---------------------------------------------------------- AeroElectric-List Digest Archive --- Total Messages Posted Sat 02/17/07: 26 ---------------------------------------------------------- Today's Message Index: ---------------------- 1. 05:05 AM - Battery Charging () 2. 05:39 AM - Daytime Anticollision Lights () 3. 06:27 AM - Re: Com issues - resolved (Robert L. Nuckolls, III) 4. 06:43 AM - Re: Battery Charging (Robert L. Nuckolls, III) 5. 06:50 AM - Re: Daytime Anticollision Lights (Robert L. Nuckolls, III) 6. 07:04 AM - Re: Com issues - resolved () 7. 07:17 AM - Re: Daytime Anticollision Lights (Dave N6030X) 8. 07:25 AM - Re: Battery Charging (CH701) 9. 07:28 AM - Re: Daytime Anticollision Lights (John Coloccia) 10. 07:30 AM - Re: Pulse width modulation on linear actuators (Tim Andres) 11. 07:31 AM - Re: Pulse width modulation on linear actuators (Tim Andres) 12. 08:25 AM - Re: Daytime Anticollision Lights (C Smith) 13. 08:50 AM - Re: Daytime Anticollision Lights (Konrad L. Werner) 14. 09:06 AM - Re: Daytime Anticollision Lights (Bill Denton) 15. 09:33 AM - Re: Will SVLA charge on a sustaining voltage? (Ken) 16. 09:45 AM - Re: Daytime Anticollision Lights (Chuck Jensen) 17. 10:04 AM - Re: Daytime Anticollision Lights (Konrad L. Werner) 18. 10:06 AM - Re: Daytime Anticollision Lights (Ken) 19. 10:43 AM - Re: Daytime Anticollision Lights (Terry Watson) 20. 12:18 PM - Re: Daytime Anticollision Lights (Robert L. Nuckolls, III) 21. 01:49 PM - Re: Daytime Anticollision Lights (Konrad L. Werner) 22. 02:02 PM - Re: Daytime Anticollision Lights (Konrad L. Werner) 23. 05:44 PM - Cad files (kesleyelectric) 24. 06:24 PM - Re: Cad files (Steve Allison) 25. 06:44 PM - schematic revision (Bill Boyd) 26. 10:42 PM - Off Topic but related to Battery Charging (Tony Babb) ________________________________ Message 1 _____________________________________ Time: 05:05:32 AM PST US From: Subject: AeroElectric-List: Battery Charging 2/17/2007 Hello Bob Nuckolls, You wrote: "Time: 08:09:59 AM PST US From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: 24v vs 27 volt power supplies .....skip..... Similarly, a battery charger of any size has no way of knowing how many batteries are connected . . . the act of adding more individual batteries appears no differently to the charger than if you'd simply connected a single, larger battery......skip....." Could you please make clear in which manner multiple batteries should be connected to the charger -- either in series or parallel? Also if the battery charger has some defined limited output of current, such as 6 amps, would that not affect the rate at which multiple low state batteries could be initially charged? Thanks for your always helpful inputs. OC ________________________________ Message 2 _____________________________________ Time: 05:39:27 AM PST US From: Subject: AeroElectric-List: Daytime Anticollision Lights 2/17/2007 Hello To "SD-8 or NOT to SD-8 . . . that is the question" At 11:31 AM 2/16/2007 -0700, you wrote: "....skip....Oh, and Nav-Lights/Strobes for collision avoidance, but I don't plan to fly at nighttime.....skip....." Please note what FAR Sec. 91.209 (b) says about operating anticollision lights in the daytime, as well as from sunset to sunrise, if the aircraft is equipped with an anticollision light system. "91.209. Aircraft lights. No person may: (b) Operate an aircraft that is equipped with an anticollision light system, unless it has lighted anticollision lights. However, the anticollision lights need not be lighted when the pilot-in-command determines that, because of operating conditions, it would be in the interest of safety to turn the lights off." Operating continuously or normally in the daytime with anticollision lights off, if the aircraft is so equipped, regardless of operating conditions would probably not be considered "in the interest of safety" by the FAA. OC -- The best investment we can make is to gather knowledge. ________________________________ Message 3 _____________________________________ Time: 06:27:12 AM PST US From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Com issues - resolved At 10:47 PM 2/16/2007 -0600, you wrote: > >Well gang...it's fixed. > >I added 150ohm resistors to all input audio leads into the panel. >Everything is living together quite nicely now. I guess something in the >combination was not playing well with the new radio. > >However, there was one wild card that might also have something to do with >it. While I was removing, moving, installing, and re-installing the pins >in the 134's connector, one of the ground leads (mic I think) broke off a >pin. I was forced to strip and crimp a new molex pin on there and >re-secure. This was done in the same operation as the resistors. After >all that, the audio was loud and clear with all radios mixed in, >regardless of the combination. I'm not convinced this was the issue, >since the radio did work correctly by itself. > >So...was it the resistors?...was it a bad ground?...was it a gremlin? >Personally, I don't care anymore...it's fixed! I suspect that your victim radio was being loaded down by and exceptionally LOW output impedance of the other radio. With its low output impedance, it was able to deliver useful audio output energy into a system that was "loaded" not only by the system that drove you headphones but by the other radio. This is the phenomenon explained in the audio systems chapter I cited earlier. Adding the resistors artificially raised the output impedance of all sources. This degrades the transfer of energy to the headphones . . .but no so much that increasing radio volume can't overcome it. At the same time, it breaks the ability of a radio having exceptionally low output impedance from exercising the loading effect you were experiencing. Bob . . . ---------------------------------------- ( IF one aspires to be "world class", ) ( what ever you do must be exercised ) ( EVERY day . . . ) ( R. L. Nuckolls III ) ---------------------------------------- ________________________________ Message 4 _____________________________________ Time: 06:43:15 AM PST US From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Battery Charging At 08:03 AM 2/17/2007 -0500, you wrote: > >2/17/2007 > >Hello Bob Nuckolls, You wrote: > >"Time: 08:09:59 AM PST US >From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" >Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: 24v vs 27 volt power supplies > >.....skip..... Similarly, a battery charger of any size has no way of >knowing how many batteries >are connected . . . the act of adding more individual batteries appears no >differently to the charger than if you'd simply connected a single, larger >battery......skip....." > >Could you please make clear in which manner multiple batteries should be >connected to the charger -- either in series or parallel? Batteries are charged by impressing a specific votlage across their terminals. E.g. you charge a 12 volt lead acid battery by holding its terminals at 13.8 to as much as 15 volts . . . See: http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Curves/schumacher_3.jpg You wait for a period of time -OR- until recharge current drops below some nominally low value. I've heard Concord folks cite "100 milliamps" as the indication that the battery is no longer converting discharged chemistry into charged chemistry. After this time, it's useful to drop the charger's output voltage to a "sustaining" level that cannot charge but only offset internal leakages (self discharge) currents that exist in EVERY battery technology. To insure that all batteries in an array of two or more see the same terminal voltage during the recharge-sustain process, they must be in PARALLEL. >Also if the battery charger has some defined limited output of current, >such as 6 amps, would that not affect the rate at which multiple low state >batteries could be initially charged? Absolutely. A 1.5A charger can deliver 1.5AH of charge per hour. Hook dead 32, 18 and 10 AH batteries in parallel and you've tasked the charger with delivering enough energy to replenish all batteries in the array . . or 60 AH. One should expect this process to take 40+ hours to complete. All batteries are being recharged on the same time curve with each getting a share of the 1.5 AH/HR that's available from the charger. Bob . . . ---------------------------------------- ( IF one aspires to be "world class", ) ( what ever you do must be exercised ) ( EVERY day . . . ) ( R. L. Nuckolls III ) ---------------------------------------- ________________________________ Message 5 _____________________________________ Time: 06:50:31 AM PST US From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Daytime Anticollision Lights At 08:36 AM 2/17/2007 -0500, you wrote: > >2/17/2007 > >Hello To "SD-8 or NOT to SD-8 . . . that is the question" > >At 11:31 AM 2/16/2007 -0700, you wrote: > >"....skip....Oh, and Nav-Lights/Strobes for collision avoidance, but I >don't plan to fly at nighttime.....skip....." > >Please note what FAR Sec. 91.209 (b) says about operating anticollision >lights in the daytime, as well as from sunset to sunrise, if the aircraft >is equipped with an anticollision light system. > >"91.209. Aircraft lights. No person may: > >(b) Operate an aircraft that is equipped with an anticollision light >system, unless it has lighted anticollision lights. However, the >anticollision lights need not be lighted when the pilot-in-command >determines that, because of operating conditions, it would be in the >interest of safety to turn the lights off." > >Operating continuously or normally in the daytime with anticollision >lights off, if the aircraft is so equipped, regardless of operating >conditions would probably not be considered "in the interest of safety" by >the FAA. > >OC -- The best investment we can make is to gather knowledge. To quote one of my heros, C.F. Kettering: "Knowledge is not understanding. You can know a lot and still understand nothing." The investment begins with $time$ necessary to gather knowledge but if we do not invest still more $time$ (and perhaps seek explanation) to help us understand, then return on the original investment is at best meager and at worst wasted. Bob . . . ---------------------------------------- ( IF one aspires to be "world class", ) ( what ever you do must be exercised ) ( EVERY day . . . ) ( R. L. Nuckolls III ) ---------------------------------------- ________________________________ Message 6 _____________________________________ Time: 07:04:28 AM PST US From: Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Com issues - resolved Yep, I read that chapter and found it very enlightening. When I was wiring up the airplane, I skipped that section since I out-sourced the panel wiring harness to a local avionics shop. I guess another lesson here is to read the WHOLE book when you're building airplanes...'cuz if you are maintaining airplanes too, you are going to need ALL the info sometime in the future. ;-) Bob, thanks again for the education. -James ----- Original Message ----- From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" Sent: Saturday, February 17, 2007 8:26 AM Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Com issues - resolved > I suspect that your victim radio was being loaded down by > and exceptionally LOW output impedance of the other radio. > With its low output impedance, it was able to deliver useful > audio output energy into a system that was "loaded" not only > by the system that drove you headphones but by the other > radio. This is the phenomenon explained in the audio systems > chapter I cited earlier. ________________________________ Message 7 _____________________________________ Time: 07:17:30 AM PST US From: Dave N6030X Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Daytime Anticollision Lights At 07:36 AM 2/17/2007, you wrote: >"91.209. Aircraft lights. No person may: > >(b) Operate an aircraft that is equipped with an anticollision light >system, unless it has lighted anticollision lights. However, the >anticollision lights need not be lighted when the pilot-in-command >determines that, because of operating conditions, it would be in the >interest of safety to turn the lights off." > >Operating continuously or normally in the daytime with anticollision >lights off, if the aircraft is so equipped, regardless of operating >conditions would probably not be considered "in the interest of >safety" by the FAA. How about this: Mr. FAA judge, sir, as pilot-in-command, I determined it was not in the best interest of safety to operate my anticollision light system because a) it draws 5A of power during taxi, when my generator is not putting out enough current to keep the battery from discharging, and b) at taxi speeds it causes excessive noise in my radios while I am trying to listen for traffic in the pattern / copy clearances / whatever c) I calculated that the 14,400 square inches of my aircraft glinting in the sunlight occupy more retinal space in the eyes of any potential observers than the 4 square inches of blinking light on my tail Dave Morris ________________________________ Message 8 _____________________________________ Time: 07:25:42 AM PST US From: "CH701" <701stol@gmail.com> Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Battery Charging Speaking of battery charging, a recent issue of Sport Aviation had an article entitled "Pulse De-sulfator for Lead-acid Batteries." It described the process of resurrecting weak or sulfated batteries, and included some theory and a schematic of a circuit to address the process. I'm just wondering what this community has to offer on the subject... Here's a link to the authors site: http://www.geocities.com/powertugs/eaa79parts.html Todd Henning Scratch CH701 Builder -----Original Message----- From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Robert L. Nuckolls, III Sent: Saturday, February 17, 2007 8:42 AM Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Battery Charging --> At 08:03 AM 2/17/2007 -0500, you wrote: > >2/17/2007 > >Hello Bob Nuckolls, You wrote: > >"Time: 08:09:59 AM PST US >From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" >Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: 24v vs 27 volt power supplies > >.....skip..... Similarly, a battery charger of any size has no way of >knowing how many batteries are connected . . . the act of adding more >individual batteries appears no differently to the charger than if >you'd simply connected a single, larger battery......skip....." > >Could you please make clear in which manner multiple batteries should >be connected to the charger -- either in series or parallel? Batteries are charged by impressing a specific votlage across their terminals. E.g. you charge a 12 volt lead acid battery by holding its terminals at 13.8 to as much as 15 volts . . . See: http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Curves/schumacher_3.jpg You wait for a period of time -OR- until recharge current drops below some nominally low value. I've heard Concord folks cite "100 milliamps" as the indication that the battery is no longer converting discharged chemistry into charged chemistry. After this time, it's useful to drop the charger's output voltage to a "sustaining" level that cannot charge but only offset internal leakages (self discharge) currents that exist in EVERY battery technology. To insure that all batteries in an array of two or more see the same terminal voltage during the recharge-sustain process, they must be in PARALLEL. >Also if the battery charger has some defined limited output of current, >such as 6 amps, would that not affect the rate at which multiple low >state batteries could be initially charged? Absolutely. A 1.5A charger can deliver 1.5AH of charge per hour. Hook dead 32, 18 and 10 AH batteries in parallel and you've tasked the charger with delivering enough energy to replenish all batteries in the array . . or 60 AH. One should expect this process to take 40+ hours to complete. All batteries are being recharged on the same time curve with each getting a share of the 1.5 AH/HR that's available from the charger. Bob . . . ---------------------------------------- ( IF one aspires to be "world class", ) ( what ever you do must be exercised ) ( EVERY day . . . ) ( R. L. Nuckolls III ) ---------------------------------------- ________________________________ Message 9 _____________________________________ Time: 07:28:10 AM PST US From: John Coloccia Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Daytime Anticollision Lights Best question of all is if you're setting up for VFR-Day only, why not just leave all the lights off entirely? Save the weight, the power draw and the drag. These lights are all but useless in the daytime, anyhow. -John www.ballofshame.com Dave N6030X wrote: > > > At 07:36 AM 2/17/2007, you wrote: >> "91.209. Aircraft lights. No person may: >> >> (b) Operate an aircraft that is equipped with an anticollision light >> system, unless it has lighted anticollision lights. However, the >> anticollision lights need not be lighted when the pilot-in-command >> determines that, because of operating conditions, it would be in the >> interest of safety to turn the lights off." >> >> Operating continuously or normally in the daytime with anticollision >> lights off, if the aircraft is so equipped, regardless of operating >> conditions would probably not be considered "in the interest of >> safety" by the FAA. > > How about this: > > Mr. FAA judge, sir, as pilot-in-command, I determined it was not in > the best interest of safety to operate my anticollision light system > because > > a) it draws 5A of power during taxi, when my generator is not putting > out enough current to keep the battery from discharging, and > b) at taxi speeds it causes excessive noise in my radios while I am > trying to listen for traffic in the pattern / copy clearances / whatever > c) I calculated that the 14,400 square inches of my aircraft glinting > in the sunlight occupy more retinal space in the eyes of any potential > observers than the 4 square inches of blinking light on my tail > > Dave Morris > > ________________________________ Message 10 ____________________________________ Time: 07:30:03 AM PST US From: "Tim Andres" Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Pulse width modulation on linear actuators Thanks Bob & sorry for the delay, the actuator takes 5 amps at rated load. Tim -----Original Message----- From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Robert L. Nuckolls, III Sent: Thursday, February 15, 2007 11:38 PM Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Pulse width modulation on linear actuators At 09:55 PM 2/15/2007 -0800, you wrote: > >Can any one tell if the duty cycle on a PWM will equate at least roughly >with motor speed? ie will a 20% duty cycle slow the motor down to >approximately %20 or does it not work that way? I have a linear actuator for >pitch trim that that travels 2"/sec, I need about .5"/sec. Probably. PM motors have field fields which makes RPM proportional to applied voltage. The RMS (power) available from any source is also proportional to duty cycle for a non-continuous flow. In any case, I presume you're going to make the duty cycle adjustable so whether it takes 25% duty cycle or 27% duty cycle to achieve exactly the speed you want is irrelevant. You can also use linear techniques. An adjustable but regulated voltage source not unlike the dimmers described in . . . http://www.aeroelectric.com/articles//DimmerFabrication.pdf . . . may be considered also. How much current does your motor draw at full speed? Bob . . . ---------------------------------------- ( IF one aspires to be "world class", ) ( what ever you do must be exercised ) ( EVERY day . . . ) ( R. L. Nuckolls III ) ---------------------------------------- -- -- ________________________________ Message 11 ____________________________________ Time: 07:31:00 AM PST US From: "Tim Andres" Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Pulse width modulation on linear actuators Thanks Ernest! -----Original Message----- From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Ernest Christley Sent: Friday, February 16, 2007 5:12 AM Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Pulse width modulation on linear actuators Tim Andres wrote: > >Can any one tell if the duty cycle on a PWM will equate at least roughly >with motor speed? ie will a 20% duty cycle slow the motor down to >approximately %20 or does it not work that way? I have a linear actuator for >pitch trim that that travels 2"/sec, I need about .5"/sec. >Thanks, Tim Andres > > > MPJA sells a motor control unit that does exactly that and at just over $12, I don't think you can beat the price. http://mpja.com/productview.asp?product=6067+KT -- ,|"|"|, Ernest Christley | ----===<{{(oQo)}}>===---- Dyke Delta Builder | o| d |o http://ernest.isa-geek.org | -- -- ________________________________ Message 12 ____________________________________ Time: 08:25:53 AM PST US From: "C Smith" Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Daytime Anticollision Lights Dave, I don't think you could make a better argument than that. Well put. Craig Smith Do Not Archive >"91.209. Aircraft lights. No person may: > >(b) Operate an aircraft that is equipped with an anticollision light >system, unless it has lighted anticollision lights. However, the >anticollision lights need not be lighted when the pilot-in-command >determines that, because of operating conditions, it would be in the >interest of safety to turn the lights off." > >Operating continuously or normally in the daytime with anticollision >lights off, if the aircraft is so equipped, regardless of operating >conditions would probably not be considered "in the interest of safety" >by the FAA. How about this: Mr. FAA judge, sir, as pilot-in-command, I determined it was not in the best interest of safety to operate my anticollision light system because a) it draws 5A of power during taxi, when my generator is not putting out enough current to keep the battery from discharging, and b) at taxi speeds it causes excessive noise in my radios while I am trying to listen for traffic in the pattern / copy clearances / whatever c) I calculated that the 14,400 square inches of my aircraft glinting in the sunlight occupy more retinal space in the eyes of any potential observers than the 4 square inches of blinking light on my tail Dave Morris ________________________________ Message 13 ____________________________________ Time: 08:50:19 AM PST US From: "Konrad L. Werner" Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Daytime Anticollision Lights And to deviate BACK to the original question which started this spinoff here: Does a SD-8 provide enough juice if used as a standalone alternator? Probably not, given the circumstances of the particular setup and E-load mentioned earlier... do not archive ----- Original Message ----- From: C Smith To: aeroelectric-list@matronics.com Sent: Saturday, February 17, 2007 9:24 AM Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Daytime Anticollision Lights Dave, I don't think you could make a better argument than that. Well put. Craig Smith Do Not Archive >"91.209. Aircraft lights. No person may: > >(b) Operate an aircraft that is equipped with an anticollision light >system, unless it has lighted anticollision lights. However, the >anticollision lights need not be lighted when the pilot-in-command >determines that, because of operating conditions, it would be in the >interest of safety to turn the lights off." > >Operating continuously or normally in the daytime with anticollision >lights off, if the aircraft is so equipped, regardless of operating >conditions would probably not be considered "in the interest of safety" >by the FAA. How about this: Mr. FAA judge, sir, as pilot-in-command, I determined it was not in the best interest of safety to operate my anticollision light system because a) it draws 5A of power during taxi, when my generator is not putting out enough current to keep the battery from discharging, and b) at taxi speeds it causes excessive noise in my radios while I am trying to listen for traffic in the pattern / copy clearances / whatever c) I calculated that the 14,400 square inches of my aircraft glinting in the sunlight occupy more retinal space in the eyes of any potential observers than the 4 square inches of blinking light on my tail Dave Morris ________________________________ Message 14 ____________________________________ Time: 09:06:40 AM PST US From: "Bill Denton" Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Daytime Anticollision Lights The intent of "the anticollision lights need not be lighted when the pilot-in-command determines that, because of operating conditions, it would be in the interest of safety to turn the lights off" was to avoid blinding other pilots with bright strobe flashes. You will notice that the regulations refer to turning them off when conditions warrant, not to not turning them on at all. I recognize that there might be conditions where a pilot might consider it inadvisable to initially turn them on. But even the most stupid junior lawyer at the FAA could nail you to the wall if you're operating all over the field without the lights being on. What you are going to run up against is a mentality that says "you don't have to have them, but if you do have them, they better work and you had better use them properly". I would wonder if someone might not be jeopardizing your Airworthiness Certificate if they operated in the manner suggested... -----Original Message----- From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com]On Behalf Of C Smith Sent: Saturday, February 17, 2007 10:25 AM Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Daytime Anticollision Lights Dave, I don't think you could make a better argument than that. Well put. Craig Smith Do Not Archive >"91.209. Aircraft lights. No person may: > >(b) Operate an aircraft that is equipped with an anticollision light >system, unless it has lighted anticollision lights. However, the >anticollision lights need not be lighted when the pilot-in-command >determines that, because of operating conditions, it would be in the >interest of safety to turn the lights off." > >Operating continuously or normally in the daytime with anticollision >lights off, if the aircraft is so equipped, regardless of operating >conditions would probably not be considered "in the interest of safety" >by the FAA. How about this: Mr. FAA judge, sir, as pilot-in-command, I determined it was not in the best interest of safety to operate my anticollision light system because a) it draws 5A of power during taxi, when my generator is not putting out enough current to keep the battery from discharging, and b) at taxi speeds it causes excessive noise in my radios while I am trying to listen for traffic in the pattern / copy clearances / whatever c) I calculated that the 14,400 square inches of my aircraft glinting in the sunlight occupy more retinal space in the eyes of any potential observers than the 4 square inches of blinking light on my tail Dave Morris ________________________________ Message 15 ____________________________________ Time: 09:33:28 AM PST US From: Ken Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Will SVLA charge on a sustaining voltage? I always deal with partially discharged batteries rather than fully discharged ones but I have probably waited at least a couple of days to notice the recharge current to fall to the float current and that is typically under 10 ma depending on the battery. The actual energy under that upward inflected curve is small but it still takes awhile to get the equivalent at very small charging current of course. I use 13.5 volts for AGM batteries which probably helps. 13.5 is more in line with what I've seen on things like burglar alarms and small UPS batteries. Someone will no doubt mention that there is more to this than just restoring a full charge though. Below is a repeat of a very good post out of the archives which suggests that charging with that voltage inflection is a good thing for storage batteries that don't get a bit of overcharging in a vehicle. It might also give a possible reason why pulse charging might have some benefit even if the desulphation theory is bunk. The strong inflection that shuts off the built in charger on my booster battery pack is a better scheme for frequently used batteries and probably for VRLA batteries in general. That $30. booster battery pack has a 15AH battery and it often runs a 120vac inverter and it also makes a handy (less than an amp) charger by just clipping it onto another battery and plugging it in to let them both charge in parallel. Ken There are four main reasons why AGMs wear out. 1) Loss of electrolyte 2) Grid corrosion 3) Sulfation 4) Paste degradation If you overcharge an AGM excessively, it will lose electrolyte and dry out. This is NOT why they wear out in airplanes and cars (typically.) Typically, AGMs go bad because they are not properly charged. If you don't over charge them a little bit on a regular basis, the negative plate gets further and further behind the positive plate. The negative plate then sulfates and you lose capacity and cranking power. (In the short term, you lose capacity simply because the negative plate is not fully charged.) Why you don't need to add water to an AGM is that the oxygen and hydrogen gas recombine in the separator to form water. This recombination process is not 100% efficient, and it causes the negative plate to take slightly less charge than the positive plate when you re-charge the battery. Each cycle gets the negative plate a bit more behind. 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. High-end voltage regulators do something like this (like on boats and motor homes). Every time you start up the engine, it charges up the battery to normal voltage, then it gives the battery a slight overcharge for a few minutes. Makes the big expensive AGM batteries last much longer. >>>> What causes the other types of failures, just in case you wanted to know. <<< Excessive overcharging will cause the loss of electrolyte. Severe discharge, causing reversal of a cell or two, will also cause electrolyte loss. 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. Sulfation is caused by leaving the battery discharged for extended periods of time. Not fully charging the battery and leaving that way will also cause sulfation. Paste degradation is caused by repeated severe and/or deep discharges. Cranking the battery flat over and over is a good way to cause paste degradation. Robert L. Nuckolls, III wrote: > > > After a 3.0A discharge to 11.0 volts where the battery > delivered at total of 11.2 ah of capacity, I connected > the battery to a 13.0 volt power supply and waited 18+ > hours until the 're-charge' current was down to under > 30 milliampers. > > A subsequent 3.0A discharge produced only 8.8 AH of > useful output. The same battery is back on a Battery > Tender Jr for another charge/discharge cycle. > > This experiment suggests that there's something to > the notion of carrying the battery's recharge profile > up to the point where rate-of-change for voltage takes > the upward inflection which is the battery's way of > letting the outside world know that it's getting pretty > close to full. > > Bob . . . ________________________________ Message 16 ____________________________________ Time: 09:45:45 AM PST US Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Daytime Anticollision Lights From: "Chuck Jensen" Or, just disconnect the collision lights and put an 'inop' tag on the switch. The disconnect point would be easily reversed if night flying is envisioned. The point to the FAA is yes, a housing and bulb in on the tail fin, but collision lights are not installed because they have to have a source of power to be considered to be installed and they can not be controlled and turned on by the pilot. But if they are hooked up and you can flip a switch to turn them on, and you don't, that Perry Mason Jr. intern at the FAA will probably put a notch in his briefs at your expense. Hopefully they have better things to do then prosecute a case like that, but don't bet your license on it. Besides, if the FAA has their way, there'll be a whole bunch on new fees associated with getting your license back!! Chuck Jensen Do Not Archive -----Original Message----- From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Bill Denton Sent: Saturday, February 17, 2007 12:06 PM Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Daytime Anticollision Lights --> The intent of "the anticollision lights need not be lighted when the pilot-in-command determines that, because of operating conditions, it would be in the interest of safety to turn the lights off" was to avoid blinding other pilots with bright strobe flashes. You will notice that the regulations refer to turning them off when conditions warrant, not to not turning them on at all. I recognize that there might be conditions where a pilot might consider it inadvisable to initially turn them on. But even the most stupid junior lawyer at the FAA could nail you to the wall if you're operating all over the field without the lights being on. What you are going to run up against is a mentality that says "you don't have to have them, but if you do have them, they better work and you had better use them properly". I would wonder if someone might not be jeopardizing your Airworthiness Certificate if they operated in the manner suggested... -----Original Message----- From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com]On Behalf Of C Smith Sent: Saturday, February 17, 2007 10:25 AM Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Daytime Anticollision Lights Dave, I don't think you could make a better argument than that. Well put. Craig Smith Do Not Archive >"91.209. Aircraft lights. No person may: > >(b) Operate an aircraft that is equipped with an anticollision light >system, unless it has lighted anticollision lights. However, the >anticollision lights need not be lighted when the pilot-in-command >determines that, because of operating conditions, it would be in the >interest of safety to turn the lights off." > >Operating continuously or normally in the daytime with anticollision >lights off, if the aircraft is so equipped, regardless of operating >conditions would probably not be considered "in the interest of safety" >by the FAA. How about this: Mr. FAA judge, sir, as pilot-in-command, I determined it was not in the best interest of safety to operate my anticollision light system because a) it draws 5A of power during taxi, when my generator is not putting out enough current to keep the battery from discharging, and b) at taxi speeds it causes excessive noise in my radios while I am trying to listen for traffic in the pattern / copy clearances / whatever c) I calculated that the 14,400 square inches of my aircraft glinting in the sunlight occupy more retinal space in the eyes of any potential observers than the 4 square inches of blinking light on my tail Dave Morris ________________________________ Message 17 ____________________________________ Time: 10:04:46 AM PST US From: "Konrad L. Werner" Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Daytime Anticollision Lights I am still amazed me how this thread came into life? My original question that started it was to see if my SD-8 would be an adequate alternator to supply enough energy to a certain setup... But blink once and schwup-di-wup we deviate into a whole different direction right quick. How did we get from Electrics & Physics to FAA Rules & Lawyers so darn quick??? Whatever will be mounted in the ship will be used in accordance to Rules, Regs and/or Logic, ...so is my SD-8 alternator adequate or not for the specific demands mentioned earlier? I still don't know what the best Primer is? Any ideas anyone ??? ----- Original Message ----- From: Chuck Jensen To: aeroelectric-list@matronics.com Sent: Saturday, February 17, 2007 10:45 AM Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Daytime Anticollision Lights Or, just disconnect the collision lights and put an 'inop' tag on the switch. The disconnect point would be easily reversed if night flying is envisioned. The point to the FAA is yes, a housing and bulb in on the tail fin, but collision lights are not installed because they have to have a source of power to be considered to be installed and they can not be controlled and turned on by the pilot. But if they are hooked up and you can flip a switch to turn them on, and you don't, that Perry Mason Jr. intern at the FAA will probably put a notch in his briefs at your expense. Hopefully they have better things to do then prosecute a case like that, but don't bet your license on it. Besides, if the FAA has their way, there'll be a whole bunch on new fees associated with getting your license back!! Chuck Jensen Do Not Archive -----Original Message----- From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Bill Denton Sent: Saturday, February 17, 2007 12:06 PM To: aeroelectric-list@matronics.com Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Daytime Anticollision Lights --> The intent of "the anticollision lights need not be lighted when the pilot-in-command determines that, because of operating conditions, it would be in the interest of safety to turn the lights off" was to avoid blinding other pilots with bright strobe flashes. You will notice that the regulations refer to turning them off when conditions warrant, not to not turning them on at all. I recognize that there might be conditions where a pilot might consider it inadvisable to initially turn them on. But even the most stupid junior lawyer at the FAA could nail you to the wall if you're operating all over the field without the lights being on. What you are going to run up against is a mentality that says "you don't have to have them, but if you do have them, they better work and you had better use them properly". I would wonder if someone might not be jeopardizing your Airworthiness Certificate if they operated in the manner suggested... -----Original Message----- From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com]On Behalf Of C Smith Sent: Saturday, February 17, 2007 10:25 AM To: aeroelectric-list@matronics.com Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Daytime Anticollision Lights Dave, I don't think you could make a better argument than that. Well put. Craig Smith Do Not Archive >"91.209. Aircraft lights. No person may: > >(b) Operate an aircraft that is equipped with an anticollision light >system, unless it has lighted anticollision lights. However, the >anticollision lights need not be lighted when the pilot-in-command >determines that, because of operating conditions, it would be in the >interest of safety to turn the lights off." > >Operating continuously or normally in the daytime with anticollision >lights off, if the aircraft is so equipped, regardless of operating >conditions would probably not be considered "in the interest of safety" >by the FAA. How about this: Mr. FAA judge, sir, as pilot-in-command, I determined it was not in the best interest of safety to operate my anticollision light system because a) it draws 5A of power during taxi, when my generator is not putting out enough current to keep the battery from discharging, and b) at taxi speeds it causes excessive noise in my radios while I am trying to listen for traffic in the pattern / copy clearances / whatever c) I calculated that the 14,400 square inches of my aircraft glinting in the sunlight occupy more retinal space in the eyes of any potential observers than the 4 square inches of blinking light on my tail Dave Morris ________________________________ Message 18 ____________________________________ Time: 10:06:20 AM PST US From: Ken Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Daytime Anticollision Lights My 3 favorite conspicuity items are: Wig wag lights seem useful especially near airports. A non white painted airplane. A little $400. traffic alerter such as the one by Zaon is perhaps even more useful than strobes for some folks especially those that don't look outside much. More pilots leave their transponder on even in the circuit than I expected. Useless if the other guy doesn't have a transponder. Ken John Coloccia wrote: > > > Best question of all is if you're setting up for VFR-Day only, why not > just leave all the lights off entirely? Save the weight, the power > draw and the drag. These lights are all but useless in the daytime, > anyhow. > > -John > www.ballofshame.com ________________________________ Message 19 ____________________________________ Time: 10:43:46 AM PST US From: "Terry Watson" Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Daytime Anticollision Lights Just because you start a thread doesn't mean it is going to just answer your question and not wander off. Just like any conversation, thoughts trigger other thoughts. Some will find it interesting, some won't. Delete; don't censor. Terry Do not archive _____ From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Konrad L. Werner Sent: Saturday, February 17, 2007 10:03 AM Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Daytime Anticollision Lights I am still amazed me how this thread came into life? My original question that started it was to see if my SD-8 would be an adequate alternator to supply enough energy to a certain setup... But blink once and schwup-di-wup we deviate into a whole different direction right quick. How did we get from Electrics & Physics to FAA Rules & Lawyers so darn quick??? Whatever will be mounted in the ship will be used in accordance to Rules, Regs and/or Logic, ...so is my SD-8 alternator adequate or not for the specific demands mentioned earlier? I still don't know what the best Primer is? Any ideas anyone ??? ----- Original Message ----- From: Chuck Jensen Sent: Saturday, February 17, 2007 10:45 AM Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Daytime Anticollision Lights Or, just disconnect the collision lights and put an 'inop' tag on the switch. The disconnect point would be easily reversed if night flying is envisioned. The point to the FAA is yes, a housing and bulb in on the tail fin, but collision lights are not installed because they have to have a source of power to be considered to be installed and they can not be controlled and turned on by the pilot. But if they are hooked up and you can flip a switch to turn them on, and you don't, that Perry Mason Jr. intern at the FAA will probably put a notch in his briefs at your expense. Hopefully they have better things to do then prosecute a case like that, but don't bet your license on it. Besides, if the FAA has their way, there'll be a whole bunch on new fees associated with getting your license back!! Chuck Jensen Do Not Archive -----Original Message----- From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Bill Denton Sent: Saturday, February 17, 2007 12:06 PM Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Daytime Anticollision Lights --> The intent of "the anticollision lights need not be lighted when the pilot-in-command determines that, because of operating conditions, it would be in the interest of safety to turn the lights off" was to avoid blinding other pilots with bright strobe flashes. You will notice that the regulations refer to turning them off when conditions warrant, not to not turning them on at all. I recognize that there might be conditions where a pilot might consider it inadvisable to initially turn them on. But even the most stupid junior lawyer at the FAA could nail you to the wall if you're operating all over the field without the lights being on. What you are going to run up against is a mentality that says "you don't have to have them, but if you do have them, they better work and you had better use them properly". I would wonder if someone might not be jeopardizing your Airworthiness Certificate if they operated in the manner suggested... -----Original Message----- From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com]On Behalf Of C Smith Sent: Saturday, February 17, 2007 10:25 AM Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Daytime Anticollision Lights Dave, I don't think you could make a better argument than that. Well put. Craig Smith Do Not Archive >"91.209. Aircraft lights. No person may: > >(b) Operate an aircraft that is equipped with an anticollision light >system, unless it has lighted anticollision lights. However, the >anticollision lights need not be lighted when the pilot-in-command >determines that, because of operating conditions, it would be in the >interest of safety to turn the lights off." > >Operating continuously or normally in the daytime with anticollision >lights off, if the aircraft is so equipped, regardless of operating >conditions would probably not be considered "in the interest of safety" >by the FAA. How about this: Mr. FAA judge, sir, as pilot-in-command, I determined it was not in the best interest of safety to operate my anticollision light system because a) it draws 5A of power during taxi, when my generator is not putting out enough current to keep the battery from discharging, and b) at taxi speeds it causes excessive noise in my radios while I am trying to listen for traffic in the pattern / copy clearances / whatever c) I calculated that the 14,400 square inches of my aircraft glinting in the sunlight occupy more retinal space in the eyes of any potential observers than the 4 square inches of blinking light on my tail Dave nbsp; Features Subscriptions href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List">http://www.p; available via href="http://forums.matronics.com">http://forums.matronics.com ________________________________ Message 20 ____________________________________ Time: 12:18:08 PM PST US From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Daytime Anticollision Lights At 11:03 AM 2/17/2007 -0700, you wrote: >I am still amazed me how this thread came into life? My original question >that started it was to see if my SD-8 would be an adequate alternator to >supply enough energy to a certain setup... > >But blink once and schwup-di-wup we deviate into a whole different >direction right quick. How did we get from Electrics & Physics to FAA >Rules & Lawyers so darn quick??? > >Whatever will be mounted in the ship will be used in accordance to Rules, >Regs and/or Logic, ...so is my SD-8 alternator adequate or not for the >specific demands mentioned earlier? > >I still don't know what the best Primer is? Any ideas anyone ??? It seems that someone along the way noted that the SD-8 is good for just over 8 amps when your engine is running at the red line. Beyond that, there's no more data that can be offered from the List because we don't know what your load analysis is for electro- whizzies in addition to exterior lights . . . and whether or not you're comfortable with charging around the pattern at 2700 RPM. I believe the simple answer is that the SD-8 is not adequate to the task for the way most of us load and use our systems, even in a day-vfr only environment. The SD-8 was the product that launched B&C Specialty Products about 27 years ago. I met Bill Bainbridge for the first time when he walked into Electo-Mech asking to buy the castings we used on our Bonanza stand-by generators. They mated with the AND20000, vacuum pump drive pad. That alternator IS flying on a whole raft of Longez and Variez aircraft as the sole source of engine driven energy for running electro-whizzies and charging a small battery. Few of these aircraft even had starters. For a time there was a belt driven cousin to the SD-8 that ran from the prop shaft . . . it WAS good for 12A or so. Over the years, the SD-8 has been best assigned duties as a second source of engine driven power for the purpose backing up a larger machine. The primary value of the SD-8 is to provide UNLIMITED endurance for an 8A e-bus load while holding 100% of battery's contained energy in reserve for approach to landing. Bob . . . ________________________________ Message 21 ____________________________________ Time: 01:49:57 PM PST US From: "Konrad L. Werner" Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Daytime Anticollision Lights Thank you Bob, Now there is an answer that is of great use to me. My SD-8 when used as a backup alternator will certainly prolong the demise of the battery for long enough to make it down safely, should the main alternator ever fail on me. Thank you again for your input. Konrad ----- Original Message ----- From: Robert L. Nuckolls, III To: aeroelectric-list@matronics.com Sent: Saturday, February 17, 2007 1:16 PM Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Daytime Anticollision Lights At 11:03 AM 2/17/2007 -0700, you wrote: >I am still amazed me how this thread came into life? My original question >that started it was to see if my SD-8 would be an adequate alternator to >supply enough energy to a certain setup... > >But blink once and schwup-di-wup we deviate into a whole different >direction right quick. How did we get from Electrics & Physics to FAA >Rules & Lawyers so darn quick??? > >Whatever will be mounted in the ship will be used in accordance to Rules, >Regs and/or Logic, ...so is my SD-8 alternator adequate or not for the >specific demands mentioned earlier? > >I still don't know what the best Primer is? Any ideas anyone ??? It seems that someone along the way noted that the SD-8 is good for just over 8 amps when your engine is running at the red line. Beyond that, there's no more data that can be offered from the List because we don't know what your load analysis is for electro- whizzies in addition to exterior lights . . . and whether or not you're comfortable with charging around the pattern at 2700 RPM. I believe the simple answer is that the SD-8 is not adequate to the task for the way most of us load and use our systems, even in a day-vfr only environment. The SD-8 was the product that launched B&C Specialty Products about 27 years ago. I met Bill Bainbridge for the first time when he walked into Electo-Mech asking to buy the castings we used on our Bonanza stand-by generators. They mated with the AND20000, vacuum pump drive pad. That alternator IS flying on a whole raft of Longez and Variez aircraft as the sole source of engine driven energy for running electro-whizzies and charging a small battery. Few of these aircraft even had starters. For a time there was a belt driven cousin to the SD-8 that ran from the prop shaft . . . it WAS good for 12A or so. Over the years, the SD-8 has been best assigned duties as a second source of engine driven power for the purpose backing up a larger machine. The primary value of the SD-8 is to provide UNLIMITED endurance for an 8A e-bus load while holding 100% of battery's contained energy in reserve for approach to landing. Bob . . . ________________________________ Message 22 ____________________________________ Time: 02:02:45 PM PST US From: "Konrad L. Werner" Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Daytime Anticollision Lights Dear Terry, Amazement does not equal Censorship. I don't think I scolded or censored anybody for deviating from the original thread, but I was sure amazed on how it got into FAA Regs instead... By the way, I did get the answer to my electrical question from Bob N., but I also learned something new from the deviation into FAA-Law here. So anyone please feel free to continue the discussion in any direction desired, as I am open to learn some more... ----- Original Message ----- From: Terry Watson To: aeroelectric-list@matronics.com Sent: Saturday, February 17, 2007 11:41 AM Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Daytime Anticollision Lights Just because you start a thread doesn't mean it is going to just answer your question and not wander off. Just like any conversation, thoughts trigger other thoughts. Some will find it interesting, some won't. Delete; don't censor. Terry Do not archive ------------------------------------------------------------------------- ----- From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Konrad L. Werner Sent: Saturday, February 17, 2007 10:03 AM To: aeroelectric-list@matronics.com Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Daytime Anticollision Lights I am still amazed about how this thread came into life? My original question that started it was to see if my SD-8 would be an adequate alternator to supply enough energy to a certain setup... But blink once and schwup-di-wup we deviate into a whole different direction right quick. How did we get from Electrics & Physics to FAA Rules & Lawyers so darn quick??? Whatever will be mounted in the ship will be used in accordance to Rules, Regs and/or Logic, ...so is my SD-8 alternator adequate or not for the specific demands mentioned earlier? I still don't know what the best Primer is? Any ideas anyone ??? ----- Original Message ----- From: Chuck Jensen To: aeroelectric-list@matronics.com Sent: Saturday, February 17, 2007 10:45 AM Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Daytime Anticollision Lights Or, just disconnect the collision lights and put an 'inop' tag on the switch. The disconnect point would be easily reversed if night flying is envisioned. The point to the FAA is yes, a housing and bulb in on the tail fin, but collision lights are not installed because they have to have a source of power to be considered to be installed and they can not be controlled and turned on by the pilot. But if they are hooked up and you can flip a switch to turn them on, and you don't, that Perry Mason Jr. intern at the FAA will probably put a notch in his briefs at your expense. Hopefully they have better things to do then prosecute a case like that, but don't bet your license on it. Besides, if the FAA has their way, there'll be a whole bunch on new fees associated with getting your license back!! Chuck Jensen Do Not Archive -----Original Message----- From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Bill Denton Sent: Saturday, February 17, 2007 12:06 PM To: aeroelectric-list@matronics.com Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Daytime Anticollision Lights --> The intent of "the anticollision lights need not be lighted when the pilot-in-command determines that, because of operating conditions, it would be in the interest of safety to turn the lights off" was to avoid blinding other pilots with bright strobe flashes. You will notice that the regulations refer to turning them off when conditions warrant, not to not turning them on at all. I recognize that there might be conditions where a pilot might consider it inadvisable to initially turn them on. But even the most stupid junior lawyer at the FAA could nail you to the wall if you're operating all over the field without the lights being on. What you are going to run up against is a mentality that says "you don't have to have them, but if you do have them, they better work and you had better use them properly". I would wonder if someone might not be jeopardizing your Airworthiness Certificate if they operated in the manner suggested... -----Original Message----- From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com]On Behalf Of C Smith Sent: Saturday, February 17, 2007 10:25 AM To: aeroelectric-list@matronics.com Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Daytime Anticollision Lights Dave, I don't think you could make a better argument than that. Well put. Craig Smith Do Not Archive >"91.209. Aircraft lights. No person may: > >(b) Operate an aircraft that is equipped with an anticollision light >system, unless it has lighted anticollision lights. However, the >anticollision lights need not be lighted when the pilot-in-command >determines that, because of operating conditions, it would be in the >interest of safety to turn the lights off." > >Operating continuously or normally in the daytime with anticollision >lights off, if the aircraft is so equipped, regardless of operating >conditions would probably not be considered "in the interest of safety" >by the FAA. How about this: Mr. FAA judge, sir, as pilot-in-command, I determined it was not in the best interest of safety to operate my anticollision light system because a) it draws 5A of power during taxi, when my generator is not putting out enough current to keep the battery from discharging, and b) at taxi speeds it causes excessive noise in my radios while I am trying to listen for traffic in the pattern / copy clearances / whatever c) I calculated that the 14,400 square inches of my aircraft glinting in the sunlight occupy more retinal space in the eyes of any potential observers than the 4 square inches of blinking light on my tail Dave nbsp; Features Subscriptions href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List">http://www. p; available via href="http://forums.matronics.com">http://forums.matronics.com ========== ________________________________ Message 23 ____________________________________ Time: 05:44:16 PM PST US From: "kesleyelectric" Subject: AeroElectric-List: Cad files Bob and list, After loading TurboCAD v.10 on my computer in hopes of opening and editing the .dwg files on the Aeroelectric website, I cannot get them to open. A message pops up saying "no filter found matching this file". I have been through the reference manual, but as a new user it did not shed light on the problem. Any suggestions appreciated. Tom Barter Avid Magnum ________________________________ Message 24 ____________________________________ Time: 06:24:59 PM PST US From: Steve Allison Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Cad files kesleyelectric wrote: > Bob and list, > > After loading TurboCAD v.10 on my computer in hopes of opening and > editing the .dwg files on the Aeroelectric website, I cannot get them > to open. A message pops up saying "no filter found matching this > file". I have been through the reference manual, but as a new user it > did not shed light on the problem. Any suggestions appreciated. > > Tom Barter > Avid Magnum Tom, For some unknown reason my TurboCAD v10 system started doing the same thing last week. I could not open my own drawings. I ended up completely un-installing and re-installing TurboCAD. After that, it worked again. Steve ________________________________ Message 25 ____________________________________ Time: 06:44:31 PM PST US From: "Bill Boyd" Subject: AeroElectric-List: schematic revision Several listers had requested and received a copy of my power distribution diagram a few weeks ago. To those many individuals, I address this update. Bench testing of the original design has exposed a flaw in the way the Perihelion OV module is wired in. The module cannot tolerate over 18 volts on any of its terminals for more than a few milliseconds. Not very robust-sounding for a module designed to trip at 16.2 volts, and an expensive lesson to learn the hard way, but in the end, I think this piece of hardware can be adapted successfully to this application. The attached .xls file shows the revised connections for the OV module, and I believe it lays out the bus architecture in a more easily understood fashion. If you have an externally regulated alternator on your plane, this scheme is of no concern to you and not worth your time to study. If you have an IR alternator and no external OV protection you are happy with, and need redundant power for an all-electric ship, you might want to give it a look. This is what I am going with, until Bob releases his IR alternator tamer, and maybe even after ;-) Open in Microsoft Excel. Comments welcome. -Bill Boyd ________________________________ Message 26 ____________________________________ Time: 10:42:04 PM PST US From: "Tony Babb" Subject: AeroElectric-List: Off Topic but related to Battery Charging Hi all Maybe one of you electro gurus could point me in the right direction here. My cordless electric drill (Makita) battery charger has stopped working. It has a flashing light that says the battery is too hot and charging will begin again when it cools down. I tried another battery and same thing happens so I think the fault is more likely in the charger than two separate batteries failing at the same time in the same way. There are three connectors between the battery and the charger, positive, negative and a third unmarked. I'm assuming the third is where it gets it temperature info from. I looked inside the charger and the three connectors are all single wire connectors, nothing appears to be broken or burned inside the charger. Of course a new charger costs almost as much as a new drill, so if it can't be fixed I'll just buy a new drill, then I'll have two drills and one charger. Thanks for any suggestions to troubleshoot further. Tony Velocity SEFG 62% done 78% to go www.alejandra.net/velocity DO NOT ARCHIVE ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Other Matronics Email List Services ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Post A New Message aeroelectric-list@matronics.com UN/SUBSCRIBE http://www.matronics.com/subscription List FAQ http://www.matronics.com/FAQ/AeroElectric-List.htm Web Forum Interface To Lists http://forums.matronics.com Matronics List Wiki http://wiki.matronics.com Full Archive Search Engine http://www.matronics.com/search 7-Day List Browse http://www.matronics.com/browse/aeroelectric-list Browse Digests http://www.matronics.com/digest/aeroelectric-list Browse Other Lists http://www.matronics.com/browse Live Online Chat! http://www.matronics.com/chat Archive Downloading http://www.matronics.com/archives Photo Share http://www.matronics.com/photoshare Other Email Lists http://www.matronics.com/emaillists Contributions http://www.matronics.com/contribution ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- These Email List Services are sponsored solely by Matronics and through the generous Contributions of its members.