Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 03:15 AM - Re: Alternator failure. Info provided (B&C value reliability) ()
2. 05:50 AM - Re: Re: Alternator failure. Info provided (B&C value reliability) (LarryRobertHelming)
3. 06:36 AM - Re: Re: Alternator failure. Info provided (B&C value reliability) (William Slaughter)
4. 07:02 AM - Re: Re: Alternator failure. Info provided (B&C value reliability) (Steve Thomas)
5. 07:20 AM - Re: Grand Rapids Technology EIS Scaling Factor and Offset... (DAVID REEL)
6. 07:26 AM - Re: Re: Alternator failure. Info provided (B&C value reliability) (John Schroeder)
7. 07:34 AM - Re: Instrument lighting (Eric Ekberg)
8. 07:44 AM - Potter & Brumfield w23 switche/circuit breaker (Brinker)
9. 08:00 AM - Alternator failure thoughts (Brian Lloyd)
10. 08:29 AM - Re: Re: Alternator failure. Info provided (B&C value reliability) (RV Builder (Michael Sausen))
11. 08:29 AM - wiring for Turn Cord. (Gary)
12. 08:43 AM - Re: Re: Alternator failure. Info provided (B&C value reliability) (Harold)
13. 09:01 AM - Re: Potter & Brumfield w23 switche/circuit breaker (Brinker)
14. 09:01 AM - Re: wiring for Turn Cord. (Steven DiNieri)
15. 09:17 AM - Re: Alternator failure thoughts (Paul Messinger)
16. 09:29 AM - Re: Re: Alternator failure. Info provided (B&C value reliability) (Harold)
17. 09:29 AM - Re: Re: Alternator failure. Info provided (B&C value relia... (Fiveonepw@aol.com)
18. 09:40 AM - Re: wiring for Turn Cord. (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
19. 10:32 AM - Re: Alternator failure thoughts (Charlie Kuss)
20. 11:05 AM - Re: Alternator failure thoughts (Dale Ensing)
21. 12:04 PM - Re: Alternator failure. Info provided (B&C value reliability) (Jekyll)
22. 12:20 PM - Re: Re: Alternator failure. Info provided (B&C (Deems Davis)
23. 12:20 PM - Re: Alternator failure thoughts (Charlie Kuss)
24. 01:25 PM - [ Dave Thompson ] : New Email List Photo Share Available! (Email List Photo Shares)
25. 01:55 PM - Re: Alternator failure thoughts (Ken)
26. 02:06 PM - Re: Alternator failure thoughts (Brian Lloyd)
27. 02:16 PM - Paul's article on modifying ND and MI alternators (Brian Lloyd)
28. 02:30 PM - Re: Alternator failure thoughts (Brian Lloyd)
29. 02:51 PM - Re: Paul's article on modifying ND and MI alternators (Paul Messinger)
30. 03:18 PM - Re: Re: Alternator failure. Info provided (B&C (John W. Cox)
31. 03:18 PM - Re: Re: Alternator failure. Info provided (B&C value reliability) (Steve Thomas)
32. 03:56 PM - Re: Alternator failure thoughts (Charlie Kuss)
33. 03:56 PM - Re: Alternator failure thoughts (Charlie Kuss)
34. 04:14 PM - Re: Alternator failure thoughts (Charlie Kuss)
35. 05:35 PM - Switch question (Charlie Kuss)
36. 05:35 PM - For the gmc filter try Mail Frontier (Harold)
37. 06:28 PM - Re: Switch question (Charlie England)
38. 07:24 PM - Re: Alternator failure thoughts (Brian Lloyd)
39. 07:24 PM - Re: Alternator failure thoughts (Brian Lloyd)
40. 07:27 PM - Re: Switch question (Brian Lloyd)
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: Alternator failure. Info provided (B&C value reliability) |
Bob I was waiting for your to chime in.
Could you provide facts and not endless talking
in circles with vague and not so vague personal
insults. I wrote everything I needed to say,
and there is no need to repeat myself.
I was hoping you would have something useful
to contribute, but those hopes have been
dashed. When you have nothing to say
you attack the person and their choice of
words, not the facts.
I don't expect you to be un-bias, since you
where the main band leader of faults and
totally unsubstantiated urban legends about
the horrors of internal regulators for years.
I begged you to give facts so many times.
I have given up. You can be hypocritical
to an extrodinary and audacious degree.
I don't think you are intentionally duplicitous.
I just think you LOVE to argue. I am bored
of arguing with you. We where having a
nice friendly discussion on the topic before
you came along. We have MANY, MANY,
MANY smart people on this forum who
can filter your bogosity.
When you can prove B&C alternators and
voltage regulators have ZERO failure rate
please write me, and please don't try
that Failure Mode and Effect Analysis
claim you tried on me before, I know what
that means. I know you have no such
data. That was the day I lost a little
respect for you Bob, when you tried to
BS me. I still like you and think you
contribute lots of good, but when you
get like this you are less than useless.
My bladder is empty, you can pee
further, you win, you are right again,
I am wrong again. OK.
I am now going outside to talk to my mail
box since that will be about as useful as
corresponding with you right now.
Have a nice 4th of July, independence
day of the greatest democracy ever.
She may not be perfect but I would not
want to live anywhere else in the world.
Cheers George M.
>posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr@cox.net>
>
>You wrote:
>
>There have been many many many B&C alternator and
>voltage regulator failures. Don't take my word on it just
>check these archives. It happens.
---------------------------------
How low will we go? Check out Yahoo! Messengers low PC-to-Phone call rates.
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: Alternator failure. Info provided (B&C value |
reliability)
With all respect that is due to the contributions you have otherwise
made to this list, George, please consider letting this personal
challenge between you and Bob thing die. You have proven you know a lot
about some things and one of them is how to never give up on a point
even when concrete evidence (first hand witnesses) is missing. I think
anyone with any knowledge and deduced common sense knows that B&C
alternators are proven, perhaps the best and if anyone reading this list
had a failure for some reason other than installation induced, they
surely would have chimed in by now. Why would not those with failures
due to installation errors have chimed in by now with all the attention
you have pointed at this??
Please give us all a break and favor by showing you are a gentleman and
just walk away until you get uncover (if there is any) some real
evidence.
I might suggest you buy one of their alternators new, and see for
yourself how they treat and service customers. Just be sure to properly
install it so IF it fails you can tell the world you were right. For
you, the higher the price, the more it might be worth it.
Thank you for your consideration. Larry in Indiana
----- Original Message -----
From: gmcjetpilot@yahoo.com
To: aeroelectric-list@matronics.com
Sent: Tuesday, July 04, 2006 5:08 AM
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Re: Alternator failure. Info provided (B&C
value reliability)
Bob I was waiting for your to chime in.
Could you provide facts and not endless talking
in circles with vague and not so vague personal
insults. I wrote everything I needed to say,
and there is no need to repeat myself.
I was hoping you would have something useful
to contribute, but those hopes have been
dashed. When you have nothing to say
you attack the person and their choice of
words, not the facts.
I don't expect you to be un-bias, since you
where the main band leader of faults and
totally unsubstantiated urban legends about
the horrors of internal regulators for years.
I begged you to give facts so many times.
I have given up. You can be hypocritical
to an extrodinary and audacious degree.
I don't think you are intentionally duplicitous.
I just think you LOVE to argue. I am bored
of arguing with you. We where having a
nice friendly discussion on the topic before
you came along. We have MANY, MANY,
MANY smart people on this forum who
can filter your bogosity.
When you can prove B&C alternators and
voltage regulators have ZERO failure rate
please write me,,,,,,,,,,,,,,SNIP
Cheers George M.
Message 3
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Alternator failure. Info provided (B&C value |
reliability)
I think it's abundantly clear who's the one who loves to argue here,
George.
I don't know why you have such a vendetta against Bob and/or B&C, both
of
whom have built their sterling reputations over decades. If they were as
duplicitous as you claim, the word would be out by now. No one cares
what
kind of alternator you want to use, but I'm sure lots of people on this
list
are extraordinarily tired of your constant attacks. Have you noticed
that no
one seems to be chiming in to take your side? Don't you ever get tired
of
being the turd in the punchbowl? Give it a rest, George. Go spew your
venom
somewhere else.
William Slaughter
-----Original Message-----
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of
gmcjetpilot@yahoo.com
Sent: Tuesday, July 04, 2006 5:09 AM
value
reliability)
Bob I was waiting for your to chime in.
Could you provide facts and not endless talking
in circles with vague and not so vague personal
insults. I wrote everything I needed to say,
and there is no need to repeat myself.
I was hoping you would have something useful
to contribute, but those hopes have been
dashed. When you have nothing to say
you attack the person and their choice of
words, not the facts.
I don't expect you to be un-bias, since you
where the main band leader of faults and
totally unsubstantiated urban legends about
the horrors of internal regulators for years.
I begged you to give facts so many times.
I have given up. You can be hypocritical
to an extrodinary and audacious degree.
I don't think you are intentionally duplicitous.
I just think you LOVE to argue. I am bored
of arguing with you. We where having a
nice friendly discussion on the topic before
you came along. We have MANY, MANY,
MANY smart people on this forum who
can filter your bogosity.
When you can prove B&C alternators and
voltage regulators have ZERO failure rate
please write me, and please don't try
that Failure Mode and Effect Analysis
claim you tried on me before, I know what
that means. I know you have no such
data. That was the day I lost a little
respect for you Bob, when you tried to
BS me. I still like you and think you
contribute lots of good, but when you
get like this you are less than useless.
My bladder is empty, you can pee
further, you win, you are right again,
I am wrong again. OK.
I am now going outside to talk to my mail
box since that will be about as useful as
corresponding with you right now.
Have a nice 4th of July, independence
day of the greatest democracy ever.
She may not be perfect but I would not
want to live anywhere else in the world.
Cheers George M.
>posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <
<http://us.f300.mail.yahoo.com/ym/Compose?To=nuckollsr@cox.net&YY=763
27&y5be
ta=yes&y5beta=yes&order=down&sort=date&pos=0&view=a&head=b>
nuckollsr@cox.net>
>
>You wrote:
>
>There have been many many many B&C alternator and
>voltage regulator failures. Don't take my word on it just
>check these archives. It happens.
_____
How low will we go? Check out Yahoo! Messenger's low PC-to-Phone
<http://us.rd.yahoo.com/mail_us/taglines/postman8/*http://us.rd.yahoo.com
/ev
t=39663/*http://voice.yahoo.com> call rates.
Message 4
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Alternator failure. Info provided (B&C value |
reliability)
Larry in Indiana,
Your words for George are entirely correct, but you must understand
that he has been admonished many many times before and just continues
to believe that he is the one and only god of the alternator
universe. Don't waste your breath (or keyboarding). If you are
smart, just put a filter in your email program that just dumps his
stuff in the trash. Yes, there are some good things he has to say
(occasionally) but most of that is available elsewhere. It's just
not worth the effort.
Best Regards,
Steve
________________________________________________________________________
On Jul 4, 2006, at 5:43 AM, LarryRobertHelming wrote:
> Please give us all a break and favor by showing you are a gentleman
> and just walk away until you get uncover (if there is any) some
> real evidence.
Message 5
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Grand Rapids Technology EIS Scaling Factor and |
Offset...
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "DAVID REEL" <dreel@cox.net>
In addition, AuxOff must be odd.
Dave Reel - RV8A
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: Alternator failure. Info provided (B&C value |
reliability)
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "John Schroeder" <jschroeder@perigee.net>
Once again, George-the-Vicious can't stand an honest request for proof and
resorts to slanderous comment. Bob is not the only one who has asked for
proof. But George seems to feel that he must play with, and take on, the
big boys. Yet, he simply doesn't have the maturity to do so. There is a
short circuit in there somewhere and it destroys his ability to use his
knowledge to make meaningful contributions to the forum. Pun intended.
DO NOT ARCHIVE
John
On Tue, 4 Jul 2006 03:08:50 -0700 (PDT), <gmcjetpilot@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Bob I was waiting for your to chime in.
> Could you provide facts and not endless talking
> in circles with vague and not so vague personal
> insults. I wrote everything I needed to say,
> and there is no need to repeat myself.
> I was hoping you would have something useful
> to contribute, but those hopes have been
> dashed. When you have nothing to say
> you attack the person and their choice of
> words, not the facts.
> I don't expect you to be un-bias, since you
> where the main band leader of faults and
> totally unsubstantiated urban legends about
> the horrors of internal regulators for years.
> I begged you to give facts so many times.
> I have given up. You can be hypocritical
> to an extrodinary and audacious degree.
> I don't think you are intentionally duplicitous.
> I just think you LOVE to argue. I am bored
> of arguing with you. We where having a
> nice friendly discussion on the topic before
> you came along. We have MANY, MANY,
> MANY smart people on this forum who
> can filter your bogosity.
> When you can prove B&C alternators and
> voltage regulators have ZERO failure rate
> please write me, and please don't try
> that Failure Mode and Effect Analysis
> claim you tried on me before, I know what
> that means. I know you have no such
> data. That was the day I lost a little
> respect for you Bob, when you tried to
> BS me. I still like you and think you
> contribute lots of good, but when you
> get like this you are less than useless.
> My bladder is empty, you can pee
> further, you win, you are right again,
> I am wrong again. OK.
> I am now going outside to talk to my mail
> box since that will be about as useful as
> corresponding with you right now.
> Have a nice 4th of July, independence
> day of the greatest democracy ever.
> She may not be perfect but I would not
> want to live anywhere else in the world.
> Cheers George M.
> >posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr@cox.net>
>>
>> You wrote:
>>
>> There have been many many many B&C alternator and
>> voltage regulator failures. Don't take my word on it just
>> check these archives. It happens.
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------
> How low will we go? Check out Yahoo! Messengers low PC-to-Phone call
> rates.
--
Message 7
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Instrument lighting |
I think what you did is fine, resistors are designed to get hot. However,
if you want to reduce voltage efficiently use a simple PWM (pulse width
modulated) voltage regulator circuit - you can build them for a dollar or
two, they just use one IC and 2 or 3 resistors, and sometimes a heatsink.
Look in one of the electronic catalogs. You can do a google search and come
up with the design examples.
eric
do not archive
On 6/30/06, Jerry & Ledy Esquenazi <jlinga@mchsi.com> wrote:
>
> Hey Guys,
> I have a simple problem that most likely has a simple solution. The
> solution, however, eludes me. I have an internally lit g-meter on my
> instrument panel (Don't ask me why :-)). The g-meter's lighting is internal
> to the instrument, i.e. it's not a lighting tray that is screwed to the
> top. The instrument would have to be opened up to get to the lamp.
>
> I purchased the g-meter from Chief a while back ago, and when I
> received it, I realized it was a 5v unit. Chief didn't have any other
> lighting option listed or available. I thought about dropping the voltage
> with a resistor. Before doing this I called the manufacturer Wultrad (aka
> Falcon Gauge). They said they had a 12v unit in stock that they could swap
> for mine. I thought... "great problem solved." They shipped me one back
> with a 12v label over the original label. In testing my instrument panel
> lighting, I discovered that the g-meter is considerably brighter than the
> other instruments to the point it would be annoying at night. The
> interesting thing is the light is nice and white and very uniform though out
> the face of the instrument. Anyway, I thought... "gee I'm back to putting
> in a resistor to dim the light!"
>
> "OK, no problem. I'll figure out what size resistor I need and move
> on," I thought. The problem is the resistance of any incandescent lamp
> changes whether it hot or cold. The lamp is drawing 0.56 A at 12.0 v.
> Seem's like a lot to me. From that I deduced the lamp's resistance at
> 21.3 ohm. The problem is that when I figure out what size resistor I need
> to get say a 7 or 8 v voltage drop across the lamp and add that resistor to
> the circuit, the current changes and so does the resistance of the lamp. So
> how does one figure this stuff out? I decided to purchase a potentiometer
> and install it in my circuit, adjust it 'till I got the brightness I wanted
> and then measure the resistance of the pot. In doing this I began to smell
> smoke, the little pot was beginning to glow red as I dimmed down the light
> in the instrument. I went back and purchased a heavier pot. This did the
> trick. I decided a 20 ohm resistor in series would be perfect. I purchased
> a 22 ohm, 2 W resistor, temporarily installed it, and the light was
> perfect. The problem was I was still smelling that familiar acrid smell. I
> had a 7.4 v drop across the resistor and a .34 A current giving me 2.5 W
> to dissipate. I later tried two 10 ohm, 2 W resistors in series. Still,
> they got too hot. I purchased a ceramic 22 ohm, 5 W resistor and it still
> got too hot to touch. The small battery I was using for testing was putting
> out 12.2 v under the load. I had a 7.4 v drop across the resistor, So I
> deduced I must be getting a 4.8 v drop across the lamp. The light was
> just right. I wonder if I still have a 5v lamp inside the instrument!
> I measured 0.34 A in the circuit. The 5 W resistor ought to be handling
> the 2.5 W I need to dissipate just fine. Something is wrong. Do any of
> you smart guys know what I'm doing wrong?
>
> Jerry
> "Smelling smoke in Georgia"
>
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: | Potter & Brumfield w23 switche/circuit breaker |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Brinker" <brinker@cox-internet.com>
I have had my heart set on using lighted rocker switches, but am
leaning towards the Potter & Brumsfield w23 since it would simplify wiring
and dash space. Any good or bad experiences with them ?
Randy
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: | Alternator failure thoughts |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Brian Lloyd <brian-yak@lloyd.com>
There has been a lot of heat of late in the great alternator debate
(GAB). I thought I would throw in some thoughts and experience I have
had.
I have seen a number of alternator failures on cars, boats, and
airplanes. Some were pretty simple, no-brainer failures and some were
"HOLY S--T" failures. I thought I would toss in here the ways I can
see alternators failing (and have failed) and then address the failures.
Here are the failure modes I have see so far (feel free to add to
this list):
1. Straight electrical failures:
a. regulator failed -- no output
b. brushes failed -- no output
c. output diode failure -- whine and reduced output
d. diode trio failure -- no output
e. regulator failed -- runaway output (destroys battery and anything
else attached to the bus)
2. Mechanical failures:
a. bearing failure -- armature chews up stator -- no output
b. broken mounting brackets -- no output
c. broken wires, usually field -- no output
3. Miscellaneous failures:
a. burned up stator -- overload -- no output
First thing to think about is what to do when the alternator fails.
If you are on this list it probably means you are building your
electrical system with an eye toward safely completing the flight
with the lights still burning in the panel. I have come to the
conclusion that alternator failure is something that demands a
landing ASAP. Why? Because I have experienced too many failed-bearing
failures. The alternator stops producing output so you tend to think
in terms of electrical failure and just keep on going. I wonder what
would happen if the bearing were to fail so completely that the
armature would jam against the stator or one of the bell housings.
Instant stoppage. Nothing good is going to come from that much mass
stopping suddenly. I can certainly imagine mounting ears and mounting
brackets snapping and bits of alternator taking the grand tour of
your cowling.
So, I hold that an alternator failure should require a "let's land
and check it out now" response unless you can tell for sure it is an
electrical-only failure. And I don't know of a good way to tell if it
is an electrical-only failure.
Now as to causes, some have come up with vibration as a potential
source of failure. I agree. Lycoming engines are not particularly
smooth (but can be made a lot smoother by balancing, matching
mixtures in all the cylinders, and doing a dynamic prop balance). I
see extra-beefy mounting hardware as a plus here. The other form of
imbalance is the armature rotating balance. If the armature is
balanced the instantaneous vibrational loads on the bearings will be
a LOT less. I would expect this to result in reduced incidence of
mechanical failure of alternator bearings.
Heat is another killer. Insufficient cooling can result in burned
stator windings and/or failure of the lubricant in the bearings
leading to bearing failure. It seems to me that ensuring excellent
cooling is very important too. Many alternators have external or
internal fans but since most alternators are mounted on the hot side
of the baffling the fan just circulates hot air through the
alternator. The alternator really needs its own source of cool air
from before it passes through the cylinders. I would probably try to
find a source of cooling air that won't be as likely to contain water
if you run through the rain. I can't imagine that circulating water
through the alternator is likely to improve its longevity.
Hopefully this will spark some discussion about installation
practices that may improve alternator longevity over and above
anything we can do electrically.
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-Exupry
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: Alternator failure. Info provided (B&C value |
reliability)
Ah yes, there are people who know a lot and say just enough and there
are those who know some and speak a lot to fill the gaps. The former
tends to be better than the latter. Now then, who is who.
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: | wiring for Turn Cord. |
I have a used RC Allen Turn and Bank and Artificial Attitude indicator both
electric. There are 3 pins in the back I have no idea how to wire these. Any
advice would be great.
Thanks
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: Alternator failure. Info provided (B&C value |
reliability)
Gee George,
It surely would be nice to see your writings without personal
complaints. Surely you could couch your criticisms in non personal terms
and still get your point across. All you would have to say is I think
this way might be better and explain why...then you'd have a dialogue,
not a public row. This way all could benefit, and then we ill educated,
vis a vis electronics could pick and choose our approach. We may not
make the best pick, but at least we'd have the info. The facts are being
obscured amid your charges.
Have a happy 4th,
Harold
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: Potter & Brumfield w23 switche/circuit breaker |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Brinker" <brinker@cox-internet.com>
Sorry I intended to write w31, but had a brain fart.
Randy
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Tuesday, July 04, 2006 9:43 AM
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Brinker"
> <brinker@cox-internet.com>
>
> I have had my heart set on using lighted rocker switches, but am
> leaning towards the Potter & Brumsfield w23 since it would simplify wiring
> and dash space. Any good or bad experiences with them ?
>
> Randy
>
>
> http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List
> http://wiki.matronics.com
>
>
>
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: | wiring for Turn Cord. |
Try aircraft spruce pn# CANNON PLUG MS3106A-10SL-3S
steve
-----Original Message-----
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Gary
Sent: Tuesday, July 04, 2006 11:08 AM
I have a used RC Allen Turn and Bank and Artificial Attitude indicator
both
electric. There are 3 pins in the back I have no idea how to wire these.
Any
advice would be great.
Thanks
--
No virus found in this incoming message.
--
Message 15
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Alternator failure thoughts |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Paul Messinger" <paulm@olypen.com>
Good post.
I would add I have had an alternator on a Excavator suddenly lock up due to
a bearing seize and it was on the opposite end from the belt. It was a
sealed ball bearing and the result was a burned up belt 2300 hours on the
unit. A different failure than the too tight belt bearing damage often seen.
I also agree immediate landing is called for.
Paul
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Tuesday, July 04, 2006 7:57 AM
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Brian Lloyd <brian-yak@lloyd.com>
>
> There has been a lot of heat of late in the great alternator debate
> (GAB). I thought I would throw in some thoughts and experience I have
> had.
>
> I have seen a number of alternator failures on cars, boats, and
> airplanes. Some were pretty simple, no-brainer failures and some were
> "HOLY S--T" failures. I thought I would toss in here the ways I can see
> alternators failing (and have failed) and then address the failures.
>
> Here are the failure modes I have see so far (feel free to add to this
> list):
>
> 1. Straight electrical failures:
>
> a. regulator failed -- no output
> b. brushes failed -- no output
> c. output diode failure -- whine and reduced output
> d. diode trio failure -- no output
> e. regulator failed -- runaway output (destroys battery and anything else
> attached to the bus)
>
> 2. Mechanical failures:
>
> a. bearing failure -- armature chews up stator -- no output
> b. broken mounting brackets -- no output
> c. broken wires, usually field -- no output
>
> 3. Miscellaneous failures:
>
> a. burned up stator -- overload -- no output
>
> First thing to think about is what to do when the alternator fails. If
> you are on this list it probably means you are building your electrical
> system with an eye toward safely completing the flight with the lights
> still burning in the panel. I have come to the conclusion that alternator
> failure is something that demands a landing ASAP. Why? Because I have
> experienced too many failed-bearing failures. The alternator stops
> producing output so you tend to think in terms of electrical failure and
> just keep on going. I wonder what would happen if the bearing were to
> fail so completely that the armature would jam against the stator or one
> of the bell housings. Instant stoppage. Nothing good is going to come
> from that much mass stopping suddenly. I can certainly imagine mounting
> ears and mounting brackets snapping and bits of alternator taking the
> grand tour of your cowling.
>
> So, I hold that an alternator failure should require a "let's land and
> check it out now" response unless you can tell for sure it is an
> electrical-only failure. And I don't know of a good way to tell if it is
> an electrical-only failure.
>
> Now as to causes, some have come up with vibration as a potential source
> of failure. I agree. Lycoming engines are not particularly smooth (but
> can be made a lot smoother by balancing, matching mixtures in all the
> cylinders, and doing a dynamic prop balance). I see extra-beefy mounting
> hardware as a plus here. The other form of imbalance is the armature
> rotating balance. If the armature is balanced the instantaneous
> vibrational loads on the bearings will be a LOT less. I would expect this
> to result in reduced incidence of mechanical failure of alternator
> bearings.
>
> Heat is another killer. Insufficient cooling can result in burned stator
> windings and/or failure of the lubricant in the bearings leading to
> bearing failure. It seems to me that ensuring excellent cooling is very
> important too. Many alternators have external or internal fans but since
> most alternators are mounted on the hot side of the baffling the fan just
> circulates hot air through the alternator. The alternator really needs
> its own source of cool air from before it passes through the cylinders. I
> would probably try to find a source of cooling air that won't be as
> likely to contain water if you run through the rain. I can't imagine that
> circulating water through the alternator is likely to improve its
> longevity.
>
> Hopefully this will spark some discussion about installation practices
> that may improve alternator longevity over and above anything we can do
> electrically.
>
> 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-Exupry
>
>
> http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List
> http://wiki.matronics.com
>
>
>
Message 16
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Alternator failure. Info provided (B&C value |
reliability)
Larry,
I think your george filter idea is great, if everyone did that, that
would reduce the clutter from trying to answer him. This could be a
refreshing future without the BS from one on an ego trip.
Harold
Message 17
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Alternator failure. Info provided (B&C value |
relia...
In a message dated 07/04/2006 9:23:50 AM Central Daylight Time,
gmcjetpilot@yahoo.com writes:
I wrote everything I needed to say,
and there is no need to repeat myself.
>>>
Then please stop doing so...
Mark do not archive
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: wiring for Turn Cord. |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr@cox.net>
If it's wired like every other 3-pin connector'ed gyro I've
encountered, Pin A goes to bus, pin B goes to ground.
Bob . . .
At 11:08 AM 7/4/2006 -0400, you wrote:
>I have a used RC Allen Turn and Bank and Artificial Attitude indicator
>both electric. There are 3 pins in the back I have no idea how to wire
>these. Any advice would be great.
>
>
>Thanks
>
>
>-- incoming mail is certified Virus Free.
>Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
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: Alternator failure thoughts |
>snipped
>I have seen a number of alternator failures on cars, boats, and
>airplanes. Some were pretty simple, no-brainer failures and some were
>"HOLY S--T" failures. I thought I would toss in here the ways I can
>see alternators failing (and have failed) and then address the failures.
>
>Here are the failure modes I have see so far (feel free to add to
>this list):
>
>1. Straight electrical failures:
>
> a. regulator failed -- no output
> b. brushes failed -- no output
> c. output diode failure -- whine and reduced output
> d. diode trio failure -- no output
> e. regulator failed -- runaway output (destroys battery and
> anything
>else attached to the bus)
snipped
Brian,
I'd like to expand on item C of the list above
Output diodes comprise the rectifier. (converts AC current to
DC) For the purposes of the alternators we use, the rectifier is
comprised of 6 diodes. These diodes can fail in two modes, open or
short. Failing open (diode blows apart) is the more common failure
mode. In this mode, each diode that fails will reduce the
alternator's output by 1/6th.
Diodes that fail shorted are more insidious. Often, the pilot will
not notice a decrease in performance. However, he/she will generally
notice an increase in noise (generally on the radios) This is because
1/6th of the alternator's output is now bleeding through as AC
current. The ship's electrical system is designed for DC current. The
one item which really can not tolerate AC current is the battery. Any
time an alternator fails, it is best to do a postmortem, to determine
the cause.
Shorted rectifier diodes which are not repaired promptly, will soon
destroy the battery's storage capacity. This damage to the battery
may not be noticed, without conducting a battery output test. This is
important if you subscribe to Bob N's ideas regarding battery only
emergency operations.
Charlie Kuss
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: Alternator failure thoughts |
Output diodes comprise the rectifier. (converts AC current to DC) For
the purposes of the alternators we use, the rectifier is comprised of 6
diodes. These diodes can fail in two modes, open or short. Failing open
(diode blows apart) is the more common failure mode. In this mode, each
diode that fails will reduce the alternator's output by 1/6th.
Charlie,
Does the reduce output show as lower voltage and/or reduced maximum
amps?
Dale Ensing
Message 21
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Alternator failure. Info provided (B&C value reliability) |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Jekyll" <rcitjh@aol.com>
George adds substantial value to this forum. Each reader must decide if George
is brash, rude, obnoxious or none-of-the-above. I know what to expect when I see
him chime in on anything dealing with alternators or VR's HOWEVER, I also know
that his entries have caused, and will always cause a greater discussion of
the issues than would be had without him. This provides us all with a greater
understanding.
Don't chase George away because he riles you. Welcome him because he instigates
the forum to greater depths of discussion and research.
Out of chaos comes opportunity, out of heated discourse comes understanding and
knowledge.
Jekyll
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=44789#44789
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: | Re: Alternator failure. Info provided (B&C |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Deems Davis <deemsdavis@cox.net>
out of dissonance come noise
Jekyll wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Jekyll" <rcitjh@aol.com>
>
>George adds substantial value to this forum. Each reader must decide if George
is brash, rude, obnoxious or none-of-the-above. I know what to expect when I
see him chime in on anything dealing with alternators or VR's HOWEVER, I also
know that his entries have caused, and will always cause a greater discussion
of the issues than would be had without him. This provides us all with a greater
understanding.
>
>Don't chase George away because he riles you. Welcome him because he instigates
the forum to greater depths of discussion and research.
>
>Out of chaos comes opportunity, out of heated discourse comes understanding and
knowledge.
>
>Jekyll
>
>
>Read this topic online here:
>
>http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=44789#44789
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Message 23
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Alternator failure thoughts |
At 02:02 PM 7/4/2006, you wrote:
>Output diodes comprise the rectifier. (converts AC current to
>DC) For the purposes of the alternators we use, the rectifier is
>comprised of 6 diodes. These diodes can fail in two modes, open or
>short. Failing open (diode blows apart) is the more common failure
>mode. In this mode, each diode that fails will reduce the
>alternator's output by 1/6th.
>Charlie,
>Does the reduce output show as lower voltage and/or reduced maximum amps?
>Dale Ensing
Dale,
The reduced output can show itself as both a reduction in voltage
and amperage. If the load on the electrical system is below the
crippled alternator's ability to produce power, you may not notice
any difference. Generally though, reduced charging voltage will be
noticed first. This is why Bob N says that a good voltmeter is more
important to have than an ammeter.
An analogy could be made to an aircraft's ability to climb. An
aircraft can only climb as long as the engine can produce power in
excess of what is needed to maintain level flight at a given altitude.
An alternator's ability to increase the system voltage (assuming we
had no voltage regulator to stop a voltage climb) is limited by it's
ability to produce current (amps) in excess of the load on the system.
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: | [ Dave Thompson ] : New Email List Photo Share Available! |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Email List Photo Shares <pictures@matronics.com>
A new Email List Photo Share is available:
Poster: Dave Thompson <dave.thompson@verizon.net>
Lists: AeroElectric-List,Zenith-List
Subject: Proposed Zenith 601XL Panel Layout
http://www.matronics.com/photoshare/dave.thompson@verizon.net.07.04.2006/index.html
----------------------------------------------------------
o Main Photo Share Index
http://www.matronics.com/photoshare
o Submitting a Photo Share
If you wish to submit a Photo Share of your own, please include the
following information along with your email message and files:
1) Email List or Lists that they are related to:
2) Your Full Name:
3) Your Email Address:
4) One line Subject description:
5) Multi-line, multi-paragraph description of topic:
6) One-line Description of each photo or file:
Email the information above and your files and photos to:
pictures@matronics.com
----------------------------------------------------------
Message 25
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Alternator failure thoughts |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Ken <klehman@albedo.net>
We've discussed rotation speed a number of times but I still used larger
pulleys to keep the speed more in line with what my alternators would
see in their oem application. Automotive demonstrated reliability means
nothing to me when we run a component faster, hotter, at higher load, or
in a tight cowl, compared to an automotive engine compartment. Bearings
generally run cooler and last longer at slower speeds and vibration
loads are lower. I also like short dedicated belts that don't flop
around as much as long belts driving several accessories that have to be
fairly tight. I don't trust any alternator bracket that is less than
about 3/16" steel or 1/8" if truly 3 way triangulated. I hadn't really
considered it necessary to land soon following a alternator failure as
while I've discovered poor bearings during the electrical repair
(usually not on the pulley end), I've never had a bearing as the direct
cause of the failure -- yet ;) Maybe time to rethink a bit!
Ken
Brian Lloyd wrote:
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Brian Lloyd
> <brian-yak@lloyd.com>
>
> There has been a lot of heat of late in the great alternator debate
> (GAB). I thought I would throw in some thoughts and experience I have
> had.
>
> I have seen a number of alternator failures on cars, boats, and
> airplanes. Some were pretty simple, no-brainer failures and some were
> "HOLY S--T" failures. I thought I would toss in here the ways I can
> see alternators failing (and have failed) and then address the failures.
>
> Here are the failure modes I have see so far (feel free to add to
> this list):
>
> 1. Straight electrical failures:
>
> a. regulator failed -- no output
> b. brushes failed -- no output
> c. output diode failure -- whine and reduced output
> d. diode trio failure -- no output
> e. regulator failed -- runaway output (destroys battery and
> anything else attached to the bus)
>
> 2. Mechanical failures:
>
> a. bearing failure -- armature chews up stator -- no output
> b. broken mounting brackets -- no output
> c. broken wires, usually field -- no output
>
> 3. Miscellaneous failures:
>
> a. burned up stator -- overload -- no output
>
> First thing to think about is what to do when the alternator fails.
> If you are on this list it probably means you are building your
> electrical system with an eye toward safely completing the flight
> with the lights still burning in the panel. I have come to the
> conclusion that alternator failure is something that demands a
> landing ASAP. Why? Because I have experienced too many failed-bearing
> failures. The alternator stops producing output so you tend to think
> in terms of electrical failure and just keep on going. I wonder what
> would happen if the bearing were to fail so completely that the
> armature would jam against the stator or one of the bell housings.
> Instant stoppage. Nothing good is going to come from that much mass
> stopping suddenly. I can certainly imagine mounting ears and mounting
> brackets snapping and bits of alternator taking the grand tour of
> your cowling.
>
> So, I hold that an alternator failure should require a "let's land
> and check it out now" response unless you can tell for sure it is an
> electrical-only failure. And I don't know of a good way to tell if it
> is an electrical-only failure.
>
> Now as to causes, some have come up with vibration as a potential
> source of failure. I agree. Lycoming engines are not particularly
> smooth (but can be made a lot smoother by balancing, matching
> mixtures in all the cylinders, and doing a dynamic prop balance). I
> see extra-beefy mounting hardware as a plus here. The other form of
> imbalance is the armature rotating balance. If the armature is
> balanced the instantaneous vibrational loads on the bearings will be
> a LOT less. I would expect this to result in reduced incidence of
> mechanical failure of alternator bearings.
>
> Heat is another killer. Insufficient cooling can result in burned
> stator windings and/or failure of the lubricant in the bearings
> leading to bearing failure. It seems to me that ensuring excellent
> cooling is very important too. Many alternators have external or
> internal fans but since most alternators are mounted on the hot side
> of the baffling the fan just circulates hot air through the
> alternator. The alternator really needs its own source of cool air
> from before it passes through the cylinders. I would probably try to
> find a source of cooling air that won't be as likely to contain water
> if you run through the rain. I can't imagine that circulating water
> through the alternator is likely to improve its longevity.
>
> Hopefully this will spark some discussion about installation
> practices that may improve alternator longevity over and above
> anything we can do electrically.
>
> Brian Lloyd 361 Catterline Way
> brian-yak AT lloyd DOT com Folsom, CA 95630
> +1.916.367.2131 (voice) +1.270.912.0788 (fax)
Message 26
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Alternator failure thoughts |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Brian Lloyd <brian-yak@lloyd.com>
On Jul 4, 2006, at 1:07 PM, Charlie Kuss wrote:
>> c. output diode failure -- whine and reduced output
>>
>
> Brian,
> I'd like to expand on item C of the list above
>
> Output diodes comprise the rectifier. (converts AC current to DC)
> For the purposes of the alternators we use, the rectifier is
> comprised of 6 diodes. These diodes can fail in two modes, open or
> short. Failing open (diode blows apart) is the more common failure
> mode. In this mode, each diode that fails will reduce the
> alternator's output by 1/6th.
Actually, I am pretty sure it is still 1/3 of the output. (Warning:
technical BS follows.) Each diode is part of a full-wave bridge for
two of the three phases. Therefore when one diode opens you lose a
half-wave of output from two of the three phases. Since there are six
half-wave outputs, two from each of the three phases, you still lose
1/3 of your potential output.
And then there is the whole root mean square (RMS) thing. Without
doing the math I am going to guess that the loss of one diode (open)
is going to reduce the available power (amps probably) by 1/3. Ripple
will also be up substantially.
> Diodes that fail shorted are more insidious. Often, the pilot will
> not notice a decrease in performance. However, he/she will
> generally notice an increase in noise (generally on the radios)
> This is because 1/6th of the alternator's output is now bleeding
> through as AC current.
Well, actually it is not. With one diode shorted it will show up as a
dead short on two of the phases for half a wave. The current from the
affected phases will go through the good diode but return to the
winding through the shorted diode so two of the phases will see a
short through one diode drop. So for half a wave two of the phases
will be producing maximum current and dissipating it in the
resistance of those two stator windings. To the outside world it will
look like and ope diode (I think -- I am guessing here) but I suspect
that the affected phases of the stator will very quickly burn
themselves up unless the alternator has superb cooling.
> The ship's electrical system is designed for DC current. The one
> item which really can not tolerate AC current is the battery. Any
> time an alternator fails, it is best to do a postmortem, to
> determine the cause.
> Shorted rectifier diodes which are not repaired promptly, will
> soon destroy the battery's storage capacity. This damage to the
> battery may not be noticed, without conducting a battery output
> test. This is important if you subscribe to Bob N's ideas regarding
> battery only emergency operations.
I understand your logic Charlie but, as I indicated above, I don't
think it will work the way you have outlined.
But this was just an off-the-top-of-my-head analysis and very will
could be wrong.
> Charlie Kuss
>
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-Exupry
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: | Paul's article on modifying ND and MI alternators |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Brian Lloyd <brian-yak@lloyd.com>
Charlie Kuss forwarded to me Paul Messinger's article from Contact
magazine about modifying the Nippon Denso and Mitsubishi alternators
for external regulation. Good article. It says a lot more than I
could. I recommend snagging a copy and reading it if you are
interested in possibly modifying your alternator for external
regulation.
Actually, you should snag a copy so you can understand how your ND
and/or MI alternators work. It has an interesting discussion about
bearings and slip-ring failure. Good reading.
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-Exupry
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: | Re: Alternator failure thoughts |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Brian Lloyd <brian-yak@lloyd.com>
On Jul 4, 2006, at 3:16 PM, Charlie Kuss wrote:
> At 02:02 PM 7/4/2006, you wrote:
>> Output diodes comprise the rectifier. (converts AC current to DC)
>> For the purposes of the alternators we use, the rectifier is
>> comprised of 6 diodes. These diodes can fail in two modes, open or
>> short. Failing open (diode blows apart) is the more common
>> failure mode. In this mode, each diode that fails will reduce the
>> alternator's output by 1/6th.
>> Charlie,
>
>> Does the reduce output show as lower voltage and/or reduced
>> maximum amps?
>> Dale Ensing
>
> Dale,
> The reduced output can show itself as both a reduction in voltage
> and amperage.
The peak voltage available will remain the same as each winding of
the stator is capable of that peak voltage. But the ripple will be up
and the available current will be down. With one diode gone (open) I
would bet that a 60A alternator becomes a 40A alternator. If one
diode shorts the alternator becomes a 40A alternator and then shortly
thereafter a 20A alternator as two of the windings in the stator burn
out.
> If the load on the electrical system is below the crippled
> alternator's ability to produce power, you may not notice any
> difference.
I agree with that but you will start to hear one heck of an
alternator whine.
> Generally though, reduced charging voltage will be noticed first.
> This is why Bob N says that a good voltmeter is more important to
> have than an ammeter.
But the VR is going to increase the field current to keep the voltage
where it is supposed to be. As long as you are drawing less than 1/3
of the alternator's rated output you won't notice anything but the
whine. What will be reduced is the charging current.
> An analogy could be made to an aircraft's ability to climb. An
> aircraft can only climb as long as the engine can produce power in
> excess of what is needed to maintain level flight at a given altitude.
> An alternator's ability to increase the system voltage (assuming
> we had no voltage regulator to stop a voltage climb) is limited by
> it's ability to produce current (amps) in excess of the load on the
> system.
True.
>
> Charlie Kuss
>
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-Exupry
Message 29
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Paul's article on modifying ND and MI alternators |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Paul Messinger" <paulm@olypen.com>
Thanks; I will be updating the article as a PDF with current info and part
numbers etc as needed. Need a couple of weeks to complete but it will not be
limited to the mag article for photo size and resolution etc.
Paul
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Tuesday, July 04, 2006 2:13 PM
alternators
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Brian Lloyd <brian-yak@lloyd.com>
>
> Charlie Kuss forwarded to me Paul Messinger's article from Contact
> magazine about modifying the Nippon Denso and Mitsubishi alternators for
> external regulation. Good article. It says a lot more than I could. I
> recommend snagging a copy and reading it if you are interested in
> possibly modifying your alternator for external regulation.
>
> Actually, you should snag a copy so you can understand how your ND and/or
> MI alternators work. It has an interesting discussion about bearings and
> slip-ring failure. Good reading.
>
> 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-Exupry
>
>
> http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List
> http://wiki.matronics.com
>
>
>
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: Alternator failure. Info provided (B&C |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "John W. Cox" <johnwcox@pacificnw.com>
I have been shoveling so long on this subject, I know there must be a
pony here with the aeroelectric group discussion somewhere. The GMCpilot
filter is a most interesting point to ponder. Happy 4th.
John Cox
-----Original Message-----
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Deems
Davis
Sent: Tuesday, July 04, 2006 12:18 PM
(B&C
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Deems Davis
--> <deemsdavis@cox.net>
out of dissonance come noise
Jekyll wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Jekyll" <rcitjh@aol.com>
>
>George adds substantial value to this forum. Each reader must decide if
George is brash, rude, obnoxious or none-of-the-above. I know what to
expect when I see him chime in on anything dealing with alternators or
VR's HOWEVER, I also know that his entries have caused, and will always
cause a greater discussion of the issues than would be had without him.
This provides us all with a greater understanding.
>
>Don't chase George away because he riles you. Welcome him because he
instigates the forum to greater depths of discussion and research.
>
>Out of chaos comes opportunity, out of heated discourse comes
understanding and knowledge.
>
>Jekyll
>
>
>Read this topic online here:
>
>http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=44789#44789
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Message 31
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Alternator failure. Info provided (B&C value |
reliability)
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Steve Thomas <lists@stevet.net>
Sorry, Jekyll, but controversy can be had without being a rude and
pompous !@#. Depths of discussion and research is possible without
personal attacks from someone who thinks he is clearly god's gift to
the earth. I still say - filter George to trash. After you've had a
couple of months with this guy, you will have had enough, too. There
are plenty of extremely knowledgeable, experienced people who know
how to be human beings who remain.
Do not archive
Best Regards,
Steve
________________________________________________________________________
On Jul 4, 2006, at 11:59 AM, Jekyll wrote:
> Don't chase George away because he riles you. Welcome him because
> he instigates the forum to greater depths of discussion and research.
Message 32
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Alternator failure thoughts |
>>>snipped
>>
>>>Does the reduce output show as lower voltage and/or reduced
>>>maximum amps?
>>>Dale Ensing
>>
>>Dale,
>> The reduced output can show itself as both a reduction in voltage
>>and amperage.
>
>The peak voltage available will remain the same as each winding of
>the stator is capable of that peak voltage. But the ripple will be up
>and the available current will be down. With one diode gone (open) I
>would bet that a 60A alternator becomes a 40A alternator. If one
>diode shorts the alternator becomes a 40A alternator and then shortly
>thereafter a 20A alternator as two of the windings in the stator burn
>out.
>
>>If the load on the electrical system is below the crippled
>>alternator's ability to produce power, you may not notice any
>>difference.
>
>I agree with that but you will start to hear one heck of an
>alternator whine.
>
>>Generally though, reduced charging voltage will be noticed first.
>>This is why Bob N says that a good voltmeter is more important to
>>have than an ammeter.
>
>But the VR is going to increase the field current to keep the voltage
>where it is supposed to be. As long as you are drawing less than 1/3
>of the alternator's rated output you won't notice anything but the
>whine. What will be reduced is the charging current.
>
>>An analogy could be made to an aircraft's ability to climb. An
>>aircraft can only climb as long as the engine can produce power in
>>excess of what is needed to maintain level flight at a given altitude.
>> An alternator's ability to increase the system voltage (assuming
>>we had no voltage regulator to stop a voltage climb) is limited by
>>it's ability to produce current (amps) in excess of the load on the
>>system.
>
>True.
>
>Brian Lloyd 361 Catterline Way
Brian,
We both agree that voltage drop is caused by the alternator's
inability to produce enough current (amps) to meet system
demands. What I was trying to express, is that it would be more
likely for the pilot (Dale) to notice a drop in voltage first. This
is why Bob N recommends a low voltage warning system. When alternator
output drops below what is being consumed by the ship's systems,
voltage will always sag.
Charlie
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: | Re: Alternator failure thoughts |
>On Jul 4, 2006, at 1:07 PM, Charlie Kuss wrote:
>
>>> c. output diode failure -- whine and reduced output
>
>>
>>Brian,
>> I'd like to expand on item C of the list above
>>
>>Output diodes comprise the rectifier. (converts AC current to DC)
>>For the purposes of the alternators we use, the rectifier is
>>comprised of 6 diodes. These diodes can fail in two modes, open or
>>short. Failing open (diode blows apart) is the more common failure
>>mode. In this mode, each diode that fails will reduce the
>>alternator's output by 1/6th.
>
>Actually, I am pretty sure it is still 1/3 of the output. (Warning:
>technical BS follows.) Each diode is part of a full-wave bridge for
>two of the three phases. Therefore when one diode opens you lose a
>half-wave of output from two of the three phases. Since there are six
>half-wave outputs, two from each of the three phases, you still lose
>1/3 of your potential output.
Brian,
Your suggestion of a 33% loss of output is closer to real world
losses. I have tested charging systems which showed a 20 to 35% loss
of output. Tear down of the alternator later for repair showed that
one diode had failed in the rectifier.
>And then there is the whole root mean square (RMS) thing. Without
>doing the math I am going to guess that the loss of one diode (open)
>is going to reduce the available power (amps probably) by 1/3. Ripple
>will also be up substantially.
>
>> snipped
>
>Well, actually it is not. With one diode shorted it will show up as a
>dead short on two of the phases for half a wave. The current from the
>affected phases will go through the good diode but return to the
>winding through the shorted diode so two of the phases will see a
>short through one diode drop. So for half a wave two of the phases
>will be producing maximum current and dissipating it in the
>resistance of those two stator windings. To the outside world it will
>look like and ope diode (I think -- I am guessing here) but I suspect
>that the affected phases of the stator will very quickly burn
>themselves up unless the alternator has superb cooling.
I've tested alternators which would meet the output spec (for a
limited time) Then one (or more) of the rectifier diodes would
overheat and short. My point here is that not all failures are "hard"
failures. When diagnosing a charging system you can't always rely on
what "theory" says should happen. :-(
>>The ship's electrical system is designed for DC current. The one
>>item which really can not tolerate AC current is the battery. Any
>>time an alternator fails, it is best to do a postmortem, to
>>determine the cause.
>> Shorted rectifier diodes which are not repaired promptly, will
>>soon destroy the battery's storage capacity. This damage to the
>>battery may not be noticed, without conducting a battery output
>>test. This is important if you subscribe to Bob N's ideas regarding
>>battery only emergency operations.
>
>I understand your logic Charlie but, as I indicated above, I don't
>think it will work the way you have outlined.
>
>But this was just an off-the-top-of-my-head analysis and very will
>could be wrong.
>
>Brian Lloyd 361 Catterline Way
My experience here is anecdotal, as it simply relates to what I've
seen in my experiences.
Charlie
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: Alternator failure thoughts |
At 05:08 PM 7/4/2006, you wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Brian Lloyd <brian-yak@lloyd.com>
>
>
>On Jul 4, 2006, at 3:16 PM, Charlie Kuss wrote:
>
>>At 02:02 PM 7/4/2006, you wrote:
>>>Output diodes comprise the rectifier. (converts AC current to DC)
>>>For the purposes of the alternators we use, the rectifier is
>>>comprised of 6 diodes. These diodes can fail in two modes, open or
>>>short. Failing open (diode blows apart) is the more common
>>>failure mode. In this mode, each diode that fails will reduce the
>>>alternator's output by 1/6th.
>>>Charlie,
>>
>>>Does the reduce output show as lower voltage and/or reduced
>>>maximum amps?
>>>Dale Ensing
>>
>>Dale,
>>snipped
>
>>If the load on the electrical system is below the crippled
>>alternator's ability to produce power, you may not notice any
>>difference.
>
>I agree with that but you will start to hear one heck of an
>alternator whine.
In most situations you are correct. Unfortunately, the absence of
whine doesn't mean that everything is rosy. Like they say, one test
is worth a thousand expert opinions. Another is: Test, don't guess.
snipped
Charlie
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 |
|
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Charlie Kuss <chaztuna@adelphia.net>
Bob & Listers,
I wish to install a remote Ident push button for my Garmin GTX320A
transponder. I want to use a momentary push button using a standard
1/2" bushing plan form. I'm trying to select an appropriate switch
for this purpose. I called Garmin's support to find out how much
current goes through this circuit. The tech couldn't tell me, as he
did not have that info at his disposal. He did say that the
instructions said that the circuit should have no more than 0.5 amps.
When pressed further, he looked at the circuit and told me that the
switch grounded one leg of a transistor in the transponder.
I am trying to figure out if:
#1 I should specify a switch with gold (low current draw)
contacts or silver contacts? According to NKK's catalog, their
switches with gold contacts are for 0.4 amps or less.
#2 Will it matter if the contacts are fast or slow "make and break"?
#3 Required amp rating of the switch.
Charlie Kuss
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: | For the gmc filter try Mail Frontier |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Harold" <kayce33@earthlink.net>
Hi all,
I have a filter for SPAM, Mail Frontier. It seems to work fairly well, gets
about 80% of the garbage mail. I'm confident that it will filter gmc....at
any rate we'll see
Harold
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: | Re: Switch question |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Charlie England <ceengland@bellsouth.net>
Charlie Kuss wrote:
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Charlie Kuss
> <chaztuna@adelphia.net>
>
> Bob & Listers,
> I wish to install a remote Ident push button for my Garmin GTX320A
> transponder. I want to use a momentary push button using a standard
> 1/2" bushing plan form. I'm trying to select an appropriate switch for
> this purpose. I called Garmin's support to find out how much current
> goes through this circuit. The tech couldn't tell me, as he did not
> have that info at his disposal. He did say that the instructions said
> that the circuit should have no more than 0.5 amps.
> When pressed further, he looked at the circuit and told me that the
> switch grounded one leg of a transistor in the transponder.
> I am trying to figure out if:
> #1 I should specify a switch with gold (low current draw) contacts
> or silver contacts? According to NKK's catalog, their switches with
> gold contacts are for 0.4 amps or less.
>
> #2 Will it matter if the contacts are fast or slow "make and break"?
>
> #3 Required amp rating of the switch.
>
> Charlie Kuss
Hi Charlie,
I can't offer an answer with 'authority', but experience with modern
electronics would indicate that current demands should be minimal for
any switch other than the power switch (and even the power switch is
usually wimpy these days; only used to activate a solid state relay in a
lot of stuff). Call the tech back & ask him which lead of the transistor
is switched to ground. It's almost certainly the 'base' if it's a normal
silicon transistor or the 'gate' if it's an FET. If either is the case,
there will be very low current demand, likely way under 1/10 amp.
If I were doing the install in my plane, I'd just try to find something
that looked & mounted like I wanted & had good reliability with minimal
'excercise' to keep contacts clean because I wouldn't expect to be
needing the ident button very often.
I bet if you open up the xponder & look at the internal ident button, it
will be something you can buy from Mouser or Digikey for less than a dollar.
Charlie
(electronics tech in a previous life)
Slobovia Outernational
flying RV-4, -7 fuselage
Message 38
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Alternator failure thoughts |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Brian Lloyd <brian-yak@lloyd.com>
On Jul 4, 2006, at 6:55 PM, Charlie Kuss wrote:
>
> Brian,
> We both agree that voltage drop is caused by the alternator's
> inability to produce enough current (amps) to meet system demands.
> What I was trying to express, is that it would be more likely for
> the pilot (Dale) to notice a drop in voltage first. This is why Bob
> N recommends a low voltage warning system. When alternator output
> drops below what is being consumed by the ship's systems, voltage
> will always sag.
Very true. But until you reach the point where the alternator can't
carry the load, system voltage will appear normal.
You know, Bob used to sell a loadmeter/voltmeter that had the ability
to measure field voltage (voltage across the field windings which is
proportional to field current). What would be apparent is a sudden
increase in field voltage for the same RPM and load. Another
advantage of externally regulated alternators.
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-Exupry
Message 39
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Alternator failure thoughts |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Brian Lloyd <brian-yak@lloyd.com>
On Jul 4, 2006, at 6:47 PM, Charlie Kuss wrote:
>
> I've tested alternators which would meet the output spec (for a
> limited time) Then one (or more) of the rectifier diodes would
> overheat and short. My point here is that not all failures are
> "hard" failures. When diagnosing a charging system you can't always
> rely on what "theory" says should happen. :-(
Ah, you are telling me that the difference between theory and
practice in practice is greater than the difference between theory
and practice in theory? OK, I agree with that. ;-)
>> I understand your logic Charlie but, as I indicated above, I don't
>> think it will work the way you have outlined.
>>
>> But this was just an off-the-top-of-my-head analysis and very will
>> could be wrong.
>>
>> Brian Lloyd 361 Catterline Way
>
> My experience here is anecdotal, as it simply relates to what I've
> seen in my experiences.
Ah, real-life trumps theory. Yeah, I can go with that too.
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-Exupry
Message 40
| 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: Switch question |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Brian Lloyd <brian-yak@lloyd.com>
On Jul 4, 2006, at 8:31 PM, Charlie Kuss wrote:
> I am trying to figure out if:
> #1 I should specify a switch with gold (low current draw)
> contacts or silver contacts? According to NKK's catalog, their
> switches with gold contacts are for 0.4 amps or less.
Go for the gold.
>
> #2 Will it matter if the contacts are fast or slow "make and
> break"?
It shouldn't. Since the ident circuit is basically a latching timer,
it can bounce the the cows come home and that will have no effect on
the behavior of the xpdr.
>
> #3 Required amp rating of the switch.
I would guess about 10ma -- yes, milliamps.
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-Exupry
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! --
|