---------------------------------------------------------- AeroElectric-List Digest Archive --- Total Messages Posted Sat 02/25/06: 34 ---------------------------------------------------------- Today's Message Index: ---------------------- 1. 06:01 AM - Switch Failure (Bruce McGregor) 2. 06:22 AM - Re: AGM longevity (was: Odyssey % of charge) (Ken) 3. 06:36 AM - Opening Switch Contacts () 4. 07:14 AM - Re: LED position lights + strobe (N395V) 5. 07:33 AM - Re: LED position lights + strobe (Deems Davis) 6. 07:51 AM - Re: Opening Switch Contacts (Richard Riley) 7. 08:39 AM - What makes an aircraft IFR certified - AOPA Legal view (John Markey) 8. 09:11 AM - What makes an aircraft IFR certified - AOPA Legal view (BobsV35B@aol.com) 9. 09:11 AM - Re: Transponder/EFIS Gray code (Brian Lloyd) 10. 09:11 AM - Re: AGM longevity (was: Odyssey % of charge) (Brian Lloyd) 11. 09:57 AM - Re: Switch Failure (Mickey Coggins) 12. 12:29 PM - Electrical System Design for 2 Stroke Engines (Bill Czygan) 13. 01:08 PM - Re: Alternator conversion (Robert L. Nuckolls, III) 14. 01:16 PM - Re: Switch Failure (Robert L. Nuckolls, III) 15. 01:32 PM - Re: Strange alternator behavior at Startup (Mickey and Bob N.) (Robert L. Nuckolls, III) 16. 01:39 PM - Re: An Architecture Question - Z13 (Robert L. Nuckolls, III) 17. 02:19 PM - Re: Electrical System Design for 2 Stroke Engines (Robert L. Nuckolls, III) 18. 02:19 PM - Re: Alternator conversion (Mickey Coggins) 19. 02:36 PM - Re: An Architecture Question - Z13 (Robert L. Nuckolls, III) 20. 02:46 PM - Re: Re: Odyssey % of charge (Robert L. Nuckolls, III) 21. 02:59 PM - Re: Rotax Battery/Regulator Questions (Robert L. Nuckolls, III) 22. 03:02 PM - Re: An Architecture Question - Z13 (Craig Mac Arthur) 23. 03:38 PM - Re: An Architecture Question - Z13 (Robert L. Nuckolls, III) 24. 03:40 PM - Re: Re: Odyssey % of charge (Brian Lloyd) 25. 04:15 PM - Re: Baclup Battery monitor (Matt Prather) 26. 04:57 PM - Re: An Architecture Question - Z13 (Scott) 27. 05:14 PM - Re: Switch Failure (sportav8r@aol.com) 28. 06:47 PM - Re: Re: Odyssey % of charge (Robert L. Nuckolls, III) 29. 06:48 PM - Re: Switch Failure (Robert L. Nuckolls, III) 30. 07:07 PM - Re: AGM longevity (was: Odyssey % of charge) (Alex Peterson) 31. 07:50 PM - Re: AGM longevity (was: Odyssey % of charge) (Brian Lloyd) 32. 08:06 PM - Re: LED position lights + strobe (glaesers) 33. 08:15 PM - Re: LED position lights + strobe (Phil White) 34. 10:32 PM - Re: Gotcha! () ________________________________ Message 1 _____________________________________ Time: 06:01:19 AM PST US From: "Bruce McGregor" Subject: AeroElectric-List: Switch Failure --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Bruce McGregor" FWIW, I found this message on the GlaStar e-mail group: Just thought that I would pass this along for everyone's edification. I noticed that my strobes were not working the other day so I checked the fuses and sure enough, the strobe fuse was blown. I replaced the fuse and it popped as soon as I flipped the master switch on. I traced the wire from the fuse panel to the toggle switch and there was no chafing or problems visible. I disconnected the wire that goes to the strobe power supply from the strobe switch and tried it again, POP! Now I'm looking right at the 18" of wire that goes from the fuse panel to the strobe switch and it's undamaged. The wire that goes to the power supply is disconnected and the switch is in the OFF position yet there is a dead short! I removed the switch and checked the continuity between the terminals and the body of the switch and sure enough, the switch was shorted internally. I replaced the switch with one of my spares and all was back to normal. I took the switch apart and found that the moving contact rocker inside the switch was touching the switch body. I'll include a photo of the switch guts for your amusement, you can see the arcing on the switch cover. The switch is from B&C and is a CARLING brand. I'll be sure that I carry a spare in my parts bag. ________________________________ Message 2 _____________________________________ Time: 06:22:08 AM PST US From: Ken Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: AGM longevity (was: Odyssey % of charge) --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Ken This is one I've never heard of before. The manufacturer of my wee AGM specifies a float voltage which I've been using. This implies that a pulse type battery maintainer might be better or maybe that they should not be float charged continuously while in storage?? These are small but somewhat pricey Dekka batteries on a Z-14 architecture so there is no plan to periodically replace them - just flog flog them until noticeable starting performance suffers. thanks Ken > Grid corrosion occurs if you leave the battery on float for a long >time. The oxygen gas formed eats at the grids that support the paste. > > ________________________________ Message 3 _____________________________________ Time: 06:36:29 AM PST US From: Subject: AeroElectric-List: Opening Switch Contacts --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: 2/25/2006 FYI: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=4468957986746104671&q=500kv OC ________________________________ Message 4 _____________________________________ Time: 07:14:44 AM PST US Subject: AeroElectric-List: Re: LED position lights + strobe From: "N395V" --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "N395V" Is this the place? -------- Milt N395V F1 Rocket Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=14906#14906 ________________________________ Message 5 _____________________________________ Time: 07:33:44 AM PST US From: Deems Davis Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: LED position lights + strobe --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Deems Davis I just installed these, http://deemsrv10.com/decisions.html (scroll down to LED & Strobe write-up). They are made by an RV7 builder named Jeff Bordelon. The links are in the write-up Deems sarg314 wrote: >--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: sarg314 > >Some months ago I saw a small outfit selling small LED position lights >which also accomodated a strobe light and would fit in the van's >recessed (enclosed) wingtips. I thought I saved a reference to it, but >can't find it. Does this ring a bell with any one? >-- >Tom Sargent >engine > > > > > > > > > ________________________________ Message 6 _____________________________________ Time: 07:51:26 AM PST US From: Richard Riley Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Opening Switch Contacts --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Richard Riley At 06:35 AM 2/25/2006, you wrote: >--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: > >2/25/2006 > >FYI: > >http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=4468957986746104671&q=500kv More information on that video - and lots of other videos and pictures of big arcs and lightning bolts - http://teslamania.delete.org/frames/longarc.htm#Longspark Those guys are crazy. ________________________________ Message 7 _____________________________________ Time: 08:39:11 AM PST US From: John Markey Subject: AeroElectric-List: What makes an aircraft IFR certified - AOPA Legal view --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: John Markey Here's a question asked by an AOPA member who contacted our aviation services staff through the AOPA Pilot Information Center. Test your knowledge. Question: What makes an aircraft IFR certified? Answer: An aircraft is considered IFR certified based on its installed equipment. As long as there is no statement prohibiting IFR flight on the type certificate data sheet or in the operating limitations of the aircraft, IFR flight is permitted provided it has the required operable equipment listed in 14 CFR 91.205(d), flight manual supplements, and all appropriate inspections, maintenance requirements, and checks have been complied with. The instrument cockpit check (ICC) is a good systematic check of all radios and navigation equipment that ensures proper operation of equipment prior to flight. If you plan on using an IFR-certified GPS for approaches, remember to ensure the database is current. For additional information on these and other inspections, see AOPA Online. --------------------------------- Bring photos to life! New PhotoMail makes sharing a breeze. ________________________________ Message 8 _____________________________________ Time: 09:11:26 AM PST US From: BobsV35B@aol.com Subject: AeroElectric-List: What makes an aircraft IFR certified - AOPA Legal view --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: BobsV35B@aol.com Good Morning All, Reading the reference submitted it could be construed as saying that a current data card must be in the set. For some installations, that would be true. However, many installations have an approved Airplane Flight Manual Supplement which states that the pilot must assure that the data to be used is current and that the data that is used must be taken from an onboard datacard. If the pilot uses a another method to assure that the data is current, the approach can be legally conducted. Obviously, the easiest way to determine currency is to have a current data card, but, depending on just how the individual FMS is written, it MAY be legal to conduct the approach with an out of date card. Happy Skies, Old Bob AKA Bob Siegfried Ancient Aviator Stearman N3977A Brookeridge Air Park LL22 Downers Grove, IL 60516 630 985-8503 In a message dated 2/25/2006 10:41:07 A.M. Central Standard Time, markeypilot@yahoo.com writes: --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: John Markey Here's a question asked by an AOPA member who contacted our aviation services staff through the AOPA Pilot Information Center. Test your knowledge. Question: What makes an aircraft IFR certified? Answer: An aircraft is considered IFR certified based on its installed equipment. As long as there is no statement prohibiting IFR flight on the type certificate data sheet or in the operating limitations of the aircraft, IFR flight is permitted provided it has the required operable equipment listed in 14 CFR 91.205(d), flight manual supplements, and all appropriate inspections, maintenance requirements, and checks have been complied with. The instrument cockpit check (ICC) is a good systematic check of all radios and navigation equipment that ensures proper operation of equipment prior to flight. If you plan on using an IFR-certified GPS for approaches, remember to ensure the database is current. For additional information on these and other inspections, see AOPA Online. ________________________________ Message 9 _____________________________________ Time: 09:11:26 AM PST US From: Brian Lloyd Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Transponder/EFIS Gray code --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Brian Lloyd DEAN PSIROPOULOS wrote: > --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "DEAN PSIROPOULOS" > > Thanks for the help Brian, I think you mis-understood my question on the > Gray Code connection to the transponder. You are correct that the SL70 has > both Gray code and serial encoder inputs. But.....my EFIS D10 is an > original production model and does NOT have an encoder serial data OUTPUT > like the newer EFIS D10-A model. Ah, you are correct. I was thinking that the D10 had serial but not grey code output. It is all a matter of listening to the question. ;-) > So I have to use the Gray code signals out > of the EFIS to drive the transponder. The EFIS has "A", "B" and "C" Gray > code signals (out) which correspond to the transponder Gray code inputs with > one exception. The Transponder has one additional Gray code input labeled > "D4" but the EFIS does NOT have a "D4" output (I assume this extra input > allows the Transponder to encode and transmit higher altitudes than those > with just A/B/C inputs). Correct. It adds one more data bit in addition to the 9 bits you already have. It allows altitudes above 25,000'. > In any case, my question is what to do with this > "D4" input at the transponder end. Is it ok to leave it unconnected > (floating) or do I need to connect it to a positive voltage or...to ground? The transponder already has the necessary pull-up resistor at its input so that if you don't connect the D4 input, it will automatically default to a zero. > Can't find any direction in the manual so I assume leaving it float will not > cause a problem but would really like to know for sure. Sorry for the > initial confusion. No problem. -- Brian Lloyd 361 Catterline Way 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 10 ____________________________________ Time: 09:11:26 AM PST US From: Brian Lloyd Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: AGM longevity (was: Odyssey % of charge) --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Brian Lloyd Ken wrote: > --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Ken > > This is one I've never heard of before. > > The manufacturer of my wee AGM specifies a float voltage which I've been > using. This implies that a pulse type battery maintainer might be better > or maybe that they should not be float charged continuously while in > storage?? These are small but somewhat pricey Dekka batteries on a Z-14 > architecture so there is no plan to periodically replace them - just > flog flog them until noticeable starting performance suffers. Follow Deka's instructions for maintaining the battery. My larger 245AH 8D Deka AGMs say don't give them an equalization charge. Flooded cell batteries benefit from a periodic equalization charge. -- Brian Lloyd 361 Catterline Way 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 11 ____________________________________ Time: 09:57:44 AM PST US From: Mickey Coggins Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Switch Failure --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Mickey Coggins > touching the switch body. I'll include a photo of the switch guts for your > amusement, you can see the arcing on the switch cover. The switch is from > B&C and is a CARLING brand. I'll be sure that I carry a spare in my parts > bag. Can you put the photo on imageshack.us and send us a link? First time I've heard of someone with a failed switch. Thanks, Mickey -- Mickey Coggins http://www.rv8.ch/ #82007 finishing do not archive ________________________________ Message 12 ____________________________________ Time: 12:29:33 PM PST US From: Bill Czygan Subject: AeroElectric-List: Electrical System Design for 2 Stroke Engines --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Bill Czygan Bob and all, I, and a lot of other UL aircraft owners are going to have to register and N number our aircraft in the next year. If we want to use our aircraft to take the practical test we will have to install certain instruments. In addition, many of us will need ELTTs and transponders to operate them. Most of these aircraft will require some sort of electrical system to support this equipment. Most of these aircraft have Rotax or other 2 stroke engines. I want to design and install the most reliable system I can. What basic design considerations can you tell me to follow. Bill Czygan --------------------------------- Bring photos to life! New PhotoMail makes sharing a breeze. ________________________________ Message 13 ____________________________________ Time: 01:08:29 PM PST US From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Alternator conversion --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" Bill Bradburry wrote: >>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Bill Bradburry" >> >>Bob and others. >>I have seen several instructions on how to convert MI and ND alternators >>to either external regulation or to internal regulation such that the >>field wire can be used to shut the alternator down. These instructions >>seem simple enough that I feel that I could do it. At 09:20 AM 2/24/2006 -0500, you wrote: >--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Ken > >Hi Bill > >Sure you can do this if you wish and there is nothing wrong with that. >The subject comes up periodically and several folks have posted >suggested methods for some specific alternators. Some look to be easier >to mod than others. There are a couple of companies that offer such units. > >I was not particularly interested as it seemed somewhat >counterproductive. You must do the mod and not cause a related problem >by doing so which is probably not too difficult. However it wouldn't be >the first time that a problem was caused just by opening a factory >assembled device. You must purchase and install a separate voltage >regulator which may not be as good as what is already in the alternator >depending on which one you choose. The remote Regulator will not be able >to monitor the alternator's temperature although I guess that is a >pretty minor consideration. You must find a place to put that regulator >and wire it reliably. Most important perhaps, you can no longer purchase >a replacement off the shelf alternator and quickly install it. > >In addition I have little concern with using an OV contactor and a few >transorbs on my IR alternator. I'm betting that eventually Bob will >likely confirm that approach with some real testing and actual numbers. >Risks are low either way I think. Very perceptive sir. Repeatability of results has been a HUGE factor in my thoughts about mounting a task to craft IR alternator modification instructions. The folks who make alternators have refined designs, materials and manufacturing techniques over decades of experience. While the modifications necessary for positive external control are tiny, we must craft a disassembly and re-assembly technique that does not introduce degrading artifacts produced by lack of knowledge or skill. Crafting an elegant set of instructions and assuming that a large majroity of neophyte builders will achieve success is like tossing a recipe for one of Emeril's prized creations on the counter and expecting your teenager to achieve exemplar results first crack out of the flour bin. My reluctance to embrace the IR alternator has never been about quality and suitability to the original task (long lived performance in automobiles). It's always been about how to incorporate the product into established design goals with a minimum of risk and expense Obviously, minimum risk occurs when we install the device as-received into an environment that will artfully ADAPT it to our design goals. Some might wonder why we didn't arrive at this juncture several years ago? What's new? I cannot speak for others . . . but for myself, the quest for elegant solutions is an iterative process. It's time consuming effort that sifts through the simple-ideas looking for the minimum parts count, minimum risk, minimum cost, maximum performance solution (Ask Emeril how many times he crafted that dish, or precursors to it, before he put the first plate in front of a customer). It takes time and focus . . . I've contemplated thousands of non-related questions concerning hundreds of other tasks/goals in the interval between my first regulator design and the present time. My first task for aircraft voltage regulation was 25 years ago and bounded by the goal of crafting an external regulator compatible with an ER alternator already in place on an airplane (A-36 Bonanza). A few years later, I reused lessons learned for an OBAM aircraft alternator wherein B&C had already mastered disassembly, modification, re-assembly skills for an automotive adaptation to ER operation. The technology to do what I see in my head today WAS available in some form back then. But it was not the task. If anyone believes B&C set out to master a risky modification to a perfectly good alternator and then build a companion regulator just to make more money on their value-added efforts doesn't understand the art of crafting, manufacturing and marketing hardware. Had Bill tasked me then to tame the wild IR alternator for use under contemporary aircraft design goals, I probably could and would have done it. It's a sure bet that B&C's stable of products would be VERY different today. Did we make a mistake then? I don't think so - B&C's line of products have done well. Is it the wave of the future? Not unless you think we should be bolting carburetors and cam-driven, diaphragm fuel pumps to our engines. Today, I see better technology and have new ways to do things that I've learned over the intervening 25 years. I now KNOW that the solution is simple, reliable and costs much less than the well-crafted but dated ideas of yesteryear. This is not intended to be a critique of anyone's design or marketing decisions. It's an illustration of cause and effect but with the benefit of 20/20 hindsight. Had B&C launched into an effort to integrate the IR alternator back then, no doubt much of the jousting and agitated rhetoric we've endured would not have happened. Had either A. Hitler -OR- C. Kettering died of SIDS . . . no doubt the planet's present landscape would be different too. Hindsight is a great tool especially when used to illuminate successes/errors and encourage the discovery and application of simple-ideas in new ways. I would NOT want to be a fresh graduate today. Folks coming out of schools have little if ANY historical knowledge of what's gone before them and their fresh new jobs are agonizingly lacking in mentorship. Folks who use the Internet as a learning tool have better access to a broader spectrum of history and technologies than most of our descendants are going to receive from schools and shepherds over their budding careers. Their successes are increasingly dependent on personal quests and cultivation of widely scattered relationships. The Internet is an increasingly powerful and necessary tool of success for just about everybody. We cannot expect our close circle of teachers and mentors to pick up the slack . . . they cannot teach that which they do not know (See "The Sovereign Individual" by Davidson/Reed-Moog). As a side note. When the Internet is mentioned as a target of terrorism, a vast majority of our fellow citizens on this planet think about the loss of access to their down-loaded entertainment. I shudder to think of returning to a modus-operandi for sharing of data and cultivation of new ideas that was standard practice 25 years ago. Loss of the coax coming into the back of my house would bring my career to a halt . . . the recovery mode arduous to contemplate. Even if recovery were possible, it would be under comparably miserable circumstances. As James Burke illustrated in "Connections", stimulation for some important leaps forward in science have been attributed to diligence of a few monks who took ideas sent to them, translated into other languages as necessary and forwarded to individuals in other countries by the same donkey. What might the world look like today if da Vinci, Watt, Kettering, Volta, and Coulomb were able to communicate with their contemporaries as we do today? Conversations on this List have encouraged the necessary focus on my part to consider the IR integration problem again. For all its warts and high-blood pressure discussions, the Internet has again demonstrated value. We live in interesting and powerfully capable times folks. It's just sad and maddening that so much $time$ and effort is expended by individuals to gain advantage over others by equally powerful means that do not add value for anyone. Bob . . . ________________________________ Message 14 ____________________________________ Time: 01:16:24 PM PST US From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Switch Failure --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" At 08:54 AM 2/25/2006 -0500, you wrote: >--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Bruce McGregor" > > >FWIW, I found this message on the GlaStar e-mail group: > >Just thought that I would pass this along for everyone's edification. I >noticed that my strobes were not working the other day so I checked the >fuses and sure enough, the strobe fuse was blown. I replaced the fuse and it >popped as soon as I flipped the master switch on. I traced the wire from the >fuse panel to the toggle switch and there was no chafing or problems >visible. I disconnected the wire that goes to the strobe power supply from >the strobe switch and tried it again, POP! Now I'm looking right at the 18" >of wire that goes from the fuse panel to the strobe switch and it's >undamaged. The wire that goes to the power supply is disconnected and the >switch is in the OFF position yet there is a dead short! I removed the >switch and checked the continuity between the terminals and the body of the >switch and sure enough, the switch was shorted internally. I replaced the >switch with one of my spares and all was back to normal. I took the switch >apart and found that the moving contact rocker inside the switch was >touching the switch body. I'll include a photo of the switch guts for your >amusement, you can see the arcing on the switch cover. The switch is from >B&C and is a CARLING brand. I'll be sure that I carry a spare in my parts >bag. Please if you can. Send me the switch, removed with care to avoid disturbing it's condition. I'll reimburse you for any expense. It's VERY seldom we get to do an autopsy on field failures. So much of what's seen by technicians in the trenches is simply viewed as a maintenance issue with no interest in root causes. This makes our jobs as systems designers exceedingly more difficult. We cannot avoid or fix a condition for which we have no knowledge. Your cooperation in an effort to understand would be appreciated more than you know. Bob . . . ________________________________ Message 15 ____________________________________ Time: 01:32:51 PM PST US From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" Subject: AeroElectric-List: Re: Strange alternator behavior at Startup (Mickey and Bob N.) --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" At 12:34 PM 2/24/2006 -0800, you wrote: >--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: > >Mickey wants to turn his car off at 100 mph and > > AND > > Bob N. wants proof. Not proof sir . . . UNDERSTANDING. I see those words on the 4-color brochures and bang-for-the-buck bullets at the top of data sheets . . . all of which ASSUME that your understanding of their words is the same as their understanding of their words. > > As far as control of I-VR alternators, it would be wonderful to use > and trust the IGN wire. We could put a crow-bar on the CB to the > IGN lead. However you can't depend on it (apparently from > historical & empirical data). That's why a pullable CB on the B- > lead, to positively isolate the alternator, independent of anything is > suggested. Another way to achieve the same isolation is the crow > bar and over voltage relay on the B-lead. That works also but its > heavy, costly, complicated and potentially can cause nuisance > trips. In defense of the crow-bar it is automatic. The pullable CB > needs pilot action. The choice is the builders. As Bob N. says if > you can't take the small chance of an OV, than use an External > Regulator and OV module of some kind. if for no other reason > it is simple. However there is no guarantee that will work 100% > There's no 100% system. . . . and nobody has ever claimed there was. For Part 25 airplanes we're chartered to do the fault trees with probabilities applied to each branch. When just one of those numbers is assumed, the result suffers from a garbage-in-garbage out syndrome. That's why I have come to believe that they add little value in determining our future field experience. I can show you dozens of carefully calculated predictions of golden operations in fielded systems that don't even come close. That's why failure tolerance is so much easier to embrace that hoped-for failure proof. I'm working on an article that will illustrate the pitfalls of accepting the bang-for-the-buck bullets -OR- the four-color brochures at face value. Soon . . . Bob . . . ________________________________ Message 16 ____________________________________ Time: 01:39:12 PM PST US From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: An Architecture Question - Z13 --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" At 12:35 PM 2/24/2006 -0700, you wrote: >--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Todd Richmond" > > >All good points, which lead to two operational questions assuming the >Z-13/8. First, I would assume that normal operations would include closing >the alternate feed switch to the e-bus, true? No. It's crafted to be open except when needed for independent power of goodies on the e-bus during alternator out operations in the endurance mode. > And second, is there a risk >of damage should the SD-8 inadvertently become activated while the primary >alternator is running? There is no risk for damage to either alternator by having it on line with the other alternator. Neither is there a guarantee of performance with respect to these alternators performing in concert with each other in some predictable sharing of loads. >Hopefully these aren't ignorant questions. Thanks. Not at all . . . but perhaps not very useful answers if we're ignorant of the conditions that raised the questions. You can help us help you by describing more of what your goals are and by sharing the circumstances that raised your questions than by simply posting the questions. What caused you to believe that a 60/20 combination of engine driven power sources was the most useful/practical? What operational consideration raises questions in the ability of one of the Z-figures to handle as presently configured? Bob . . . ________________________________ Message 17 ____________________________________ Time: 02:19:21 PM PST US From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" Engines Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Electrical System Design for 2 Stroke Engines --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" Engines At 12:23 PM 2/25/2006 -0800, you wrote: >--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Bill Czygan > >Bob and all, > I, and a lot of other UL aircraft owners are going to have to > register and N number our aircraft in the next year. If we want to use > our aircraft to take the practical test we will have to install certain > instruments. In addition, many of us will need ELTTs and transponders to > operate them. Most of these aircraft will require some sort of electrical > system to support this equipment. Most of these aircraft have Rotax or > other 2 stroke engines. I want to design and install the most reliable > system I can. What basic design considerations can you tell me to follow. > Bill, My sense is that you're new to both the Owner Built and Maintained (OBAM) aircraft community and to this List-server. Welcome! I'll suggest that you've chosen a good place from which to launch your inquiries. I trust that others on the List will join me in helping expand your horizons both in knowledge and understanding that helps you achieve your goals. May I suggest that you have two avenues of inquiry to pursue? The first is the science and art of crafting an electrical system that is an elegant solution of lowest cost of ownership with the greatest utility. The second is identification of the materials, tools and skills for turning ideas into functional hardware. On the first task, may I suggest you cruise the down-load materials available at: http://aeroelectric.com/Downloads.html Just glance at these items just to get a feel for what they offer and as a reference as to where to come back and get them as needed. In particular, read the chapter from The AeroElectric Connection on system reliability . . . you can get it at: http://www.aeroelectric.com/8-%3E9/ch17-9.pdf Of course, the system you're going to need is VERY simple compared with those being installed in the majority of OBAM aircraft . . . but the reliability chapter is more about an attitude that suggests failure tolerance is much easier to achieve than failure proof. A potential architecture for your project is illustrated in Figure Z-16 of: http://aeroelectric.com/articles/Rev11/AppZ_R11E.pdf For hardware, there are dozens of sources. Look at: http://bandc.biz/ http://steinair.com/ http://aircraftspruce.com/ http://wicksaircraft.com/ http://terminaltown.com/ . . . just to name a few. Okay, now that you have sampled the water from the fire-hose, you're faced with selection decisions both in the philosophy and the application of ideas. That's where this List will help. Ask questions . . . and include the background in your thinking that formed the question. There are over 1300 folks on the list - many have the same questions. They're watching this list go by because they find value in what's offered. You can help increase the value by posing questions that dozens of folks are willing to ponder the options and offer suggestions . . . to the benefit of many more than yourself. Bob . . . ________________________________ Message 18 ____________________________________ Time: 02:19:21 PM PST US From: Mickey Coggins Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Alternator conversion --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Mickey Coggins > ... It's just sad and > maddening that so much $time$ and effort is expended by individuals > to gain advantage over others by equally powerful means that do not > add value for anyone. So true. The problem is that these people have not figured out how to add value, and they feel they must do *something*, so they suck value from whomever they can. -- Mickey Coggins http://www.rv8.ch/ #82007 finishing do not archive ________________________________ Message 19 ____________________________________ Time: 02:36:51 PM PST US From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: An Architecture Question - Z13 --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" At 09:17 PM 2/24/2006 -0600, you wrote: >--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert G. Wright" > > >A thought I keep having during these double alternator discussions is: >What's wrong with having two alternators online at the same time, with the >standby set to a volt less than the main? The standby would only then >support the load of the bus it's attached to if the main went offline (this >assumes that a "nonessential" bus goes away automatically when the main alt >fails). > >Rob Not a bit. That's what Z-12 is all about. That system is now installed in a whole boat load of Bonanzas, big Pipers and Mooneys. If the features illustrated in that configuration are attractive to you, there's nobody here on the list who would discourage you from doing it. Incorporation of automatic switching of buses is problematic. When an alternator quits, the airplane does not immediately roll over and head for the ground trailing black smoke. If the interval between notification of low voltage and re-configuration of the system for plan-b operations were 60 seconds or 120 seconds, or . . . the probable outcome of the flight is not highly dependent on reaction to the failure. It's seems better to have plan-b in your check list (and adequate notification that plan-b is now the order of the day) than to add complexity and cost of ownership for automatic changes of configuration. Z-13/8 is, in my never humble opinion, very cost effective and offers not only a plan-B but a plan-C alternative to looking for someplace very close to set down. My personal goal is to craft systems and ways to use them where a limit to endurance is determined only by fuel aboard and not on unknowns or poorly planned design and maintenance of an electrical system. Read chapter 17, look over the Z-figures. If there are any perceived short comings of any of the suggested architectures that prompt useful changes, bring them up. There's always room for improvement. Bob . . . ________________________________ Message 20 ____________________________________ Time: 02:46:29 PM PST US From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: Odyssey % of charge --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" At 12:48 PM 2/24/2006 -0800, you wrote: >--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Brian Lloyd > >Robert L. Nuckolls, III wrote: > > >> Having a smart energy monitor is necessary in a system where you will > >> have irregular charge/discharge cycles and want to know how much is left > >> in the battery. > > > > > > Agreed . . . but how does this happen on an airplane and how > > often might one expect to encounter it? . . . and are there > > less complicated and more positive ways to achieve the desired > > mission/maintenance conditions? > >Oh, I agree that you don't need a complex energy monitor nor do you need >a fancy charger. OTOH, I have had experience with batteries failing due >to overcharge in hot weather and failing to charge properly in cold weather. > > >> If you always recharge the battery to full every time, > >> you can have a much simpler energy monitor that isn't quite so smart. > > > > Yup. > > > > > >> The biggest issue as I see it is that you need to make sure you don't > >> overcharge the battery in summer but that you do actually charge the > >> battery in winter. That implies temperature compensation. > > > > Agreed . . . and it's not clear that we have really practical > > ways to achieve that. The LR-3 from B&C offers a battery temp > > sensor option. But it's not clear to me that this option will > > produce really meaningful differences in battery performance for > > most of our fellow airplane drivers. > >I believe that this is one of the key reasons why current crop of >"sealed" AGM aircraft batteries have such a poor service record. Flooded >cell batteries shrug off overcharge by just boiling off excess water >which gets topped off by the owner or mechanic. AGMs build up pressure >in the case and valves open and relieve the pressure, letting the water >go to the atmosphere. The AGM battery, having no excess >electrolyte/water, quickly quits working. I have never had an AGM >battery (Concorde especially) survive longer than two years in a >standard aircraft electrical system. It would be interesting to put a battery black-box on those airplanes. I'm working a design for just such a critter with one of my associates at RAC. It's a matchbook sized module that installs in the head-space of an AGM battery. For a period of three years, it will measure and record battery voltage and temperature every 10 seconds. When a battery craps in warranty, the owner recycles the battery through local channels and sends the 0.5 ounce module back to the factory. For batteries out of warranty, the owner gets a discount on a new battery if he returns the black-box along with his order. I expect this product to yield very revealing data both about materials and processes used to craft good batteries along with detailed insight into the battery's experience up and until the time of failure/replacement. This is a desperately needed tool for closing the loop in the consumer/supplier relationship for batteries. So much bad blood has flowed and much opportunity for improvement lost for lack of data. The vast majority of discussions/deductions/accusations about battery life has been floobydust from the customers, interested observers AND manufacturers. A crapped battery is exceedingly difficult to deduce life history from a simple teardown inspection. Nobody is deserving of kudos or cabbages because there are no data from which understanding can grow. Bob . . . ________________________________ Message 21 ____________________________________ Time: 02:59:03 PM PST US From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Rotax Battery/Regulator Questions --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" At 11:28 AM 2/24/2006 -0800, you wrote: >--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Bill Denton" > >I am referencing the Rotax wiring diagrams at the following link: > >http://www.rotax-aircraft-engines.com/pdf/dokus/d00287.pdf > >The diagrams are located on Adobe Acrobat page 53 of 68, which is Rotax >page number 18-5. > >There are three diagrams on the page, I am referring to the bottom two, >labeled "wiring diagram in conjuction with a battery" which I will call >"No Starter", and "wiring diagram for electric starter", which I will call >"Starter". > >On the No Starter diagram, it calls for a 12V 9Ah minimum battery, while >on the Starter diagram, it calls for a 12V 16Ah minimum battery. I am >assuming that the additional capacity of the battery on the Starter >diagram is specified in order to provide adequate starting power. > >My question has to do with the No Starter diagram. Why is the "9Ah >minimum" specified, and what would be the result of using a lower capacity >battery? Take this to an extreme. Suppose you had a 12v battery with 0.5 a.h. capacity. How might we deduce this to have an effect on the system? It's very small (perhaps 8 ounces) and our operating philosophy does not depend on standby power from a battery. Why would Rotax care? We can only guess because we don't have the benefit of conversing with the writer of those words (assuming too that he even understands the simple-ideas that support them). The smaller the battery, the more vulnerable it is to abuse. The regulators supplied with most alternators of ANY size or utilty are not precision devices designed to maximize battery life. Liberties are taken with performance to offer ADEQUATE battery life assuming a whole lot of operating conditions. The smaller the battery, the more likely you are to experience unsatisfactory he service life. Why 9 a.h., it's a WAG. 9 is better than 6 but probably worse that 12. If you need to make the point in your instructions, you throw the dart and pick a number that upsets the fewest numbers of folks who review your work. >In one of the (many!) projects I am considering, I would be using a Rotax >477 without an electric starter. However, I would have Nav/Strobe/Landing >lights, a couple of small electronic gauges, a handheld NAV/COM, a >handheld GPS, and a panel mount transponder, all connected to ship's power. > >My reasons for considering the use of a battery would be to provide >pre-start power for the radio and GPS and to provide power in an >engine-out situation. I'm also thinking that it would keep the available >power up during low RPM operations, and possibly "smooth" the power a bit. > >Would I actually need a 9Ah battery for these purposes, or would a smaller >unit suffice? > >If a battery smaller than 9Ah is acceptable from a load standpoint, would >a smaller battery create a problem with the regulator/rectifier? A fat capacitor would provide most adequate smoothing. If you're driven with desire for a small battery, try anything and see how long it lasts. If your perceptions of value are poor, then a bigger battery or perhaps an alternate brand is in order. Maybe a fat cap and a small battery will be useful for you. You're going to have to try it and then tell us what you discover. As a suggestion: Put 47,000 uf or more and any battery you like in the system. Then let us know how it works out. >Now a question specific to the No Starter diagram: > >Would it be acceptable to install a toggle-switch circuit breaker in place >of the 16A fuse in the black wire which runs between the regulator and the >battery? Would it be desirable to have a means of isolating the regulator >in this way? What size circuit breaker should be used? It won't hurt. Nobody here should be chartered with determining what's acceptable . . . only what's useful based on predictable performance and accommodation of your design goals. >Thanks in advance for anyone's help, and if my questions are less than >clear or less than properly worded, please feel free to read between the lines! Better we should ask for clarification of the question than guess. The conversation is generally shorter and more to the point that way. Bob . . . ________________________________ Message 22 ____________________________________ Time: 03:02:53 PM PST US From: "Craig Mac Arthur" Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: An Architecture Question - Z13 --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Craig Mac Arthur" Bob, Are you going to be at Sun'N'Fun, and if so, are you going as a spectator or a presenter? Craig On the road to retirement? Check out MSN Life Events for advice on how to get there! http://lifeevents.msn.com/category.aspx?cid=Retirement ________________________________ Message 23 ____________________________________ Time: 03:38:18 PM PST US From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: An Architecture Question - Z13 --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" At 05:02 PM 2/25/2006 -0600, you wrote: >--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Craig Mac Arthur" > > > >Bob, > >Are you going to be at Sun'N'Fun, and if so, are you going as a spectator or >a presenter? > >Craig Sorry, I don't do the big shows any more. The cost of being there far outweighs the revenues generated by attending. We went to OSH a couple of years ago (the first time in about 8 years after having been there 12-years running). It was fun, interesting, and not terribly expensive (we had use of a hotel room that wasn't needed by an exhibitor over the weekend). Sun'N'Fun is a very long way from here and generated even less revenue. I went only once. There's only so much money I can spend just to have fun . . . I'd rather spend it on new tools (or products to buy and evaluate). Bob . . . < What is so wonderful about scientific truth...is that > < the authority which determines whether there can be > < debate or not does not reside in some fraternity of > < scientists; nor is it divine. The authority rests > < with experiment. > < --Lawrence M. Krauss > ________________________________ Message 24 ____________________________________ Time: 03:40:20 PM PST US From: Brian Lloyd Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: Odyssey % of charge --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Brian Lloyd Robert L. Nuckolls, III wrote: > It would be interesting to put a battery black-box on those > airplanes. I'm working a design for just such a critter with > ... > This is a desperately needed tool for closing the loop in the > consumer/supplier relationship for batteries. So much bad blood > has flowed and much opportunity for improvement lost for lack > of data. The vast majority of discussions/deductions/accusations > about battery life has been floobydust from the customers, > interested observers AND manufacturers. A crapped battery is exceedingly > difficult to deduce life history from a simple teardown inspection. > Nobody is deserving of kudos or cabbages because there are no data > from which understanding can grow. Wow! I haven't heard anyone use the term Floobydust since my days building analog amps back in the mid '70s. But I think the battery manufacturers know a lot about how their batteries live and die. It shouldn't be too hard to understand their data and apply it to batteries in aircraft. -- Brian Lloyd 361 Catterline Way 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 25 ____________________________________ Time: 04:15:51 PM PST US From: Matt Prather Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Baclup Battery monitor --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Matt Prather Oh right.. I think I forgot that from the initial discussion. Thanks.. Matt- Hinde, Frank George (Corvallis) wrote: >--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Hinde, Frank George (Corvallis)" > >I have two electric pumps One in each wing root. No mechanical fuel >pump. > >The FI RV is being set up the same way. > >To switch tanks I simply switch pumps. > >-----Original Message----- >From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com >[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Matt >Prather >Sent: Friday, February 24, 2006 1:03 PM >To: aeroelectric-list@matronics.com >Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Baclup Battery monitor > >--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Matt Prather" >--> > >Is the Facet pump used continuously? Or only for takeoff, landing, or >in the event of a main (engine driven) pump failure? If only >intermittent duty, leave it out of the backup battery power budget. The >chances of an alternator failure, and an engine driven pump failure on >the same flight are exceedingly low... > > >Matt- > > > >>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Hinde, Frank George >>(Corvallis)" >> >>I measured the Facet and it was less than an amp...Can't remember what >> >> > > > >>the EI draws but I did measure it at the time. >>The Zodiac is strictly a VFR airplane and most failure modes would >>leave some juice left in the main battery. >> >>So I think I assumed about 20 minutes of flight on Batt #2. >> >>If I were re-doing it today I think the more modern diode (with lower >>volt drop) would mean I could use a bigger battery. >> >>Frank >> >>-----Original Message----- >>From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com >>[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of >>Dave Morris "BigD" >>Sent: Friday, February 24, 2006 8:44 AM >>To: aeroelectric-list@matronics.com >>Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Baclup Battery monitor >> >>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Dave Morris \"BigD\"" >>--> >> >>Facet pumps draw about 1.5A, don't they? And your EI draws how much? >>3AH seems awfully small to me. I'm guessing the Duration vs Current >>curve for that battery gives you 3A for 30 minutes. Is that enough? >> >>Dave Morris >>www.N75UP.com >> >>At 10:22 AM 2/24/2006, you wrote: >> >> >>>So my first battery is a 18AH and my backup is a 3AH, and is used to >>>run one EI and a Facet fuel pump, nothing else. >>> >>> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ________________________________ Message 26 ____________________________________ Time: 04:57:03 PM PST US From: "Scott" Subject: AeroElectric-List: Re: An Architecture Question - Z13 --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Scott" I find myself thinking along very similar lines to Todd. I like the idea of having options and turning off things to shed load doesn't seem like a big problem. I've drawn up something with a 2nd master switch that engages a 2nd contactor and in it's 2nd position brings the 2nd alternator into the system. The point about smoke in the cockpit is a good one I'll give some though to, however. It brings up a nagging conern of my about the e-bus, though. With my Garmin 430 drawing 3A for the GPS side and 10A for the radio (when transmitting) it seems to me that it would blow the e-bus feed fuse if I hit the transmit button. Now I fully realize that transmitting is not the best way to conserve battery, but a quick word to let ATC know what's up or even an accidental (habitual?) bump of the transmit switch having the potential to take down what remains of my electical system through that fuse seems scary. Just the GPS and my EFIS and my Transponder add up to about 7.5 Amps without the transmitter! If I go to a contactor for the e-bus feed, then it might as well be another master it seems like, no? ________________________________ Message 27 ____________________________________ Time: 05:14:06 PM PST US From: sportav8r@aol.com Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Switch Failure --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: sportav8r@aol.com An argument for switching the ground lead, vs the hot side, unless a stuck-on condition is dangerous? Just a thought... -Bill B -----Original Message----- From: Bruce McGregor Sent: Sat, 25 Feb 2006 08:54:14 -0500 Subject: AeroElectric-List: Switch Failure --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Bruce McGregor" FWIW, I found this message on the GlaStar e-mail group: Just thought that I would pass this along for everyone's edification. I noticed that my strobes were not working the other day so I checked the fuses and sure enough, the strobe fuse was blown. I replaced the fuse and it popped as soon as I flipped the master switch on. I traced the wire from the fuse panel to the toggle switch and there was no chafing or problems visible. I disconnected the wire that goes to the strobe power supply from the strobe switch and tried it again, POP! Now I'm looking right at the 18" of wire that goes from the fuse panel to the strobe switch and it's undamaged. The wire that goes to the power supply is disconnected and the switch is in the OFF position yet there is a dead short! I removed the switch and checked the continuity between the terminals and the body of the switch and sure enough, the switch was shorted internally. I replaced the switch with one of my spares and all was back to normal. I took the switch apart and found that the moving contact rocker inside the switch was touching the switch body. I'll include a photo of the switch guts for your amusement, you can see the arcing on the switch cover. The switch is from B&C and is a CARLING brand. I'll be sure that I carry a spare in my parts bag. ________________________________ Message 28 ____________________________________ Time: 06:47:29 PM PST US From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: Odyssey % of charge --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" At 06:27 PM 2/25/2006 -0800, you wrote: >--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Brian Lloyd > >Robert L. Nuckolls, III wrote: > > > It would be interesting to put a battery black-box on those > > airplanes. I'm working a design for just such a critter with > > ... > > This is a desperately needed tool for closing the loop in the > > consumer/supplier relationship for batteries. So much bad blood > > has flowed and much opportunity for improvement lost for lack > > of data. The vast majority of discussions/deductions/accusations > > about battery life has been floobydust from the customers, > > interested observers AND manufacturers. A crapped battery is > exceedingly > > difficult to deduce life history from a simple teardown inspection. > > Nobody is deserving of kudos or cabbages because there are no data > > from which understanding can grow. > >Wow! I haven't heard anyone use the term Floobydust since my days >building analog amps back in the mid '70s. I think that's a Bob Pease original . . . I didn't hear it until I became an avid reader of his monthly columns probably in the 80's . . . a good term I think for labeling intellectual babble masquerading as fact. >But I think the battery manufacturers know a lot about how their >batteries live and die. It shouldn't be too hard to understand their >data and apply it to batteries in aircraft. In the lab, yes. Lightbulbs are the same way. I just finished a song and dance routine to the FAA hand-cranked organ to subsitute #327LSV (25,000 hour) lamps for the #327 (4,000 hr) in some places on our airplanes. Seems customers are seeing a few hundreds of hours . . . and since the L1011 went into the Everglades a few years back, crews are forbidden to diddle with lightbulbs in flight, if at all. So the low-life lamps are a serious regulatory dispatch item and they're hoping that the better rated lamps will alleviate the problem. The question not asked and answered was how lamp cycling affects life and can we REALLY expect a 6x increase in lamp life with the substitution? I think we've made the FAA happy but now I'm starting more tests on my own to do some cycle testing with the two part numbers side-by-side for relative service life comparisons. I would not be surprised to discover performance that falls far short of the customer's (and my boss's expectations). At least I might be able to forewarn them as opposed to waiting for a followup call from a surprised and unhappy customer. If we called GE and asked how long their #327 will last in our airplane, they wouldn't have a clue. You call Enersys or Concord with the same question, they'd be silly to attempt a considered answer because there's no data upon which one might consider. Further, they have no idea how you will use/abuse their product. I've discussed the battery black-box with a manufacturer who has heartily endorsed the idea . . . both as a lowered cost warranty adjustment tool but as a device for getting real numbers about how their products are treated over LONG periods of time . . . not in a laboratory or short term flight test program. ________________________________ Message 29 ____________________________________ Time: 06:48:12 PM PST US From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Switch Failure --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" At 08:13 PM 2/25/2006 -0500, you wrote: >--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: sportav8r@aol.com > >An argument for switching the ground lead, vs the hot side, unless a >stuck-on condition is dangerous? Just a thought... > >-Bill B > How would this be better? The same failure might then leave you with some accessory running where you couldn't turn it off. Of course, this gives rise to the secondary argument about having pullable breakers accessible to pilots, etc. I think I'd rather have it function exactly as described and get OFF line and out of consideration. A second order consideration in the failure tolerance equation is not to increase workload. The switch died (albeit in what must be a really bizarre fashion) and the fuse did its job. All done. Bob . . . ________________________________ Message 30 ____________________________________ Time: 07:07:45 PM PST US From: "Alex Peterson" Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: AGM longevity (was: Odyssey % of charge) --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Alex Peterson" > Occasionally, you need to purposely overcharge the battery > to let the negative plate catch up with the positive plate. A > couple times per year, you bring the battery up to 14.8 volts > and let the current taper off to less than an amp. You then > push in a constant current of about 4% of the amp-hr rating > of the battery for about an hour. This cleans off the negative plate. Bill, excellent post! What would be your recommendation for a charger to accomplish this periodic overcharging method for cleaning the negative plate? I suspect that this is what my PC680 needs after two years. Alex Peterson RV6-A N66AP 719 hours Maple Grove, MN ________________________________ Message 31 ____________________________________ Time: 07:50:30 PM PST US From: Brian Lloyd Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: AGM longevity (was: Odyssey % of charge) --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Brian Lloyd Alex Peterson wrote: > --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Alex Peterson" > > >> Occasionally, you need to purposely overcharge the battery >> to let the negative plate catch up with the positive plate. A > > > Bill, excellent post! What would be your recommendation for a charger to > accomplish this periodic overcharging method for cleaning the negative > plate? I suspect that this is what my PC680 needs after two years. Before you opt for an equalization charge make sure this is supported by the manufacturer. As for an equalization charge, you can accomplish it with any adjustable power supply that will allow you to set the voltage to that specified by the manufacturer for performing an equalization charge. Typically an equalization charge takes around two hours over and above the time required to bring the battery up to full charge. -- Brian Lloyd 361 Catterline Way 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 32 ____________________________________ Time: 08:06:55 PM PST US From: "glaesers" Subject: AeroElectric-List: Re: LED position lights + strobe --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "glaesers" Try: www.thorllc.net Dennis Glaeser 7A Fuselage --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: sarg314 Some months ago I saw a small outfit selling small LED position lights which also accomodated a strobe light and would fit in the van's recessed (enclosed) wingtips. I thought I saved a reference to it, but can't find it. Does this ring a bell with any one? -- Tom Sargent engine ________________________________ Message 33 ____________________________________ Time: 08:15:36 PM PST US From: "Phil White" Subject: AeroElectric-List: Re: LED position lights + strobe cc: sarg314@comcast.net --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Phil White" Tom: www.GS-Air.com may be what you were referring to. I installed a set of their LED lites w/strobes in the tips of my RV-10 wings about a year ago. They have updated their product line recently with brighter LED's that they state will better meet FAR-23 illumination rules. Phil (RV-10 fuse) in IL Subject: AeroElectric-List: LED position lights + strobe --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: sarg314 Some months ago I saw a small outfit selling small LED position lights which also accomodated a strobe light and would fit in the van's recessed (enclosed) wingtips. I thought I saved a reference to it, but can't find it. Does this ring a bell with any one? -- Tom Sargent ________________________________ Message 34 ____________________________________ Time: 10:32:38 PM PST US From: Subject: AeroElectric-List: Re: Gotcha! --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Before we gloat... OC it has more to do with manual entry of LAT/LONG and an error, than the data base for one. I fly across the Atlantic several times a month and I also have to enter LAT/LONG in the Honeywell Flt Management Computer FMC, thru a CDU (control display unit). It is possible (easy) to make a mistake, however there are several checks that we do before departing. The main check is both pilots must together go over each lat / long and compare the course, distance between way points as well as total distance to the printed flight plan. Before departure, before going oceanic the NAV position is compared with ground stations and noted on the flight plan. If no ground based NAV is available we have to look at all three GPS and IRS (inertial ref system) and compare them. During the flight you keep track of position with a good old plotting chart and flight plan. A check is made approaching, over and 10 minutes after way points. All this is noted on the the chart and a postion report is radioed via HF. This is the TIP of oceanic NAV. You all remember the KAL007 that the Russians shot down. That was likely caused by miss placed Lat/long entries and a switch not selected to the proper position. >"The crew of C-GKFJ did not receive any special training before the >flight on the use of the Apollo 820 GPS, nor did they receive a briefing >on company procedures for long-range navigation." This is the first problem. Before I went across the pond I had 2 weeks of ground school, of which many days spent on long range nav, simulator training and at least one flight with a training Captain over the Atlantic. This poor crew was set up to fail. So before you all point finger, if it can happen to a Pro crew, it can happen to you or me. First I can't believe an Apollo 820 GPS is legal for long range Oceanic flight. It would not meet the requirements to cross the Atlantic. Second the out of date data base blows me away. With that said they would have been better off using the old data base way points, even out of date. They could check the lat/longs against a chart or flight plane. Entering lat / longs much more error prone than entering a way point ID. This is WAY more than an out of date data base. Training, following standard procedures, cross checking and using all information available info to name a few. Lesson learned for GA pilots is get training, stay current and just don't follow one NAV source blindly if at all possible. If they would have plotted it and just used their compass they would have caught it earlier. It is easy for me to say in the comfort of my office, but dead reckoning would have helped. The fault lies with management of the airline and than the crew for flying where they had no business. GPS is magic and amazing, they where right where they told it to be. The data base was a contributing but not critical factor George >From: >Subject: Gotcha! >Date: Jan 02, 2006 > >1/2/2005 >For all of us believers in the magic of GPS and modern avionics please read >the below cautionary tale: >http://www.tsb.gc.ca/en/reports/air/2003/A03F0114/A03F0114.asp > > >My flight time over the ocean is not that great, but the terror that wells >up when one has been out of sight of land for hours and is uncertain of >their position is huge. > > >Particularly note the diagram at the end of this article. Imagine the >decision process / courage involved in making that greater than 270 degree >turn to the right. >OC > > >PS: All pilots flying around IFR with out dated GPS data bases should >read this article. ---------------------------------