Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 06:40 AM - Re: 24V starter on a 12V system (marknlisa@hometel.com)
2. 07:13 AM - Re: Re: Modern ND external voltage (Charlie Kuss)
3. 07:16 AM - Re: Electronics International Capacitive Fuel Level Probes P-300C (owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com)
4. 07:22 AM - Re: Internally Regulated Alternator Update? (Hinde, Frank George (Corvallis))
5. 07:25 AM - retrofitting OV relay (Brian Lloyd)
6. 07:26 AM - Re: Re: 24V starter on a 12V system (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
7. 07:36 AM - Re: Electronics International Capacitive Fuel Level Probes P-300C (Mark R Steitle)
8. 07:44 AM - Re: Internally Regulated Alternator Update? (sportav8r@aol.com)
9. 08:33 AM - Re: retrofitting OV relay (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
10. 08:53 AM - Re: retrofitting OV relay (Mickey Coggins)
11. 10:21 AM - Re: headphone wiring / bluetooth? (Steve Sampson)
12. 11:41 AM - Re: headphone wiring / bluetooth? (Matt Prather)
13. 12:06 PM - Re: headphone wiring / bluetooth? (Jim Baker)
14. 12:13 PM - Re: headphone wiring / bluetooth? (Mark R Steitle)
15. 01:04 PM - Re: headphone wiring / bluetooth? (Matt Prather)
16. 02:37 PM - Re: headphone wiring (Eric M. Jones)
17. 03:17 PM - EV200 Contactors - Z-14 (John Tvedte)
18. 04:02 PM - Re: headphone wiring / bluetooth? (chaztuna@adelphia.net)
19. 04:06 PM - Re: EV200 Contactors - Z-14 and the BIG zap. (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
20. 05:07 PM - Re: headphone wiring / bluetooth? (Matt Prather)
21. 05:25 PM - Re: PC680 Life (Speedy11@aol.com)
22. 05:32 PM - Mini-EFIS Panel Considerations (Larry E. James)
23. 05:44 PM - Re: headphone wiring / bluetooth? (Peter Laurence)
24. 05:45 PM - Re: Mini-EFIS Panel Considerations INNOCENT GLOBAL 0.3072 1.0000 -0.3180 (luckymacy@comcast.net (lucky))
25. 06:25 PM - Re: Mini-EFIS Panel Considerations INNOCENT GLOBAL 0.3072 1.0000 -0.3180 (Folbrecht, Paul)
26. 07:02 PM - Re: headphone wiring / bluetooth? (Craig Payne)
27. 07:26 PM - Re: Mini-EFIS Panel Considerations INNOCENT GLOBAL 0.3072 1.0000 -0.3180 (Craig Payne)
28. 07:31 PM - Battery Monitor - Bogus or Brilliant? (Speedy11@aol.com)
29. 08:03 PM - Re: Re: PC680 Life (Alex Peterson)
30. 08:31 PM - Re: Battery Monitor - Bogus or Brilliant? (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
31. 08:36 PM - Re: Battery Monitor - Bogus or Brilliant? (Craig Payne)
32. 09:39 PM - Re: Battery Monitor - Bogus or Brilliant? (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
33. 09:42 PM - Re: Battery Monitor - Bogus or Brilliant? (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
34. 09:54 PM - Re: headphone wiring / bluetooth? (Charlie Kuss)
35. 10:10 PM - Re: Battery Monitor - Bogus or Brilliant? (Brian Lloyd)
36. 10:24 PM - Re: Mini-EFIS Panel Considerations INNOCENT (Werner Schneider)
37. 10:33 PM - Re: Battery Monitor - Bogus or Brilliant? (Craig Payne)
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: 24V starter on a 12V system |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: marknlisa@hometel.com
Bob said:
> Mark,
>
> When you respond to someone's comments you need to trim away THE
> REST of the irrelevant materials in the Digest Dump of the day's
postings.
Bob,
I apologize, I thought I'd deleted all the other material. In fact, when
I was reading the digest this morning I zipped over my own post without
noticing that I'd incorporated yesterday's entire digest -- as I rolled on
down the post I kept thinking "What idiot included the entire digest in
his post?" I'll double check next time!
> My best recommendation is try to keep it simple. Reduce
> the numbers of ways that controls can be mismanaged and
> produce undesirable results. The z-figures have been crafted
> with these goals in mind. Adding or deleting features
> requires some consideration that I don't have time to
> offer right now. We've discussed all the upsides/downsides
> of not using the 2-10, using key switches, etc but none
> of those discussions illuminated a compelling reason
> to modify the z-figures. Just make your decisions with
> a level of awareness: Does the change really add value
> to an already robust, trouble-free system or are you
> stroking a quest for the "ultimate" configuration even
> though the feature has a very remote probability of
> improving on the outcome of your day.
My engine choice drives the requirement for a 24V starter on a 12V system;
I have no choice but to modify the z-figure. I'm looking for some backup
on my thought process. How do you feel about elimination of the e-bus as
I asked on my last post?
Factors:
1. A total emergency load of 6 amps (including the contactors)
2. 34ah (17ah X 2) on hand
3. A pre-made decision to land immediately in the event of alternator failure
Given these, what does the e-bus do for me?
I see your point about the 2-10 switch. But, if I read the schematic
correctly, without the DC mstr switch on I'll have no power to main power
bus and, consequently, the alternator field (thru the alternator switch),
thus making it impossible to turn the the alternator on with the DC mstr
off. Am I reading that wrong?
BTW, these questions aren't only for Bob; it sounds like he's extremely
busy. If anyone else has constructive criticism I'm all ears!
Mark
Message 2
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Modern ND external voltage |
(Charlie and Gert)
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Charlie Kuss <chaztuna@adelphia.net> (Charlie
and Gert)
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: <gmcjetpilot@yahoo.com>
>snipped
>
>Here is a site where a guy shows both ways to Mods of a ND alternator (A
>and B type). I think it is clear and complete for both methods.
>http://homepages.paradise.net.nz/georger/
>
>You have to hunt around but it is on his electrical and alternator page.
George,
Thanks for the link to George's Falco site. His modification photos are
much nicer than those in the CONTACT MAGAZINE article. I've e-mailed him
asking for the full size version of those photos.
>snipped
> Since you or I brought it up are ND's for external VR's stock.
> ND made for external regulation they are available NEW.
>Here are some new units with E-VR's units you may look
>at:
> Lester #13353 75 amp (see specs below)
> Lester#13578 90 amps (a little bigger than 75 amps but smaller than 120
> amp units)
>http://www.vicic.com.tw/alternators/gvdn10901214.htm
>(says internal but it is external VR)
> All have serpentine belt pulleys an need to change and Fans are
>CW (backwards for us).
>
>snipped
> >I'm planning on heated seats or heated clothing for my RV-8A
> >project. That is one reason why I want a unit with 60+ amp
> >capacity. The other reason is I, like you, believe that an
> >alternator's life expectancy is directly >related to how hard
> >(percentage of rated output) it is used.
>
> >These can be swapped out for the older 2.5" diameter V type
> >pulleys used on the earlier models. The early 1980s model units
> >and the later 1990s internally regulated units all use 15mm
> >diameter rotor shafts. Because of this, you can simply swap out
> >the pulleys. I'm going to use a 4" diameter aluminum
> >aftermarket pulley.
>
> That is a good idea. I had a RV-4 and now a RV-7 and with a
>small 2.68" pulley and small 45 amp ND I have a solid 1"
>clearance. I could not run a 4" pulley. My question is do you
>need a 4" pulley? I know with Lycoming the 7.5" flywheel is not
>an issue with a 2.5" alt pulley. The 9.75" flywheel needs a 2.8-
>3.0" alternator pulley in my opinion to keep the speed down, but
>I don't know your application.
I'm planning on building up an ECI Titan O-361 kit engine. Basically this
is a clone of the O-360-A1A, so I "assume" the flywheel and pulley diameter
would be the same. My parts catalog shows 4 variations for the flywheel
assembly for the O-360-A1A . They are:
LW-16064 12/14 pitch 1.91 to 1 drive ratio
75221 12/14 pitch 2.5 to 1 drive ratio
77579 12/14 pitch 3.25 to 1 drive ratio
75030 12/14 pitch 3.25 to 1 drive ratio
The 77579 seems to be the most popular number, as it is called out on 19 of
the 20 Axx derivatives shown on that page. Does this use the larger 9.75"
flywheel? If so, can you recommend a part number for a 2.8" - 3" Vee groove
pulley (or an ND part number for same)? I'd prefer the 3" model. I only
mention the 4" pulley because it was offered as an after market item in the
past. I don't think it's still being manufactured. I did manage to purchase
a NOS unit from another RV builder.
>snipped
> I know Chrysler
>uses ND alternators. In fact it is the Chrysler late 1990-2001 that use
>the ND alternators with external regulation I mentioned above
>(but it is not available from Victory, but available new from
>another good company)
>
> Alternator - Nippondenso ER/IF < external reg/internal fan
>75 Amp, 12 Volt, CW, 7-Groove Pulley
> Used On:
>(1996-92) Dodge B Series Van 3.9L, 5.2L, 5.9L
>(1993-92) Dodge D Series Pickup 3.9L, 5.2L, 5.9L
>(1996-92) Dodge Dakota 3.9L, 5.2L
>(1996-94) Dodge Ram Pickup 3.9L, 5.2L, 5.9L
>(1993-92) Dodge Ramcharger 5.2L, 5.9L
>(1993-92) Dodge W Series Pickup 3.9L, 5.2L, 5.9L
>Replaces:
>Nippondenso 121000-346
>Lester Nos: 13353
>Alternator, 100% New
>
> Cheers George
Great info and back ground. Thanks for all the information George.
Charlie Kuss
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: | Electronics International Capacitive Fuel Level |
Probes P-300C
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by:
Mark,
My understanding is that alcohol in mogas will radically change capacitance
gage readings because alcohol's dielectric constant is very different from
gasoline's. If you calibrate your capacitance gages for 100LL then put mogas
with x% alcohol, your gages will need to be recalibrated.
This has been discussed before but I fail to remember that any one came with
a satisfactory response. In the short term I shall be using 100LL as mogas
is not readily available at airports in France. In the long term, as 100LL
gets phased off and replaced with mogas, either I find a way to recalibrate
the tanks from empty to full each time I fill them up or I switch to
standard resistive float type senders.
As for an independent low level fuel warning - I use an optical sensor which
turns on when the level drops below the fuel pickup when the plane is
inclined 15 forward - I do not know how much this represents in horizontal
flight but I figure that between the two tanks it should be 5 to 10 gallons,
i.e. half hour to one hour of total flying time.
Michele
RV8 - Fuselage
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Mark R
Steitle
Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Electronics International Capacitive Fuel
Level Probes P-300C
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Mark R Steitle"
<mark.steitle@austin.utexas.edu>
Matt,
Thanks for the head's up. As for the 7 gallons, I'm figuring one gallon
of unusable fuel. I'm also estimating the fuel burn to be about 12
gallons/hr in cruise. Actual numbers may vary. What I was looking for
is a warning at a reasonable point prior to the engine going quiet.
I'll measure the actual time to fuel exhaustion once I'm flying.
Good point on the probes. What I should do is drain the right tank (the
one that's been calibrated) and then add ten gallons of 100LL and see
what it reads. That should give me a good idea of what to expect with
the two different fuels.
While we're on the subject, I actually have a third method to judge fuel
used/remaining. I'm running a RWS engine monitor that calculates fuel
used by knowing fuel pressure and the duty cycle of the injectors. This
will also need to be calibrated at some point, but I've heard that it is
accurate to within 1 or 2 tenths of a gallon per tank. We'll see.
Mark S.
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Matt
Prather
Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Electronics International Capacitive
Fuel Level Probes P-300C
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Matt Prather"
<mprather@spro.net>
Hi Mark,
I don't mean to insult your intelligence, but I am wondering whether you
have accounted for unuseable fuel in all of this (when counting on 1hour
left when the lights come on). Is all of the fuel in your airplane
useable? Or have you actually added more than 7gal to the tanks (when
the
lights come on)?
Also, I propose that you transfer the 10 gallons of Mogas from the tank
that's calibrated to the tank that isn't. Then you can compare whether
the calibration of each gauge is consistent from side to side. After
that, add 100LL to the tank that's already calibrated, and compare the
readings. Otherwise, it seems that you have 1 equation and 2 unknowns -
you are depending on the two instruments having precisely the same
performance.
Regards,
Matt-
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Mark R Steitle"
> <mark.steitle@austin.utexas.edu>
>
> John,
> I have a progress report concerning the EI capacitive fuel probes, the
> 7805 voltage regulators, and the BMA EFIS/1.
>
> This weekend I finished up the fuel lines and connected everything up
so
> I could put fuel in my wing tanks. Using mogas, I added a gallon at a
> time, calibrating the AD output for each gallon. I stopped at 10
> gallons. Once calibration points were entered in the E/1 calibration
> screen, the fuel gauges read as they should. So, I can report that
the
> Princeton Electronics converters are not necessary with the BAM E/1 as
> long as you use the high frequency channels for fuel levels. In the
> next week or two I will be adding 100LL to the other wing tank so as
to
> compare the readings with mogas vs. 100LL.
>
> One other thing that I was able to verify. I had installed the GEMS
> ELS-1100 solid-state fluid level sensors at the 7-gallon point in each
> wing tank to serve as an independent 30-minute low fuel warning
> indicator. When adding fuel, the LED was illuminated until the level
> hit approx 7+ gallons where it went out. This will be totally
> independent of the EFIS/1 gauges. Between the two tanks, it will
> provide a 1 hour warning. So, if I pay attention to the bright red
> LED's on the panel, I shouldn't be running out of gas anytime soon.
>
> Mark S.
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of
John
> Schroeder
> To: aeroelectric-list@matronics.com
> Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Electronics International Capacitive
> Fuel Level Probes P-300C
>
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "John Schroeder"
> <jschroeder@perigee.net>
>
> Mark -
>
> Looks like you rolled your own votage regulator(s). Could you just use
> one
> of the LM-7805's for feeding both probes?
> Do you have a schematic?
>
> We bought the modules direct from Todd at Princeton Electronics and I
> doubt if they will take them back because they have been installed and
> electrically set to the zero point. I'll ask, however.
>
> One plan that comes to mind is to keep the modules if they cannot be
> returned, and use them for the 5 volts out to the probes. The signal
> wires
> would then be pinned to the hi freq ports on the EFIS - like you did.
> With
> this solution, assuming that it all works, we would not have to
> calibrate
> the modules with a full tank (loaded by the quarter tank) and then
> calibrate the EFIS by 2 gallon increments. Seems that we would reduce
> the
> error potential by 50% by dispensing with the module calibrations.
>
> Any thoughts?
>
> Cheers,
>
> John
> Lancair ES: Painting
>
>
> On Tue, 6 Dec 2005 15:15:51 -0600, Mark R Steitle
> <mark.steitle@austin.utexas.edu> wrote:
>
>> Yes, I used the LM-7805 voltage regulators to get the 5v needed for
> the
>> EI capacitive probes. I urge you to try using them without the
>> Princeton modules by hooking the output lead from the each fuel probe
> to
>> one of the h/f inputs on the EFIS/1, configure for proper voltage and
>> calibrate.
>
>
> --
>
>
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: | Internally Regulated Alternator Update? |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Hinde, Frank George (Corvallis)" <frank.hinde@hp.com>
One of the real gewels in the 40 to 55amp range (depending on who you
believe) is the 1987 Suzuki Samuri Nippon Denso #14684. This is a very
common unit..I have flown one for 400 hours and has been completely
trouble free..If you ignore the continual oil spray test my engine has
been giving it...:)
In the 60 to 70amp range is the 1987 Toyota Camry...heavier than the
Suzuki but apparently a fine unit. The problem is it comes with a
serpentine belt pulley...I picked up a v belt pulley from an auto
electric rebuilders not problem though.
There a couple of starting points.
The Toyota unit will not fit the standard Vans bracket which probably
means you will end up making your own....Which is what I will be working
on during lunch today as it happens..:)
Frank
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of
Robert L. Nuckolls, III
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Internally Regulated Alternator Update?
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III"
--> <nuckollsr@cox.net>
At 09:49 PM 12/12/2005 -0500, you wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: sportav8r@aol.com
>
>Let me make sure I understand you correctly: if I locate a mechanically
>suitable IR alternator of suitable capacity, a topology for full OV
>protection and safe in-flight shut-down control of the alternator is
>soon to be published on the AeroElectric list or in the 'Connection,
>with minimal retrofitting hassle into the Z-13 or -14 architectures?
Absolutely.
>If so, that's great! I can hold my breath that long.
Don't hold your breath and don't even delay flying.
The "barefoot" alternator has a good track record.
The "mod" will all under the cowl.
>(I'd still like a hint on a magic part #, though. You get weird looks
>walkiong into a shop and asking for a part by spec versus what car it's
>for, as you know.)
George has published several recommendations
that are part number specific. Check back into
the recent archives.
Bob . . .
Message 5
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | retrofitting OV relay |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Brian Lloyd <brian-yak@lloyd.com>
I am working on a fix for the Nanchang CJ6A. There have been a couple of
voltage regulator failures in CJ6As that use the newer "solid state" VR.
Seems that when the Chinese created the newer VR to replace the older
carbon-pile unit, they didn't bother to add OV protection. The result is
that the generator field goes on hard and the generator then drives the
bus voltage way high, usually destroying the battery. There was even one
case of melted wiring.
The simple solution is for people to just install the B&C alternator and
controller but some are balking at the price. I want to find a 28V OV
relay that will open the field circuit when the bus voltage is too high.
Would anyone happen to have any part numbers for a 28V OV relay near at
hand?
--
Brian Lloyd 2243 Cattle Dr.
brian-yak at lloyd dot com Folsom, CA 95630
+1.916.367.2131 (voice) +1.270.912.0788 (fax)
I fly because it releases my mind from the tyranny of petty things . . .
- Antoine de Saint-Exupery
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: 24V starter on a 12V system |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr@cox.net>
>
>
>My engine choice drives the requirement for a 24V starter on a 12V system;
>I have no choice but to modify the z-figure. I'm looking for some backup
>on my thought process. How do you feel about elimination of the e-bus as
>I asked on my last post?
>
>Factors:
>
>1. A total emergency load of 6 amps (including the contactors)
>2. 34ah (17ah X 2) on hand
>3. A pre-made decision to land immediately in the event of alternator failure
>
>Given these, what does the e-bus do for me?
Not much if you never need it.
>I see your point about the 2-10 switch. But, if I read the schematic
>correctly, without the DC mstr switch on I'll have no power to main power
>bus and, consequently, the alternator field (thru the alternator switch),
>thus making it impossible to turn the the alternator on with the DC mstr
>off. Am I reading that wrong?
I don't think you understand the 2-10. It's a progressive
transfer switch. With the three positions wired as suggested,
you get OFF/Batt_Only/Batt+Alt. See Figures on page 11-19 of
the 'Connection.
This mimics functionality of the infamous split rocker switch
that seems to find its way onto many panels that are otherwise
fitted with toggle switches.
Bob . . .
Message 7
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Electronics International Capacitive Fuel Level |
Probes P-300C
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Mark R Steitle" <mark.steitle@austin.utexas.edu>
Michele,
Thanks for bringing up the issue of alcohol in the fuel changing the
readings. I hope to locate fuel w/o alcohol added, if that's possible
these days. But that is one of the things I plan on testing. I would
like to see just how much of an error it creates. I always have the
engine monitor's fuel flow numbers, and the 30-minute (per tank) low
fuel warning lights. If it is more accurate than a Cessna fuel gauge
I'll consider myself to be ahead of the game.
Thanks,
Mark
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com]
Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Electronics International Capacitive
Fuel Level Probes P-300C
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by:
Mark,
My understanding is that alcohol in mogas will radically change
capacitance
gage readings because alcohol's dielectric constant is very different
from
gasoline's. If you calibrate your capacitance gages for 100LL then put
mogas
with x% alcohol, your gages will need to be recalibrated.
This has been discussed before but I fail to remember that any one came
with
a satisfactory response. In the short term I shall be using 100LL as
mogas
is not readily available at airports in France. In the long term, as
100LL
gets phased off and replaced with mogas, either I find a way to
recalibrate
the tanks from empty to full each time I fill them up or I switch to
standard resistive float type senders.
As for an independent low level fuel warning - I use an optical sensor
which
turns on when the level drops below the fuel pickup when the plane is
inclined 15 forward - I do not know how much this represents in
horizontal
flight but I figure that between the two tanks it should be 5 to 10
gallons,
i.e. half hour to one hour of total flying time.
Michele
RV8 - Fuselage
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Mark
R
Steitle
Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Electronics International Capacitive
Fuel
Level Probes P-300C
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Mark R Steitle"
<mark.steitle@austin.utexas.edu>
Matt,
Thanks for the head's up. As for the 7 gallons, I'm figuring one gallon
of unusable fuel. I'm also estimating the fuel burn to be about 12
gallons/hr in cruise. Actual numbers may vary. What I was looking for
is a warning at a reasonable point prior to the engine going quiet.
I'll measure the actual time to fuel exhaustion once I'm flying.
Good point on the probes. What I should do is drain the right tank (the
one that's been calibrated) and then add ten gallons of 100LL and see
what it reads. That should give me a good idea of what to expect with
the two different fuels.
While we're on the subject, I actually have a third method to judge fuel
used/remaining. I'm running a RWS engine monitor that calculates fuel
used by knowing fuel pressure and the duty cycle of the injectors. This
will also need to be calibrated at some point, but I've heard that it is
accurate to within 1 or 2 tenths of a gallon per tank. We'll see.
Mark S.
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Matt
Prather
Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Electronics International Capacitive
Fuel Level Probes P-300C
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Matt Prather"
<mprather@spro.net>
Hi Mark,
I don't mean to insult your intelligence, but I am wondering whether you
have accounted for unuseable fuel in all of this (when counting on 1hour
left when the lights come on). Is all of the fuel in your airplane
useable? Or have you actually added more than 7gal to the tanks (when
the
lights come on)?
Also, I propose that you transfer the 10 gallons of Mogas from the tank
that's calibrated to the tank that isn't. Then you can compare whether
the calibration of each gauge is consistent from side to side. After
that, add 100LL to the tank that's already calibrated, and compare the
readings. Otherwise, it seems that you have 1 equation and 2 unknowns -
you are depending on the two instruments having precisely the same
performance.
Regards,
Matt-
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Mark R Steitle"
> <mark.steitle@austin.utexas.edu>
>
> John,
> I have a progress report concerning the EI capacitive fuel probes, the
> 7805 voltage regulators, and the BMA EFIS/1.
>
> This weekend I finished up the fuel lines and connected everything up
so
> I could put fuel in my wing tanks. Using mogas, I added a gallon at a
> time, calibrating the AD output for each gallon. I stopped at 10
> gallons. Once calibration points were entered in the E/1 calibration
> screen, the fuel gauges read as they should. So, I can report that
the
> Princeton Electronics converters are not necessary with the BAM E/1 as
> long as you use the high frequency channels for fuel levels. In the
> next week or two I will be adding 100LL to the other wing tank so as
to
> compare the readings with mogas vs. 100LL.
>
> One other thing that I was able to verify. I had installed the GEMS
> ELS-1100 solid-state fluid level sensors at the 7-gallon point in each
> wing tank to serve as an independent 30-minute low fuel warning
> indicator. When adding fuel, the LED was illuminated until the level
> hit approx 7+ gallons where it went out. This will be totally
> independent of the EFIS/1 gauges. Between the two tanks, it will
> provide a 1 hour warning. So, if I pay attention to the bright red
> LED's on the panel, I shouldn't be running out of gas anytime soon.
>
> Mark S.
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of
John
> Schroeder
> To: aeroelectric-list@matronics.com
> Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Electronics International Capacitive
> Fuel Level Probes P-300C
>
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "John Schroeder"
> <jschroeder@perigee.net>
>
> Mark -
>
> Looks like you rolled your own votage regulator(s). Could you just use
> one
> of the LM-7805's for feeding both probes?
> Do you have a schematic?
>
> We bought the modules direct from Todd at Princeton Electronics and I
> doubt if they will take them back because they have been installed and
> electrically set to the zero point. I'll ask, however.
>
> One plan that comes to mind is to keep the modules if they cannot be
> returned, and use them for the 5 volts out to the probes. The signal
> wires
> would then be pinned to the hi freq ports on the EFIS - like you did.
> With
> this solution, assuming that it all works, we would not have to
> calibrate
> the modules with a full tank (loaded by the quarter tank) and then
> calibrate the EFIS by 2 gallon increments. Seems that we would reduce
> the
> error potential by 50% by dispensing with the module calibrations.
>
> Any thoughts?
>
> Cheers,
>
> John
> Lancair ES: Painting
>
>
> On Tue, 6 Dec 2005 15:15:51 -0600, Mark R Steitle
> <mark.steitle@austin.utexas.edu> wrote:
>
>> Yes, I used the LM-7805 voltage regulators to get the 5v needed for
> the
>> EI capacitive probes. I urge you to try using them without the
>> Princeton modules by hooking the output lead from the each fuel probe
> to
>> one of the h/f inputs on the EFIS/1, configure for proper voltage and
>> calibrate.
>
>
> --
>
>
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: | Re: Internally Regulated Alternator Update? |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: sportav8r@aol.com
I'm not delaying flying; my RV has 500+ hrs on the original Van's-suggested vintage
'98 electrical system and 35 amp alternator, replete with flickering backlighting
in the radio the entire time, and LV warnings every time I turn on the
200 watts of landing lights ;-)
What I have resolved to do, having finally read the "Connection," is to re-do the
charging and power distribution system in a manner worthy of the glass panel
I hope to install soon. Alternator upgrade (and PM backup alternator) is essential
to that goal.
Will check archives for suggested part #'s. Thanks for all your help, Bob. This
list is truly great stuff.
-BB
-----Original Message-----
From: Robert L. Nuckolls, III <nuckollsr@cox.net>
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Internally Regulated Alternator Update?
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III"
<nuckollsr@cox.net>
At 09:49 PM 12/12/2005 -0500, you wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: sportav8r@aol.com
>
>Let me make sure I understand you correctly: if I locate a mechanically
>suitable IR alternator of suitable capacity, a topology for full OV
>protection and safe in-flight shut-down control of the alternator is soon
>to be published on the AeroElectric list or in the 'Connection, with
>minimal retrofitting hassle into the Z-13 or -14 architectures?
Absolutely.
>If so, that's great! I can hold my breath that long.
Don't hold your breath and don't even delay flying.
The "barefoot" alternator has a good track record.
The "mod" will all under the cowl.
SNIP
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: retrofitting OV relay |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr@cox.net>
At 07:25 AM 12/13/2005 -0800, you wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Brian Lloyd <brian-yak@lloyd.com>
>
>I am working on a fix for the Nanchang CJ6A. There have been a couple of
>voltage regulator failures in CJ6As that use the newer "solid state" VR.
>Seems that when the Chinese created the newer VR to replace the older
>carbon-pile unit, they didn't bother to add OV protection. The result is
>that the generator field goes on hard and the generator then drives the
>bus voltage way high, usually destroying the battery. There was even one
>case of melted wiring.
>
>The simple solution is for people to just install the B&C alternator and
>controller but some are balking at the price. I want to find a 28V OV
>relay that will open the field circuit when the bus voltage is too high.
>Would anyone happen to have any part numbers for a 28V OV relay near at
>hand?
Does this need to be an FAA qualified device? If not, I can
supply you the needed components to implement
http://www.aeroelectric.com/PPS/DCPwr/OV/Gen_OV.pdf
in a 28v version.
Bob . . .
Message 10
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: retrofitting OV relay |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Mickey Coggins <mick-matronics@rv8.ch>
> I am working on a fix for the Nanchang CJ6A. ...
Brian, I can't help you find your 28V OV relay, but
just wanted to say glad to see you back the list!
--
Mickey Coggins
http://www.rv8.ch/
#82007 finishing
do not archive
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: headphone wiring / bluetooth? |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Steve Sampson" <SSampson.SLN21@london.edu>
While we are on the subject of headset wiring how long before we will see
bluetooth headset/intercoms. Is this just round the corner so I should hold
off working out wiring runs for headsets?
Thanks,Steve
RV4 Kit No.4478
RV-9A G-IINI (sold)
PA18-150 G-BVMI
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: headphone wiring / bluetooth? |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Matt Prather" <mprather@spro.net>
Here you go...
http://www.peltor.com/peltor.com/comm_detail.cfm?prod_family=BlueTooth%20Headsets&ind_prod_num=MT53H7AWS2001
or
http://tinyurl.com/cww6r
and
http://www.pantherelectronics.com/bluetooth_headset.htm
As seen on avweb earlier this year.
Regards,
Matt-
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Steve Sampson"
> <SSampson.SLN21@london.edu>
>
> While we are on the subject of headset wiring how long before we will
> see bluetooth headset/intercoms. Is this just round the corner so I
> should hold off working out wiring runs for headsets?
>
> Thanks,Steve
> RV4 Kit No.4478
> RV-9A G-IINI (sold)
> PA18-150 G-BVMI
>
>
Message 13
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: headphone wiring / bluetooth? |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Jim Baker" <jlbaker@telepath.com>
> While we are on the subject of headset wiring how long before we
will
> see bluetooth headset/intercoms. Is this just round the corner so I
> should hold off working out wiring runs for headsets?
Aveo USA FreeSpeech I'd wait for version 2.
Jim Baker
580.788.2779
'71 SV, 492TC
Elmore City, OK
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: | headphone wiring / bluetooth? |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Mark R Steitle" <mark.steitle@austin.utexas.edu>
Not to be overly critical here, but Peltor located the push-to-talk
button on the back of the left earcup. That seems like more trouble
than what its worth, and possibly downright dangerous. It would be
really fun flying an airplane with a side control stick while talking to
ATC. This seems like one place where wires might be best.
Regards,
Mark S.
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Matt
Prather
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: headphone wiring / bluetooth?
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Matt Prather"
<mprather@spro.net>
Here you go...
http://www.peltor.com/peltor.com/comm_detail.cfm?prod_family=BlueTooth%2
0Headsets&ind_prod_num=MT53H7AWS2001
or
http://tinyurl.com/cww6r
and
http://www.pantherelectronics.com/bluetooth_headset.htm
As seen on avweb earlier this year.
Regards,
Matt-
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Steve Sampson"
> <SSampson.SLN21@london.edu>
>
> While we are on the subject of headset wiring how long before we will
> see bluetooth headset/intercoms. Is this just round the corner so I
> should hold off working out wiring runs for headsets?
>
> Thanks,Steve
> RV4 Kit No.4478
> RV-9A G-IINI (sold)
> PA18-150 G-BVMI
>
>
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: | headphone wiring / bluetooth? |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Matt Prather" <mprather@spro.net>
If the airplane has a PTT somewhere, I think you can use either that one
or the one on the headset. All the PTT wire has to do is get pulled to
ground in order to activate the transmitter. I don't think it matters
where in the circuit that is accomplished. The way I see it is Peltor is
includes an extra PTT, while others omit that.
Regards,
Matt-
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Mark R Steitle"
> <mark.steitle@austin.utexas.edu>
>
> Not to be overly critical here, but Peltor located the push-to-talk
> button on the back of the left earcup. That seems like more trouble
> than what its worth, and possibly downright dangerous. It would be
> really fun flying an airplane with a side control stick while talking to
> ATC. This seems like one place where wires might be best.
>
> Regards,
> Mark S.
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Matt
> Prather
> To: aeroelectric-list@matronics.com
> Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: headphone wiring / bluetooth?
>
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Matt Prather"
> <mprather@spro.net>
>
> Here you go...
>
> http://www.peltor.com/peltor.com/comm_detail.cfm?prod_family=BlueTooth%2
> 0Headsets&ind_prod_num=MT53H7AWS2001
>
> or
>
> http://tinyurl.com/cww6r
>
>
> and
>
> http://www.pantherelectronics.com/bluetooth_headset.htm
>
> As seen on avweb earlier this year.
>
>
> Regards,
>
> Matt-
>
>> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Steve Sampson"
>> <SSampson.SLN21@london.edu>
>>
>> While we are on the subject of headset wiring how long before we will
>> see bluetooth headset/intercoms. Is this just round the corner so I
>> should hold off working out wiring runs for headsets?
>>
>> Thanks,Steve
>> RV4 Kit No.4478
>> RV-9A G-IINI (sold)
>> PA18-150 G-BVMI
>>
>>
>
>
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: headphone wiring |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Eric M. Jones" <emjones@charter.net>
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Steve Sampson"
<SSampson.SLN21@london.edu>
>While we are on the subject of headset wiring how long before we will see
>bluetooth headset/intercoms. Is this just round the corner so I should hold
>off working out wiring runs for headsets? Thanks,Steve
Steve et al:
Lots of wireless solutions, and more coming. I'm having a Bluetooth system
implanted in my brain next year.
But I have to wonder why the IR headsets never took off? Were they forgotten
between noise-cancelling and Bluetooth?
This is still an easy conversion to make, as long as no wing walking is
planned. See:
http://www.st.com/stonline/prodpres/standard/rf/chipset.htm
Regards,
Eric M. Jones
www.PerihelionDesign.com
113 Brentwood Drive
Southbridge MA 01550-2705
(508) 764-2072
"Beaten paths are for beaten men."
-E. A. Johnston
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: | EV200 Contactors - Z-14 |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "John Tvedte" <JohnT@comp-sol.com>
I was wondering if someone could please comment on the following
experience....as it relates to using Tyco EV200 contactors.
Posted at: GRT_EFIS@yahoogroups.com by Paul McAllister
"This incident is written up in detail on my (Paul's) builders log at
http://europa363.versadev.com/ under flying experiences" - (A Lightning
strike)
I have been thinking about using the EV200's in a Z-14 setup - and came
across this account. I'm not sure that Stancor contactors would fare
any better....? Also, it seems that this might point out an issue with
the design of Z-14 (Paul has an e-bus) - I don't have an alternate feed
to the bus that doesn't use a contactor? Granted multiple failures of
contactors shouldn't happen...
I'm trying to determine if this were to happen to a Z-14 setup - what
might have been the result?
John
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: headphone wiring / bluetooth? |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: chaztuna@adelphia.net
---- Steve Sampson <SSampson.SLN21@london.edu> wrote:
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Steve Sampson" <SSampson.SLN21@london.edu>
>
> While we are on the subject of headset wiring how long before we will see
> bluetooth headset/intercoms. Is this just round the corner so I should hold
> off working out wiring runs for headsets?
>
> Thanks,Steve
> RV4 Kit No.4478
> RV-9A G-IINI (sold)
> PA18-150 G-BVMI
What is it with folks who think that wireless anything in the cockpit is good?
Have you ever owned a pair of wireless speakers? A wireless computer router? Good
grief, these things screw up regularly. Add lightening or atmospheric static
(how about Suns spots?) and wireless headsets would let you down at the time
you need them most. (Dark and stormy night in IFR)
While we're at it, why don't we have Microsoft design the software for it! Yeah,
that's the ticket.
Sorry for the rant, but I think you get the idea that I think that this isn't
a really good idea for aviation.
Charlie Kuss
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: EV200 Contactors - Z-14 and the BIG zap. |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr@cox.net>
At 05:16 PM 12/13/2005 -0600, you wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "John Tvedte" <JohnT@comp-sol.com>
>
>I was wondering if someone could please comment on the following
>experience....as it relates to using Tyco EV200 contactors.
>
>Posted at: GRT_EFIS@yahoogroups.com by Paul McAllister
>
>"This incident is written up in detail on my (Paul's) builders log at
>http://europa363.versadev.com/ under flying experiences" - (A Lightning
>strike)
>
>I have been thinking about using the EV200's in a Z-14 setup - and came
>across this account. I'm not sure that Stancor contactors would fare
>any better....? Also, it seems that this might point out an issue with
>the design of Z-14 (Paul has an e-bus) - I don't have an alternate feed
>to the bus that doesn't use a contactor? Granted multiple failures of
>contactors shouldn't happen...
>
>I'm trying to determine if this were to happen to a Z-14 setup - what
>might have been the result?
Lighting "protection" is something of an oxymoron. We dutifully
march off to the labs and adjust the dials on the big zapper
and if we're lucky, no repairs or redesigns will be required
before the final tests are passed. Depending on whether the
device under test has a potential for direct strike versus near
strike and whether or not the airplane is composite or metal
determines where we set the dials on the big zapper.
When holy-water is finally sprinkled on the product, were
"pretty sure" the thing will still be functional after the
airplane takes a hit. Numerical weight of "pretty sure"?
Oh, somewhere between 50 and 99%. Even after we do the
dial-a-zap thing in the lab, there's nothing binding
mother nature to levels of mischief at or below what
we tested to.
I'm being a little skeptical but not much. Any solid state
device with ship's wiring tied to it is subject to damage
from external EMF forces. There are techniques that stand
of the worst that the big zapper can do . . . but it's not
unusual for addition of lightning and RFI protection to
add significant weight, volume and cost to the product.
If the specs for an EVM200 don't specifically call out
lightning protection, then no parts were added specific
to this purpose. The picture shows and etched circuit board
and its almost a sure bet that it would not survive a
strike to a composite airplane. In this case, the
probability of taking out all EV200's in the same event
is high.
Actually, the standard ol' wire wound, metal cased,
zero-electronics, solenoid operated contactors are
pretty robust in these situations. As a matter of fact,
since they do not contain electronics, we're not required
to qualify them for lightning strike and no manufacturer
I deal with routinely has ever offered "lightning protection"
as a feature in their products.
If lightning strike is on the radar for your personal
design goals, staying with the stone simple contactors
is at least one prudent thing you can consider.
Bob . . .
Message 20
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: headphone wiring / bluetooth? |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Matt Prather" <mprather@spro.net>
Hi Charlie,
While I agree that comms reliability is important, I don't think this
problem is that tough to lick. Do you use a cordless phone? With mine,
as long as I don't try to go over to my neighbor's house while I am
talking on it, the thing works pretty well - actually, never skips a beat.
I'd rather use that when there's lightning around than one with wires
connected to the wall (and utility poles). I don't really think that
Bluetooth is more likely to crap-out because of a direct lightning strike
than lots of other hardware in the plane, either.
Additionally, most airplanes used to not have ANY headsets, much less ANR
units. Somehow we managed to talk to ATC without them.. :) I think a
cabin speaker is an adequate backup.
Regards,
Matt-
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: chaztuna@adelphia.net
>
>
> ---- Steve Sampson <SSampson.SLN21@london.edu> wrote:
>> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Steve Sampson"
>> <SSampson.SLN21@london.edu>
>>
>> While we are on the subject of headset wiring how long before we will
>> see bluetooth headset/intercoms. Is this just round the corner so I
>> should hold off working out wiring runs for headsets?
>>
>> Thanks,Steve
>> RV4 Kit No.4478
>> RV-9A G-IINI (sold)
>> PA18-150 G-BVMI
>
> What is it with folks who think that wireless anything in the cockpit is
> good? Have you ever owned a pair of wireless speakers? A wireless
> computer router? Good grief, these things screw up regularly. Add
> lightening or atmospheric static (how about Suns spots?) and wireless
> headsets would let you down at the time you need them most. (Dark and
> stormy night in IFR)
> While we're at it, why don't we have Microsoft design the software for
> it! Yeah, that's the ticket. Sorry for the rant, but I think you get
> the idea that I think that this isn't a really good idea for aviation.
> Charlie Kuss
>
>
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 |
|
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Speedy11@aol.com
Alex,
I just bought a new Odyssey PC680 and I'm sitting here looking at the brocure
that came with it. It says, "The state of charge in an Odyssey battery can
be determined from the following chart:
Voltmeter reading State of charge
12.84 volts 100%
12.50 volts 75%
12.18 volts 50%
11.88 volts 25%
So, your estimate of 65% charge at 12.4 is about right. It's surprising that
the clock would drop the volts that much.
Stan Sutterfield
In a message dated 12/13/05 3:00:03 AM Eastern Standard Time,
aeroelectric-list-digest@matronics.com writes:
Alex, how did you determine that 12.4 V equates to 65% charge? How many
volts
was it putting out new? I don't ever recall seeing over 13V on mine. The mid
12s is where mine stays at now and I keep a battery tender on it at the hangar
pretty much all the time.
lucky
-------------- Original message --------------
From: "Alex Peterson" <alexpeterson@earthlink.net>
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Alex Peterson"
>
>
> What sorts of longevity are folks getting out of the Odyssey PC680
> batteries? Mine is two years old and after sitting overnight (with only the
> aircraft's clock draining it) the voltage is only 12.4 volts, corresponding
> to about a 65% charge. The hobbs time for that two years is about 325
> hours. The charging voltage during operation is consistently 14.2 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: | Mini-EFIS Panel Considerations |
INNOCENT GLOBAL 0.3072 1.0000 -0.3180
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Larry E. James" <larry@ncproto.com>
I'm coming close to having to make final decisions for
my panel and order units. My flight mission includes
"light" IFR capability and my personal preference is to
keep a simple more/less old-fashioned scan. If I cannot
satisfy myself that one of the current "new" products is
better; I'll stick with an all electric six-pack. My
version of the six-pack would include an electric gyro
horizon with a Sandel below. That being said, I can
imagine that by simply replacing the AH and CDI with
identical EFIS display units could be a rather elegant
solution.
My current conundrum comes from the EFIS units currently
available. First, I'm not a fan of their packaging.
All other instruments mount flush with the panel; I'd
like these to also. Second, none have the ability to
interface with another of the same. While at Oshkosh I
asked both Dynon and BMA about this and neither was
interested. Additionally, I could see the possibility
of placing a third display in the backseat (Rocket;
tandem). But alas, my knowledge on all of this is very
limited. Can anyone offer some sound advice ??
thank you in advance,
--
Larry E. James
Bellevue, WA HR2
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: | headphone wiring / bluetooth? |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Peter Laurence" <PLaurence@the-beach.net>
Gee Charlie, mine work fine.
Peter Laurence
What is it with folks who think that wireless anything in the cockpit is
good? Have you ever owned a pair of wireless speakers? A wireless computer
router? Good grief, these things screw up regularly. Add lightening or
atmospheric static (how about Suns spots?) and wireless headsets would let
you down at the time you need them most. (Dark and stormy night in IFR)
While we're at it, why don't we have Microsoft design the software for it!
Yeah, that's the ticket.
Sorry for the rant, but I think you get the idea that I think that this
isn't a really good idea for aviation.
Charlie Kuss
Message 24
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Mini-EFIS Panel Considerations INNOCENT GLOBAL |
0.3072 1.0000 -0.3180
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: luckymacy@comcast.net (lucky)
yeah, call GRT and talk to them as their website doesn't state/show all they really
have to offer. They do have a flush mounted panel and it's easy to add a
display to the rear seater (display is low profile). I've heard of this config
in a RV8.
-------------- Original message --------------
From: "Larry E. James" <larry@ncproto.com>
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Larry E. James"
>
> I'm coming close to having to make final decisions for
> my panel and order units. My flight mission includes
> "light" IFR capability and my personal preference is to
> keep a simple more/less old-fashioned scan. If I cannot
> satisfy myself that one of the current "new" products is
> better; I'll stick with an all electric six-pack. My
> version of the six-pack would include an electric gyro
> horizon with a Sandel below. That being said, I can
> imagine that by simply replacing the AH and CDI with
> identical EFIS display units could be a rather elegant
> solution.
>
> My current conundrum comes from the EFIS units currently
> available. First, I'm not a fan of their packaging.
> All other instruments mount flush with the panel; I'd
> like these to also. Second, none have the ability to
> interface with another of the same. While at Oshkosh I
> asked both Dynon and BMA about this and neither was
> interested. Additionally, I could see the possibility
> of placing a third display in the backseat (Rocket;
> tandem). But alas, my knowledge on all of this is very
> limited. Can anyone offer some sound advice ??
> thank you in advance,
> --
> Larry E. James
> Bellevue, WA HR2
>
>
>
>
>
>
yeah, call GRT and talk to them as their website doesn't state/show all they really
have to offer. They do have a flush mounted panel and it's easy to add a
display to the rear seater (display is low profile). I've heard of this config
in a RV8.
-------------- Original message --------------
From: "Larry E. James" larry@ncproto.com
-- AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Larry E. James" <LARRY@NCPROTO.COM>
I'm coming close to having to make final decisions for
my panel and order units. My flight mission includes
"light" IFR capability and my personal preference is to
keep a simple more/less old-fashioned scan. If I cannot
satisfy myself that one of the current "new" products is
better; I'll stick with an all electric six-pack. My
version of the six-pack would include an electric gyro
horizon with a Sandel below. That being said, I can
imagine that by simply replacing the AH and CDI with
identical EFIS display units could be a rather elegant
solution.
My current conundrum comes f
rom the EFIS units currently
available. First, I'm not a fan of their packaging.
All other instruments mount flush with the panel; I'd
like these to also. Second, none have the ability to
interface with another of the same. While at Oshkosh I
asked both Dynon and BMA about this and neither was
interested. Additionally, I could see the possibility
of placing a third display in the backseat (Rocket;
tandem). But alas, my knowledge on all of this is very
limited. Can anyone offer some sound advice ??
thank you in advance,
--
Larry E. James
Bellevue, WA HR2
link below to find out more about
=========================================================
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: | Mini-EFIS Panel Considerations INNOCENT |
GLOBAL 0.3072 1.0000 -0.3180
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Folbrecht, Paul" <PFolbrecht@starkinvestments.com>
GRT has a flush-mount version and also happens to be the best experimental EFIS
going right now (woosh - missed me!). And, they do have add-on displays as an
option (at least 3 are possible, maybe more) so that backseat thing could be
quite possible.
As for interfacing between brands - this is like asking Microsoft and Red Hat to
make their OS's compatible - not too likely. Each wants to rule the world.
~P
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com on behalf of Larry E. James
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Mini-EFIS Panel Considerations INNOCENT GLOBAL
0.3072 1.0000 -0.3180
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Larry E. James" <larry@ncproto.com>
I'm coming close to having to make final decisions for
my panel and order units. My flight mission includes
"light" IFR capability and my personal preference is to
keep a simple more/less old-fashioned scan. If I cannot
satisfy myself that one of the current "new" products is
better; I'll stick with an all electric six-pack. My
version of the six-pack would include an electric gyro
horizon with a Sandel below. That being said, I can
imagine that by simply replacing the AH and CDI with
identical EFIS display units could be a rather elegant
solution.
My current conundrum comes from the EFIS units currently
available. First, I'm not a fan of their packaging.
All other instruments mount flush with the panel; I'd
like these to also. Second, none have the ability to
interface with another of the same. While at Oshkosh I
asked both Dynon and BMA about this and neither was
interested. Additionally, I could see the possibility
of placing a third display in the backseat (Rocket;
tandem). But alas, my knowledge on all of this is very
limited. Can anyone offer some sound advice ??
thank you in advance,
--
Larry E. James
Bellevue, WA HR2
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: | headphone wiring / bluetooth? |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Craig Payne" <craig@craigandjean.com>
Here is the link to the Aveo non-Bluetooth wireless headset:
http://aveousa.com/avionics/intercom/index.php
They make a number of arguments as to why you *don't* want to use Bluetooth
in your wireless headset. Not sure I agree with them but you should at least
read it before you buy.
Extra points to anyone who can describe why Bluetooth is called Bluetooth.
-- Craig
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Jim Baker
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: headphone wiring / bluetooth?
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Jim Baker"
--> <jlbaker@telepath.com>
> While we are on the subject of headset wiring how long before we
will
> see bluetooth headset/intercoms. Is this just round the corner so I
> should hold off working out wiring runs for headsets?
Aveo USA FreeSpeech I'd wait for version 2.
Jim Baker
580.788.2779
'71 SV, 492TC
Elmore City, OK
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: | Mini-EFIS Panel Considerations INNOCENT |
GLOBAL 0.3072 1.0000 -0.3180
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Craig Payne" <craig@craigandjean.com>
I doubt this unit is sophisticated enough for you but take a look any way.
You can slave one to another with an RCA audio cable.
http://www.mglavionics.co.za/ultraHXL.html
In the US they are sold by:
http://www.sportflyingshop.com/
-- Craig
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Larry E.
James
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Mini-EFIS Panel Considerations INNOCENT GLOBAL
0.3072 1.0000 -0.3180
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Larry E. James"
--> <larry@ncproto.com>
I'm coming close to having to make final decisions for my panel and order
units. My flight mission includes "light" IFR capability and my personal
preference is to keep a simple more/less old-fashioned scan. If I cannot
satisfy myself that one of the current "new" products is better; I'll stick
with an all electric six-pack. My version of the six-pack would include an
electric gyro horizon with a Sandel below. That being said, I can imagine
that by simply replacing the AH and CDI with identical EFIS display units
could be a rather elegant solution.
My current conundrum comes from the EFIS units currently available. First,
I'm not a fan of their packaging.
All other instruments mount flush with the panel; I'd like these to also.
Second, none have the ability to interface with another of the same. While
at Oshkosh I asked both Dynon and BMA about this and neither was interested.
Additionally, I could see the possibility of placing a third display in the
backseat (Rocket; tandem). But alas, my knowledge on all of this is very
limited. Can anyone offer some sound advice ??
thank you in advance,
--
Larry E. James
Bellevue, WA HR2
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: | Battery Monitor - Bogus or Brilliant? |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Speedy11@aol.com
I've been reading recently about battery monitors used on boats.
Here are a couple of links.
http://www.victronenergy.com/product.php?productid=155
http://www.xantrex.com/web/id/96/p/1/pt/20/product.asp
They claim accuracy within 0.5% and use Peukert's formula to take account of
the reduction in effective battery capacity when the discharge rate increases.
It has a temp probe to improve accuracy.
It claims to display voltage, charge/discharge current, state of charge in AH
or %, and time to go until battery is flat (at current discharge rate). It
claims to have an adjustable OV and LV alarm. It records, for later download,
Avg depth of discharge, deepest discharge, # of cycles, # of full recharges, #
of complete discharges, and # of OV and LV alarms.
Are you (anyone) familiar with this product?
Does it do what it claims to do?
Could it be applied to aviation?
Don't care about cost. Don't care about weight. Don't care about making
system more complex. Don't care about my load analysis. Don't care about having
plan A and B.
I'd just like to know if anyone has used these products or are familiar with
their accuracy. And I'd like to know what you think about using them on
custom built sport aircraft.
Stan Sutterfield
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 |
|
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Alex Peterson" <alexpeterson@earthlink.net>
> Alex,
> I just bought a new Odyssey PC680 and I'm sitting here
> looking at the brocure that came with it. It says, "The
> state of charge in an Odyssey battery can be determined from
> the following chart:
> Voltmeter reading State of charge
> 12.84 volts 100%
> 12.50 volts 75%
> 12.18 volts 50%
> 11.88 volts 25%
>
> So, your estimate of 65% charge at 12.4 is about right. It's
> surprising that the clock would drop the volts that much.
>
> Stan Sutterfield
Stan, I don't believe that the clock has anything to do with it. The plane
has set as long as three weeks without running with this battery with no
problems. I believe the battery is in its twilight hours after only two
years. An earlier reply to my original post perhaps confused my "state of
charge" comment to capacity, a different animal. I'm sure the above table
of "state of charge" does indeed change with battery ageing, but that is a
whole other topic.
Alex Peterson
RV6-A N66AP 698 hours
Maple Grove, MN
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: Battery Monitor - Bogus or Brilliant? |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr@cox.net>
At 10:30 PM 12/13/2005 -0500, you wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Speedy11@aol.com
>
>I've been reading recently about battery monitors used on boats.
>Here are a couple of links.
>
>http://www.victronenergy.com/product.php?productid=155
>http://www.xantrex.com/web/id/96/p/1/pt/20/product.asp
>
>They claim accuracy within 0.5% and use Peukert's formula to take account of
>the reduction in effective battery capacity when the discharge rate
>increases.
> It has a temp probe to improve accuracy.
>It claims to display voltage, charge/discharge current, state of charge in AH
>or %, and time to go until battery is flat (at current discharge rate). It
>claims to have an adjustable OV and LV alarm. It records, for later
>download,
>Avg depth of discharge, deepest discharge, # of cycles, # of full
>recharges, #
>of complete discharges, and # of OV and LV alarms.
>Are you (anyone) familiar with this product?
>Does it do what it claims to do?
>Could it be applied to aviation?
>Don't care about cost. Don't care about weight. Don't care about making
>system more complex. Don't care about my load analysis. Don't care about
>having
>plan A and B.
>I'd just like to know if anyone has used these products or are familiar with
>their accuracy. And I'd like to know what you think about using them on
>custom built sport aircraft.
Certainly not bogus but not brilliant either. It's just an
automation of a textbook approach to battery evaluation . . .
A review of the installation manual at:
http://www.victronenergy.com/upload/documents/Installation-UK-BMV501BattMonitor.pdf
shows a shunt in series with the battery so that the computer
has access to battery voltage along with direction and magnitude
of battery current flow.
These two parameters allow one to deduce watt-seconds of energy
required to bring a battery to full charge, likewise watt-seconds
of energy delivered by the battery during a discharge cycle.
There are algorithms which can deduce the battery's current state
of charge (%) along with the battery's present capacity (a.h. or
watt-seconds) based on energy delivered during the last discharge
cycle. The computations can be quite accurate if compensated for
temperature.
Similar techniques are used in lap-top computers to track battery
state of charge (percent) and capacity (hours of operation).
The technology you cited is a more automated implementation of
battery capacity testing not unlike the cap checker I cited at
http://westmountainradio.com/CBA_ham.htm
The only difference being that the product you've cited is
in a position to monitor both discharge and recharge
cycles during normal operations. It includes the mathematics
and human interface necessary for user friendly display of
data.
The problem with monitoring vehicular cranking
batteries is that under ideal conditions, one NEVER
deep discharges the battery. Boats, computers, and golf
carts routinely deep discharge their batteries so that
data gathered is sufficient to the task of deducing
capacity and therefore state of charge based on
present capacity.
For airplanes and cars, a procedure for getting those
measurements requires a deep-discharge/recharge cycle
for the sole purpose of conducting the test. I've considered
several approaches to crafting hardware small and compact
enough to consider permanent installation on an airplane
that would do an automatic cap test of ship's battery(ies).
Now that I have the resident software guys (and the fact
that I'm buying some VERY fast, jelly bean processors
and a/d converters in volume for other programs) makes
some of the past ideas more attractive. I'll talk it
over with them . . .
Bob . . .
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: | Battery Monitor - Bogus or Brilliant? |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Craig Payne" <craig@craigandjean.com>
"Peukert's formula":
http://www.gizmology.net/batteries.htm
"The Peukert number is determined empirically, by testing the battery at
different rates."
So how does this box discern the Peukert number for the battery it is
monitoring? At least they have a chance of tracking the amount of energy in
the battery as they are monitoring current flow in and out with a shunt. I
would have used a Hall effect sensor but I don't know Peukert's formula from
a hole in the ground.
-- Craig
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of
Speedy11@aol.com
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Battery Monitor - Bogus or Brilliant?
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Speedy11@aol.com
I've been reading recently about battery monitors used on boats.
Here are a couple of links.
http://www.victronenergy.com/product.php?productid=155
http://www.xantrex.com/web/id/96/p/1/pt/20/product.asp
They claim accuracy within 0.5% and use Peukert's formula to take account of
the reduction in effective battery capacity when the discharge rate
increases.
It has a temp probe to improve accuracy.
It claims to display voltage, charge/discharge current, state of charge in
AH or %, and time to go until battery is flat (at current discharge rate).
It claims to have an adjustable OV and LV alarm. It records, for later
download, Avg depth of discharge, deepest discharge, # of cycles, # of full
recharges, # of complete discharges, and # of OV and LV alarms.
Are you (anyone) familiar with this product?
Does it do what it claims to do?
Could it be applied to aviation?
Don't care about cost. Don't care about weight. Don't care about making
system more complex. Don't care about my load analysis. Don't care about
having plan A and B.
I'd just like to know if anyone has used these products or are familiar with
their accuracy. And I'd like to know what you think about using them on
custom built sport aircraft.
Stan Sutterfield
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: | Battery Monitor - Bogus or Brilliant? |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr@cox.net>
At 09:36 PM 12/13/2005 -0700, you wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Craig Payne"
><craig@craigandjean.com>
>
>"Peukert's formula":
>
>http://www.gizmology.net/batteries.htm
>
>"The Peukert number is determined empirically, by testing the battery at
>different rates."
>
>So how does this box discern the Peukert number for the battery it is
>monitoring? At least they have a chance of tracking the amount of energy in
>the battery as they are monitoring current flow in and out with a shunt. I
>would have used a Hall effect sensor but I don't know Peukert's formula from
>a hole in the ground.
See http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Lab/8679/battery.html
and fill in the boxes. This site purports to give you
all the Peukert numbers you can use :-)
Did a Google search and got a number of interesting sites that
explain the Peukert number concept.
http://cosmos.phy.tufts.edu/mhonarc/elec-trak/msg00523.html
http://www.batteryuniversity.com/partone-16a.htm
http://www.rtpnet.org/~teaa/battery.html
http://www.mpoweruk.com/performance.htm
I'll have to noodle this out a bit more but at first
blush, it may be possible to deduce the Peukert number
for a battery under a few in-service discharge scenarios
such as one might experience on a boat or RV. Having
acquired that number, it's easier to predict performance
of all other scenarios. Further, if the Peukert number
for a particular battery is being constantly updated,
then a rising value beyond some point may well be a valid
indicator for replacement.
I think for our purposes, the occasional deep-cycle
discharge at the endurance rate would yield sufficiently
useful numbers to gage battery serviceability.
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: | Battery Monitor - Bogus or Brilliant? |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr@cox.net>
At 09:36 PM 12/13/2005 -0700, you wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Craig Payne"
><craig@craigandjean.com>
>
>"Peukert's formula":
>
>http://www.gizmology.net/batteries.htm
>
>"The Peukert number is determined empirically, by testing the battery at
>different rates."
>
>So how does this box discern the Peukert number for the battery it is
>monitoring? At least they have a chance of tracking the amount of energy in
>the battery as they are monitoring current flow in and out with a shunt. I
>would have used a Hall effect sensor but I don't know Peukert's formula from
>a hole in the ground.
Found a better explanation yet!
http://www.amplepower.com/pwrnews/beer/
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: headphone wiring / bluetooth? |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Charlie Kuss <chaztuna@adelphia.net>
Matt,
Modern cordless phones work quite well. However, my point is that the
cockpit of an aircraft is a different environment compared to your home. My
cordless phones work well most of the time. Sometimes though, they will
generate some static when I walk around while using them. Does your phone
act up if you walk near an operating TV set? There are more electronic at
much closer distances.
Comparing the environment consumer electronics operate in to the aviation
environment is an apples to oranges comparison, in my view. I'm not saying
it can't be done, but it would cost a lot more than the price of comparable
consumer electronics. I remember cabin speakers, but why would I (or
anyone) want to go back to that. I remember black and white TV as well. I
certainly will never buy another one, though. (of course, that's just me.)
If you or any other Lister wants to attempt to tackle that challenge, I
wish you the best of luck.
Charlie
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Matt Prather" <mprather@spro.net>
>
>Hi Charlie,
>
>While I agree that comms reliability is important, I don't think this
>problem is that tough to lick. Do you use a cordless phone? With mine,
>as long as I don't try to go over to my neighbor's house while I am
>talking on it, the thing works pretty well - actually, never skips a beat.
> I'd rather use that when there's lightning around than one with wires
>connected to the wall (and utility poles). I don't really think that
>Bluetooth is more likely to crap-out because of a direct lightning strike
>than lots of other hardware in the plane, either.
>
>Additionally, most airplanes used to not have ANY headsets, much less ANR
>units. Somehow we managed to talk to ATC without them.. :) I think a
>cabin speaker is an adequate backup.
>
>
>Regards,
>
>Matt-
>
> > --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: chaztuna@adelphia.net
> >
> >
> > ---- Steve Sampson <SSampson.SLN21@london.edu> wrote:
> >> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Steve Sampson"
> >> <SSampson.SLN21@london.edu>
> >>
> >> While we are on the subject of headset wiring how long before we will
> >> see bluetooth headset/intercoms. Is this just round the corner so I
> >> should hold off working out wiring runs for headsets?
> >>
> >> Thanks,Steve
> >> RV4 Kit No.4478
> >> RV-9A G-IINI (sold)
> >> PA18-150 G-BVMI
> >
> > What is it with folks who think that wireless anything in the cockpit is
> > good? Have you ever owned a pair of wireless speakers? A wireless
> > computer router? Good grief, these things screw up regularly. Add
> > lightening or atmospheric static (how about Suns spots?) and wireless
> > headsets would let you down at the time you need them most. (Dark and
> > stormy night in IFR)
> > While we're at it, why don't we have Microsoft design the software for
> > it! Yeah, that's the ticket. Sorry for the rant, but I think you get
> > the idea that I think that this isn't a really good idea for aviation.
> > Charlie Kuss
> >
> >
>
>
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: Battery Monitor - Bogus or Brilliant? |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Brian Lloyd <brian-yak@lloyd.com>
Craig Payne wrote:
> "The Peukert number is determined empirically, by testing the battery at
> different rates."
>
> So how does this box discern the Peukert number for the battery it is
> monitoring? At least they have a chance of tracking the amount of energy in
> the battery as they are monitoring current flow in and out with a shunt. I
> would have used a Hall effect sensor but I don't know Peukert's formula from
> a hole in the ground.
Craig, you have to actually measure the capacity of the battery at two
different discharge rates. You may find that many of the gel-cell makers
will give capacity in AH at two different discharge rates. If you know
that you can calculate Peukert's exponent.
lead-acid battery capacity is given by the following:
I
n * t = C
Where I = discharge current
t = time
n = Peukert's exponent, typically about 1.25
C = battery capacity constant
If you want to calculate Peukert's exponent for your battery, discharge
it using two different currents and take the time for each. You then
plug the two currents and the two times into the following equation:
n = (log t2 - log t1) / (log I1 - log I2)
Once you know n you can calculate the capacity of the battery over a
wide range of discharge currents. Try to pick two discharge rates that
bracket your normal usage.
On my boat I would not always have the ability to recharge the battery
bank fully so knowing the exact charge state was important. I could go
several cycles of charge and discharge without ever reaching a full
discharge or a full charge. With a proper value for Peukert's exponent
my battery monitor was very accurate on remaining energy (more on this
later). But this is pretty much a moot point because in aircraft we are
going to recharge the battery after each discharge cycle.
BTW, a number of the battery energy monitors out there may claim to do a
calculation based on Peukert's exponent but most just have a lookup
table for a range of currents and don't allow the adjustment of the
exponent. The only energy monitor I know of that actually uses Peukert's
exponent to do accurate on-the-fly calculation of remaining capacity is
Ample Power's "EMON-2". I can attest to its accuracy.
And it is way overkill for use in an airplane for all the reasons Bob
mentioned.
--
Brian Lloyd 2243 Cattle Dr.
brian-yak at lloyd dot com Folsom, CA 95630
+1.916.367.2131 (voice) +1.270.912.0788 (fax)
I fly because it releases my mind from the tyranny of petty things . . .
- Antoine de Saint-Exupery
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: | Re: Mini-EFIS Panel Considerations INNOCENT |
GLOBAL 0.3072 1.0000 -0.3180
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Werner Schneider <glastar@gmx.net>
Hello Larry,
the Dynon can be flat mounted (original mounting frame lets bezel coming
out aprox 1/16" but you can shim to have it all flat). Dynon is on the
way to have a Bus implemented so each unit can exchange data with
another, however details are not yet fixed. What is working so far is,
that I can display the dynon EFIS on my Dynon engine monitor.
Hope it helpes?
Werner
Larry E. James wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Larry E. James" <larry@ncproto.com>
>
>I'm coming close to having to make final decisions for
>my panel and order units. My flight mission includes
>"light" IFR capability and my personal preference is to
>keep a simple more/less old-fashioned scan. If I cannot
>satisfy myself that one of the current "new" products is
>better; I'll stick with an all electric six-pack. My
>version of the six-pack would include an electric gyro
>horizon with a Sandel below. That being said, I can
>imagine that by simply replacing the AH and CDI with
>identical EFIS display units could be a rather elegant
>solution.
>
>My current conundrum comes from the EFIS units currently
>available. First, I'm not a fan of their packaging.
>All other instruments mount flush with the panel; I'd
>like these to also. Second, none have the ability to
>interface with another of the same. While at Oshkosh I
>asked both Dynon and BMA about this and neither was
>interested. Additionally, I could see the possibility
>of placing a third display in the backseat (Rocket;
>tandem). But alas, my knowledge on all of this is very
>limited. Can anyone offer some sound advice ??
>thank you in advance,
>
>
Message 37
| 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: | Battery Monitor - Bogus or Brilliant? |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Craig Payne" <craig@craigandjean.com>
Thanks! Funny you should mention Ample Power, that's the same company Bob
found:
http://www.amplepower.com/pwrnews/beer/
-- Craig
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Brian
Lloyd
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Battery Monitor - Bogus or Brilliant?
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Brian Lloyd
--> <brian-yak@lloyd.com>
Craig Payne wrote:
> "The Peukert number is determined empirically, by testing the battery
> at different rates."
>
> So how does this box discern the Peukert number for the battery it is
> monitoring? At least they have a chance of tracking the amount of
> energy in the battery as they are monitoring current flow in and out
> with a shunt. I would have used a Hall effect sensor but I don't know
> Peukert's formula from a hole in the ground.
Craig, you have to actually measure the capacity of the battery at two
different discharge rates. You may find that many of the gel-cell makers
will give capacity in AH at two different discharge rates. If you know that
you can calculate Peukert's exponent.
lead-acid battery capacity is given by the following:
I
n * t = C
Where I = discharge current
t = time
n = Peukert's exponent, typically about 1.25
C = battery capacity constant
If you want to calculate Peukert's exponent for your battery, discharge it
using two different currents and take the time for each. You then plug the
two currents and the two times into the following equation:
n = (log t2 - log t1) / (log I1 - log I2)
Once you know n you can calculate the capacity of the battery over a wide
range of discharge currents. Try to pick two discharge rates that bracket
your normal usage.
On my boat I would not always have the ability to recharge the battery bank
fully so knowing the exact charge state was important. I could go several
cycles of charge and discharge without ever reaching a full discharge or a
full charge. With a proper value for Peukert's exponent my battery monitor
was very accurate on remaining energy (more on this later). But this is
pretty much a moot point because in aircraft we are going to recharge the
battery after each discharge cycle.
BTW, a number of the battery energy monitors out there may claim to do a
calculation based on Peukert's exponent but most just have a lookup table
for a range of currents and don't allow the adjustment of the exponent. The
only energy monitor I know of that actually uses Peukert's exponent to do
accurate on-the-fly calculation of remaining capacity is Ample Power's
"EMON-2". I can attest to its accuracy.
And it is way overkill for use in an airplane for all the reasons Bob
mentioned.
--
Brian Lloyd 2243 Cattle Dr.
brian-yak at lloyd dot com Folsom, CA 95630
+1.916.367.2131 (voice) +1.270.912.0788 (fax)
I fly because it releases my mind from the tyranny of petty things . . .
- Antoine de Saint-Exupery
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! --
|