" <tngoff@houston.rr.com>
I did a search of the aeroelectric list to see if I could find this question's
answer. I could not so:
Does anyone know of an alternator that is externally regulated (40 to 60 amp) that
will mount easily on a Lycoming O-320 E2D in a RV-6A? I have the Van's Boss
Mounts for the 60 AMP that he sells. I have his regulator too but upon close
inspection it was obvious the shipping was paid for but not the "handling."
The pulley is dented and two of the studs on the back are bent! I thought I
would see if there is any plug and play that would work with the B&C regulators
and absolve me from having to remove the IR. I made the discovery when I went
to do the IR removal on the Van's unit. I stopped without touching it and
will attempt to send it back to Van's or sell it.
Thanks George
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: | Generator question |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Ron" <rondefly@rtriano.com>
If I am still using the Delco 20Amp generator on my 0200 continental do I
really need the ANL60 with the brass strap? and for my ammeter should I get
a 50MV 20amp shunt and do I really need the OV protect module for a
generator? I am trying to get as close to the Z-19 drawings as I can with
the two batteries.
Thanks in advance
Ron Triano
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: Alternator with External Regulator? |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Earl_Schroeder <Earl_Schroeder@juno.com>
Why not go to B&C and use theirs? That is what I did on a 0-320-D and
along with their reg/ov/idiot light combo makes a rock solid
installation. No problems! Earl
Tammy Goff wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Tammy Goff" <tngoff@houston.rr.com>
>
>I did a search of the aeroelectric list to see if I could find this question's
answer. I could not so:
>
>Does anyone know of an alternator that is externally regulated (40 to 60 amp)
that will mount easily on a Lycoming O-320 E2D in a RV-6A?
>
>
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: Alternator with External Regulator? |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Wayne Sweet" <w_sweet@comcast.net>
I agree. I have B&C alternator, battery (and backup for dual LSE CDI's),
voltage regulator and starter. Other than a field wire termial connector
breaking due to my not providing a support for the wire, it's been over 10
years with only one battery replacement. And that replaced battery sits on
my hangar floor (in a box) for 3 years STILL holding a charge (OK, I charged
it once). Why was it removed, you ask...........six years on a battery is
long enough.
Wayne
----- Original Message -----
From: "Earl_Schroeder" <Earl_Schroeder@juno.com>
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Alternator with External Regulator?
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Earl_Schroeder
> <Earl_Schroeder@juno.com>
>
> Why not go to B&C and use theirs? That is what I did on a 0-320-D and
> along with their reg/ov/idiot light combo makes a rock solid
> installation. No problems! Earl
>
> Tammy Goff wrote:
>
>>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Tammy Goff"
>><tngoff@houston.rr.com>
>>
>>I did a search of the aeroelectric list to see if I could find this
>>question's answer. I could not so:
>>
>>Does anyone know of an alternator that is externally regulated (40 to 60
>>amp) that will mount easily on a Lycoming O-320 E2D in a RV-6A?
>>
>>
>
>
>
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 |
|
| Subject: | Garmin 300XL and Database intent |
INNOCENT GLOBAL 0.0003 1.0000 -4.4871
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: <bakerocb@cox.net>
Responding to an AeroElectric-List message previously posted by: "Mark &
Lisa" <marknlisa@hometel.com> and copied below.
12/02/2005
Hello Mark and Lisa, I read your posting below with great interest and found
myself mostly in agreement. But a few points puzzled me -- can we pursue
them?
1) <<You wrote: "My interpretation is if SOME of the data is current, then
the database
contains current data and meets the intent of the AC."
OK, you are entitled to your interpretation. (You are not a lawyer by any
chance are you? I am reminded of that description of a lawyer as one who is
skilled in evading the law.)
2) <<You wrote: "It's up to me to determine of the data is current before
use. This allows me (and everyone else in my situation) to continue to use
my GX60 following the guidance contained in the supplement approved when the
unit was installed.>>
If we are talking amateur built experimental aircraft here the point is moot
because the builder can write his AFM and AFM supplement to say, or not say,
what he chooses as long as it is not in direct conflict with the FAR's, the
GPS manufacturer's "pilot guide", or the AIM.
If we are talking type certificated aircraft here then it would appear that
the actual wording contained in the AFM supplement that was approved by the
FAA for that aircraft would control.
If the supplement was written back when AC 20-138 was current and the
supplement contains the sample wording provided by that AC one has
considerable data substitution leeway as described by Old Bob in his quotes
from that version of the AC.
If the supplement was written after AC 20-138A became effective and it
contains the wording from the sample in that version of the AC then one is
forced into splitting much finer hairs regarding the FAA's intent in my
opinion .
3) You wrote: "I've never received (from the FAA) a notice telling me to
change the information
in the FAA-approved supplement, so I believe I'm still legal in using it, as
approved."
I presume here that you are referring to a type certificated aircraft with
AFM supplement wording following the sample wording provided in AC 20-138. I
would agree with your position.
4) You wrote: "I update my database at the beginning of the update cycle,
such that
my database is dated later than the date of the chart system's first update
cycle. Now I know all changed data on the update cards apply to my
database."
You lost me here unless you mean that you put in a new chip, card, or
software that officially updates the entire navigation database. It is not
important that I understand, but I'll provide the following from TSO C129a
regarding Class A equipment.
"a. (3) (x) 1. The equipment shall provide an appropriately updatable
navigation data base containing at least the following location information
in terms of latitude and longitude with a resolution of 0.01 minute or
better for the area(s) in which IFR operations are to be approved: all
airports, VORs (and VORTACs), NDBs, and all named waypoints and
intersections shown on en route and terminal area charts, Standard
Instrument Departures (SIDs) and Standard Terminal Arrival Routes (STARs).
NOTE: Manual entry/update of navigation data base data shall not be
possible. (This requirement does not preclude the storage of "user defined
data" within the equipment.)"
Since I am not sure what you are doing I don't know if this pertains or not.
5) You wrote: "Prior to flight, I check all the data I plan to use. By
carrying this list
in-flight I can quickly and accurately assess the validity of data I hadn't
planned to use. If data I need for a particular route is out of date, I
simply request a different route, or use the VOR. So far (3 years), I've
never NOT been able to complete a flight due to out-of-date data."
This seems very conservative and safe to me.
6) You wrote: "I'm meeting the intent of both the FAA and equipment
manufacturer -- and my
own fairly stringent common-sense and safety requirements. And I believe
I'm making Old Bob smile, because this is exactly the result he was shooting
for!"
Anything that makes Old Bob smile is OK with me.
OC
<<OC, While I generally agree with the most conservative opinion when it
comes to
operations under IFR, I respectfully disagree with your interpretation:
> So it appears to me that you are correct
> if one is following AC20-138, but
> that AC20-138A has a specific limitation
> wording recommendation that the
> ".... database must be installed and
> contain current data." I interpret that
> to mean that all of the data in the
> data base must be current.
My interpretation is if SOME of the data is current, then the database
contains current data and meets the intent of the AC. It's up to me to
determine of the data is current before use. This allows me (and everyone
else in my situation) to continue to use my GX60 following the guidance
contained in the supplement approved when the unit was installed. I've
never received (from the FAA) a notice telling me to change the information
in the FAA-approved supplement, so I believe I'm still legal in using it, as
approved.
> As a practical matter it would be
> very difficult for a pilot flying IFR
> in IMC who was taken off his planned
> route to confirm that all of the data
> points on his new routing were in fact
> accurately portrayed in his out dated
> data base.
Actually data currency is very easily determined in a number of ways. I use
Howie Keefe's Air Chart system. I receive a cycle update every 28 days
listing all the information that's changed since the last cycle. The list
is cumulative; all changes since the first cycle of the year are on the
list. I update my database at the beginning of the update cycle, such that
my database is dated later than the date of the chart system's first update
cycle. Now I know all changed data on the update cards apply to my
database.
Prior to flight, I check all the data I plan to use. By carrying this list
in-flight I can quickly and accurately assess the validity of data I hadn't
planned to use. If data I need for a particular route is out of date, I
simply request a different route, or use the VOR. So far (3 years), I've
never NOT been able to complete a flight due to out-of-date data.
I'm meeting the intent of both the FAA and equipment manufacturer -- and my
own fairly stringent common-sense and safety requirements. And I believe
I'm making Old Bob smile, because this is exactly the result he was shooting
for!
Mark & Lisa Sletten
Legacy FG N828LM
http://www.legacyfgbuilder.com
Message 29
| 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: | Troubleshooting/agonizing over minutia...(was something |
about ammeters, IIRC)
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Fiveonepw@aol.com
In a message dated 12/02/2005 1:32:41 PM Central Standard Time,
terry@tcwatson.com writes:
If I observe a steam locomotive's piston cranking the wheels, how am I
changing the behavior of the system? Maybe putting a pressure gauge on the
system to see if the pressure varies throughout the cycle could be said to
minutely change the behavior of the system, but just observation?
OK, I've wasted enough of everybody's time.
>>>
It's esoteric- my own unfortunate experience is that when a
system/device/machine exhibits an anomaly, observing same with intentions of corrective
action
only incites the system/device/machine to NOT malfunction resulting in
additional caffiene & nicotine consumption and crossword prosecution. My advice
FWIW? Be a Nuckollhead, build an airplane, be at one with physics...
Life's a bee-atch, no? Wanna discuss tailwheel(vacuum tubes) vs.
tricycles(transistors)? Ooops! Nomex originated as NASA recovery parachutes but
may not
help here....8-)
Mark -do NOT archive
Message 30
| 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: Do I Need an Ammeter? |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Speedy11@aol.com
In reference to voltmeters, ammeters, and loadmeters, Bob says:
I'm not suggesting that one should not have these capabilities
on the panel. We're bringing a new line of high-quality loadmeters
and perhaps voltmeters to the market place in a few weeks.
I'll only suggest that these devices are adjuncts to active
notification of low voltage combined with a knowledge
of battery capacity as it relates to e-bus loads and the
builder's pre-selected endurance goals. Instrument readings
are interesting and useful in some venues but nearly useless
when operations/maintenance are not well planned and things
under the cowl are having a bad day.
Agree wholeheartedly. Now, assuming I have a low voltage warning at, say
13.0 volts, and an OV protection scheme with associated warning light, I want to
know how and where is best to take voltage and amperage readings. Here's what
I want to know about: I want to sense amperage load at the alternator B lead
and the main battery and the standby battery. What is the appropriate
indicator to use for each of those readings (i.e., a plus-minus ammeter or a positive
indication ammeter (loadmeter?))? Do I need to also sample voltage at each
of those locations or is the voltage the same throughout the electrical circuit?
The way I understand it (from listening on this list) is that the voltage can
be measured at any location in the entire circuit and that it is the same for
the entire circuit. Amperage loads, however, will vary depending on where
the reading is taken in the circuit. So, a reading at the alternator B lead
could indicate when a new load is added to the circuit (such as pitot heat)
whereas a reading at the main or standby battery will indicate the charge or
discharge being applied to the respective battery. I would find such information
to
be, at the least, interesting.
From what I understand, an acceptable method to sample the load at any one
point in the circuit is by using a hall effect device. I understand a HE device
can only provide me with an amperage reading - no voltage.
If my understandings are convoluted, then please correct me. However, if
I've understood it correctly, then please tell me how to best obtain the desired
readings.
In advance, thanks.
Stan Sutterfield
Message 31
| 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: Electronics International Capacitive Fuel Level |
Probes P-300C
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "John Schroeder" <jschroeder@perigee.net>
Mark & D -
Here is a quote from the BMA discussion board, followed by a reply from
Bob Northrup - their tech support guy. We were told that the EI and VM
probes were virtually identical so we had to buy the Princeton modules for
our VM probes. Using the sensor map that BMA put together, we are putting
the output of the two princeton modules into pins 11 & 12 of Analog 2 on
the EFIS/ONE. We are using the frequency channels for fuel flow and
tachometer.
Mark - It looks like you are hooking your EI probes directly to the two hi
freq channels (13 & 14) (Pins 9 & 10 of analog 2). I'll be interested in
seeing how it works and quite irked if we got a bad steer from BMA. And
being irked is also contingent on finding out that the EI and VM probes
are not equal electrically. This would make the tech people at EI appear
to be wandering in the swamp.
Anyway, since neither of us are flying yet, let's keep each other informed
as to how this problem shakes out.
Cheers,
John
===================Quote =============
mark
Guest
Posts: n/a
Did I miss it somewhere that the EI capacitance fuel probes can be hooked
to the Hi-frequency channels on the BMA, without any interface/converter
box? I have just spent many hours trying to figure out how to do this and
I stumbled across this fact almost by accident. Seems that this
information could/should have been included in the installation
instructions. What I did get (see previous posting) was the statement, "EI
probe transducers are PWM which is not supported by BMA." The EI probe
comes with a small circuit that converts the signal to PWM, so I don't
need another one, and the 0-5v PWM signal can be read by the BMA EFIS-1.
#43
07-27-2004, 10:59 PM
bob
Guest
Posts: n/a
No Mark you didn't miss anything. You can't use the high freq channels to
measure your fuel. You need freq to voltage converters that put out 0 - 5
vdc and wire to the voltage channels.
================Unquote====================
On Fri, 02 Dec 2005 11:47:13 -0600, D Wysong <hdwysong@gmail.com> wrote:
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: D Wysong <hdwysong@gmail.com>
>
> Ah, HA! I stand corrected, Mark. Thanks for the data! My last
> statement should have read "capacitive fuel probes won't generate a PWM
> signal without additional circuitry." As usual, the confusion about EI
> the P-300C probes was on MY end! :-)
>
> So, to decode it all:
> -- Van's fuel probes are simple capacitors (i.e. - Van is NOT reselling
> EI probes). If you need PWM output, hook the probe to the $45 dongle
> from Van's. If you need 0-5 VDC proportional output, hook the probe to
> a $70 dongle (purchased in pairs for $140) from BM.
> -- EI and Vision Microsystems probes provide PWM output. This PWM
> output can be fed into BM units via the high frequency inputs. If you
> need/want 0-5 VDC proportional output instead, hook them to a $$$ dongle
> from Princeton.
> -- If you haven't purchased probes and want 0-5 VDC proportional output
> look to Princeton or Westach.
>
> Unless you're bolting on a turbine engine or something else that
> requires the BM high freq inputs for instrumentation you should be good
> to go. If all else fails, at least the solution is only a dongle away.
>
> Thanks again for those scope traces!
>
> D
>
> ------------
> Mark R Steitle wrote:
>> Hi D,
>> I'm responding to you directly so I can include some screen shots of the
>> output from my EI capacitive fuel probes. I sent them to John also.
>>
>> I was told by EI that the output was a pwm signal, so I don't understand
>> your last sentence. Anyway, they do generate a signal that the BMA E/1
>> can read on the frequency input channel. At least, it sure appears to
>> work. I'll be able to tell for sure when I get the wings on and I'm
>> able to add fuel to the tanks. The lab tests turned out positive.
>>
>> Mark
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
>> [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of D
>> Wysong
>> Sent: Thursday, December 01, 2005 7:54 PM
>> To: aeroelectric-list@matronics.com.Level.Probes.P-300C
>> Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Electronics International Capacitive
>> Fuel Level Probes P-300C
>>
>> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: D Wysong <hdwysong@gmail.com>
>>
>> Hi John -
>>
>> It sounds like Mark is using frequency inputs available on the BM unit
>> instead of the proportional analog (0-5 VDC) inputs for his fuel level
>> signals.
>>
>> That was a work-around for the BM units late last decade (... before the
>>
>> external DC dongles were created) when folks were trying to integrate
>> their Vision Microsystems probes. Those probes, however, are PWM
>> generators.
>>
>> A P-300C (EI capacitive fuel probe) won't generate a PWM signal without
>> additional circuitry. So... I reckon I'm puzzled, too! :-)
>>
>> D
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
--
Message 32
| 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: Question on Z-35 |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr@cox.net>
At 06:52 PM 12/2/2005 -0500, you wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: SMITHBKN@aol.com
>
>Can someone with more understanding than I tell me if the auxillary battery
>in the Z-35 architecture is recharged while the aircraft is operating, or in
>this setup will the battery never see the alternator and thus never be
>recharged while in the plane?
If you close the switch, the relay closes and the battery
is supported like all other batteries in the airplane. The
switch is closed for all operations after the engine starts
and just after shutdown. The only time the switch is open
for operation is times when the alternator(s) are not available
for running system loads (and charging batteries). During this
time, the switch is open so that the aux battery is isolated
from the rest of the system and tasked with powering devices
having a higher order priority than devices on the other battery.
This philosophy is the same for all multiple battery installations
and is discussed in Chapter 17.
Bob . . .
Message 33
| 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: | Do I Need an Ammeter? |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr@cox.net>
At 01:02 PM 12/2/2005 -0500, you wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Stewart, Michael (ISS Atlanta)"
><mstewart@iss.net>
>
>With a voltage number I would not get that. No matter what
> >I do, 14.1v is what I see. I have alarms for the voltage too. I run
> >14.1v +-.2 volts and set the alarms accordingly.
>
> How accordingly? What are your specific setpoint values?
>
> >Bob
>
>I have a high point of 14.3v, and a low of 13.9v. Neither of which I
>have seen in any normal flight condition.
These are sufficiently 'tight' to properly annunciate
an 'abnormal' condition.
Bob . . .
Message 34
| 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: Regulator VR |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr@cox.net>
At 03:05 PM 12/2/2005 -0500, you wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Jerry2DT@aol.com
>
>List and Bob...
>
>The guy at NAPA AV Dept. *thinks* the regulator he sold me, Echlin VR440,
>interchanges with Ford VR166 per Z-11 and Bob's note 21. Would it matter
>if it
>isn't as long as terms are wired the same?
Wouldn't call it an interchange. See:
http://www.rockauto.com/ref/SMP/SMPDetail2.html?VR440.jpg
while the "Ford" VR166 looks like:
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Regulators/Ford_SS_Reg.jpg
The VR440 has 4 wires that in all probability have
functions like:
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Regulators/Alternator_Test_1.jpg
. . . but without specific data describing the VR440
functionality, the most I could offer is "probably".
VR166 regulators are common and plentiful. See:
http://www.sherco-auto.com/Merchant2/merchant.mvc?Session_ID=088ff92644653b316e0c97d6f1c9ce36&Screen=PROD&Product_Code=VR166
http://www.rockauto.com/ref/SMP/SMPDetail2.html?VR166.jpg
This product crosses to a variety of other drop in replacements
like these:
http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=8013496032&category=33577
and the GR540 and VR266 shown on
http://autolider.com.tw/acc%20parts/electrical%20%20parts/elec%20eng%20parts/REGULATORS-1.htm
So knowing nothing about the regulator he sold you and
given the prolific supply of regulators I know will work
for anything from 5 to 20 dollars, I think I'd see if
he'll take the VR440 back.
Bob . . .
Message 35
| 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 with External Regulator? |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr@cox.net>
At 07:01 PM 12/2/2005 -0600, you wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Tammy Goff" <tngoff@houston.rr.com>
>
>I did a search of the aeroelectric list to see if I could find this
>question's answer. I could not so:
>
>Does anyone know of an alternator that is externally regulated (40 to 60
>amp) that will mount easily on a Lycoming O-320 E2D in a RV-6A? I have
>the Van's Boss Mounts for the 60 AMP that he sells. I have his regulator
>too but upon close inspection it was obvious the shipping was paid for but
>not the "handling." The pulley is dented and two of the studs on the back
>are bent! I thought I would see if there is any plug and play that would
>work with the B&C regulators and absolve me from having to remove the
>IR. I made the discovery when I went to do the IR removal on the Van's
>unit. I stopped without touching it and will attempt to send it back to
>Van's or sell it.
>Thanks George
B&C is the only company I'm aware of that offers
the ND alternator modified for external regulator
usage. Depending on how handy you are with the
tools and figuring things out, you might consider
modifying your own. Some articles on suggested
techniques have been cited here on the list.
Bob . . .
Message 36
| 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: | Master Relay Mount |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "DonVS" <dsvs@comcast.net>
Bob,
Anything new on this issue? Would you use them as delivered or would you
recommend cutting the plastic off? Thanks. Don
-----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: Master Relay Mount
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III"
<nuckollsr@cox.net>
At 11:34 AM 11/23/2005 -0500, you wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: BobsV35B@aol.com
>
>
>In a message dated 11/23/2005 10:06:58 A.M. Central Standard Time,
>rv-9a-online@telus.net writes:
>
>Bob, another issue with the booties is that they interfere with torquing
>the mounting bolts. They will crack before the proper torque is
>achieved. I've chucked my B&C contactors for this reason.
>
>Vern Little
>RV-9A
>
>
>Good Morning Vern,
>
>That brings up the question as to how we are determining "proper " torque?
>
>To have the attaching hardware stretched to just short of it's elastic
limit
>is one type of "torque". To squeeze a plastic such as the booties to a
>point where no creeping or cracking is another form of "proper" torque.
If
>elastic stop nuts are used for attachment of the booted device, they
>should hold
>adequately at whatever point is determined to be optimum for the subject
>fastening.
>
>The term "torque to specification" is often used without proper regard to
>what it is that we are trying to accomplish.
Exactly. When I design joints that have compressibility, I'll
call out an all metal locknut. Drive the threaded fasteners together
such that all the slack is out. Finally I'll specify some amount of
additional rotation beyond the zero-slack point where thread pitch
and rotation set the crush value.
Stancor's choice of plastic in this instance is truly mystifying.
Bob . . .
Other Matronics Email List Services
These Email List Services are sponsored solely by Matronics and through the generous Contributions of its members.
-- Please support this service by making your Contribution today! --
|