Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 05:33 AM - Manual Battery Switch Project ()
2. 07:50 AM - Re: Re: BATTERY MASTER SWITCH (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
3. 07:52 AM - Re: Manual Battery Switch Project (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
4. 08:19 AM - Re: Re: BATTERY MASTER SWITCH (BobsV35B@aol.com)
5. 12:16 PM - Re: Vertical Power transcends on Z-19 (Alan Adamson)
6. 02:12 PM - CORRECTION: FW: Vertical Power transcends on Z-19 (Alan Adamson)
7. 06:05 PM - Re: Mr. Nuckolls (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
8. 06:39 PM - Re: Mr. Nuckolls (JTORTHO@aol.com)
9. 07:28 PM - Re: Mr. Nuckolls (Dale Ensing)
10. 08:03 PM - Re: Mr. Nuckolls (TSaccio@aol.com)
11. 08:40 PM - Re: Mr. Nuckolls (Maurice)
12. 10:35 PM - P-mag to VM-1000C tach signal (Geoff Evans)
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: | Manual Battery Switch Project |
8/9/2007
Bob Nuckolls wrote:
"Reliability should not be an issue. The classic master-switch/
battery-contactor has no published reliability statistics. I.e.,
and MTBF "calculation" would be so fraught with assumptions as
to make the exercise meaningless......skip....."
and
"At the same time, (repeat after me) "WE craft failure tolerant
systems." I.e., we KNOW that the legacy contactors have failed
at inopportune times for thousands of airplane owners and
we've crafted a plan-B to comfortably accommodate a battery
switch failure whether it's the traditional switch/contactor
approach or a manual switch."
Precisely on target. I personally am aware of three contactor failures
within the last year. One nearly new, presently available, commonly used
type, and two decades older ones built by SBC. Two were battery contactors
and one was a starter contactor.
I have rewired my plane a bit accordingly.
'OC' Says: "The best investment we can make is the effort to gather and
understand knowledge."
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: BATTERY MASTER SWITCH |
At 03:59 PM 8/9/2007 +1000, you wrote:
><peterjfharris@bigpond.com>
>
>Bob I was referring to the first of the pics you sent showing a type 70
>contactor open for inspection.
>It could be used by manually actuating the movement with the use of a bolt.
>Peter
Aha! Understand. Interestingly enough, there have been
products offered in the distant past that allowed for
manual operation of this style of contactor. I helped
some folks find a suitable replacement for a contactor
much like the Model 70 on a Lockheed Lodestar. The
contactor they took off was much like the Model 70 except
it had a non-metalic push-button protruding from a
hole in the top cap that allowed one to push the
plunger assembly down manually.
I suppose one could use modified guts of a Model 70
to craft a manual switch but it would not be my
process of choice. The contactor is a large area,
relatively low pressure connection device that would
be more prone to failure due to contamination and/or
corrosion. Once opened for the purpose of converting
to manual operations, then we've exposed the innards
to the environment which opens opportunities for
unintended consequences for service life.
As folks follow this thread, please keep in mind that
in no way are we suggesting that one launch into any
sort of modification to their stock battery contactor
of any make. Nor are we suggesting that it's even
desirable to replace the electro-mechanical contactor
with a purely mechanical switch.
This is an exercise in crafting a light, compact,
ZERO POWER switch capable of reasonably convenient
control by push-pull Bowden cable. It's a design study
for specific cases (airplanes fitted with small alternators).
We KNOW that battery contactors of any pedigree can,
do and will fail at some point in time. In my never
humble opinion, it's far better to craft a plan-b
to comfortably mitigate such failures than to modify
manufactured parts or spend a lot of $time$ crafting
our own, one-of-a-kind, manual switch.
Until someone has crafted what they believe is a
part that meets the zero-power, remote-controlled
design goal then all of the foregoing is simply an
academic exercise to consider the options. No generalized
recommendations to depart from what's published in the
Z-figures or elsewhere should be inferred.
Bob . . .
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: Manual Battery Switch Project |
At 08:30 AM 8/9/2007 -0400, you wrote:
>
>8/9/2007
> <snip>
>Precisely on target. I personally am aware of three contactor failures
>within the last year. One nearly new, presently available, commonly used
>type, and two decades older ones built by SBC. Two were battery contactors
>and one was a starter contactor.
If one goes into the repair records of aircraft in
existence, there are no doubt dozens of failures
every week . . . and all of those aircraft went to
the shop for replacement from which we may infer that the
failure did not produce a "smoking-hole" event.
While your assertions concerning numbers of observed
failures are no doubt correct, we should be careful
that we do not read meaning into those assertions
that cannot be directly quantified into fleet-wide
risk.
Anecdotal data are often useful but should with
caution. For example, I could say that I'm aware
of dozens of sidewall failures in tires and then
offer a follow-on assertion as to how I reacted to
that information. Now, if I was observing the flow
of flat tires into a tire-store, and the dozens of
sidewall failures were but 1/2 percent of all failures,
then perhaps the sense of urgency to craft an
alternative philosophy for the use of tires.
>I have rewired my plane a bit accordingly.
As I recall you're working with a TC aircraft.
How did you rewire your airplane?
Bob . . .
----------------------------------------
( "Physics is like sex: sure, it may )
( give some practical results, but )
( that's not why we do it." )
( )
( Richard P. Feynman )
----------------------------------------
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: BATTERY MASTER SWITCH |
In a message dated 8/9/2007 9:53:26 A.M. Central Daylight Time,
nuckollsr@cox.net writes:
Aha! Understand. Interestingly enough, there have been
products offered in the distant past that allowed for
manual operation of this style of contactor. I helped
some folks find a suitable replacement for a contactor
much like the Model 70 on a Lockheed Lodestar. The
contactor they took off was much like the Model 70 except
it had a non-metalic push-button protruding from a
hole in the top cap that allowed one to push the
plunger assembly down manually.
For What It Is Worth,
When I was a lad, Ford automobiles had a plunger on their starter contactor
that allowed us to actuate the starter manually. There was no way to open the
contactor if it was stuck closed, but if the electrical activation option was
not operative, we could spin over the engine by pushing on the plunger.
Obviously, the battery had to be sound.
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
AKA
Bob Siegfried
Ancient Aviator
Stearman N3977A
Brookeridge Air Park LL22
Downers Grove, IL 60516
630 985-8503
http://discover.aol.com/memed/aolcom30tour
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: | Vertical Power transcends on Z-19 |
For the sake of complete disclosure, there are multiple versions of the
Vertical Power product. The 10K version is slated primarily for a dual
buss, dual alternator environment. There are also other versions for $6495
and 3495 as well. These are slated for less complex environments and also
have differing feature sets. Here's a very complete version of the 2 major
product lines, the VP-200 comes in a single Control Unit and Dual Control
unit version (the latter is the 10K priced version).
http://www.verticalpower.com/features.html
Hope this helps further, I should have mine flying in the next couple of
months and I just can't wait. I know it's hard to think about it as
something different than just a wiring solution, but there is so much more
capability to the product, it really is better positioned as a Smart
Aircraft Management system.... But I'll let you all make your own
decision...
Btw, I'm doing a VP-200 Duo in a 24v dual alt, dual batt system.
Alan
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of
longg@pjm.com
Sent: Wednesday, August 08, 2007 10:18 PM
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Vertical Power transcends on Z-19
Bob,
Just wanted to get your opinion of the integration of Z-19 and
Vertical Powers' V-200 unit. I believe they are charging about 10k for that
package. Do you feel there is enough valued added integrity there to
substantiate that investment? It seems to me that Z-19 already has enough
robustness built into the design. VP does perform some fancy automation
stuff, but that becomes personal rather an integral to the system. I will be
using an external EIS 4000 which is married to the Subaru and provides all
necessary engine parameters. The V-200 supports just a few of the Subaru
engine functions at this time - more planned for 2008.
http://www.verticalpower.com/docs/VP_Z-19.pdf
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: | Vertical Power transcends on Z-19 |
My mistake, I had no idea that the phrase that I thot I had made up was
actually another product. Vertical Power in no way, to the best of my
knowledge, is associated with Smart Aircraft Management Systems or their
product line. The owner of SAMS requested that I post a clarification,
which I'll quickly do.
www.smartaircraftsystems.com
Guess, you learn something every day...
My apologies,
Alan
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Alan
Adamson
Sent: Thursday, August 09, 2007 3:10 PM
Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Vertical Power transcends on Z-19
--> <aadamson@highrf.com>
For the sake of complete disclosure, there are multiple versions of the
Vertical Power product. The 10K version is slated primarily for a dual
buss, dual alternator environment. There are also other versions for $6495
and 3495 as well. These are slated for less complex environments and also
have differing feature sets. Here's a very complete version of the 2 major
product lines, the VP-200 comes in a single Control Unit and Dual Control
unit version (the latter is the 10K priced version).
http://www.verticalpower.com/features.html
Hope this helps further, I should have mine flying in the next couple of
months and I just can't wait. I know it's hard to think about it as
something different than just a wiring solution, but there is so much more
capability to the product, it really is better positioned as a Smart
Aircraft Management system.... But I'll let you all make your own
decision...
Btw, I'm doing a VP-200 Duo in a 24v dual alt, dual batt system.
Alan
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of
longg@pjm.com
Sent: Wednesday, August 08, 2007 10:18 PM
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Vertical Power transcends on Z-19
Bob,
Just wanted to get your opinion of the integration of Z-19 and
Vertical Powers' V-200 unit. I believe they are charging about 10k for that
package. Do you feel there is enough valued added integrity there to
substantiate that investment? It seems to me that Z-19 already has enough
robustness built into the design. VP does perform some fancy automation
stuff, but that becomes personal rather an integral to the system. I will be
using an external EIS 4000 which is married to the Subaru and provides all
necessary engine parameters. The V-200 supports just a few of the Subaru
engine functions at this time - more planned for 2008.
http://www.verticalpower.com/docs/VP_Z-19.pdf
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: Mr. Nuckolls |
At 05:37 PM 8/8/2007 -0700, you wrote:
>
>
>Bob,
>
>We didn't get (or I missed) a report on your Dad. I hope the news was
>better.
>
>Terry
After 83 years of gracefully playing the cards dealt
to him, Dad cashed out in peace and comfort about 10
days ago. It was time and he was ready. Dr. Dee and
I were with him at the end. He left us with many
admirable goals and recipes for success. He will
be missed but will live on in all those who learned
from him. Thanks for asking.
See:
http://aeroelectric.com/articles/In_Memory_of_Robert_L_Nuckolls_Jr.pdf
Bob . . .
Message 8
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Mr. Nuckolls |
In a message dated 8/9/2007 8:07:45 P.M. Eastern Standard Time,
nuckollsr@cox.net writes:
http://aeroelectric.com/articles/In_Memory_of_Robert_L_Nuckolls_Jr.pdf
I am sorry for your loss. I also had a dad from the greatest generation,
who survived and thrived under circumstances that intimidate me. I lack
your eloquence, but share your pride and sorrow.
http://discover.aol.com/memed/aolcom30tour
Message 9
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Mr. Nuckolls |
My condolence to you Bob and to Dr.Dee.
Dale Ensing
do not archive
----- Original Message -----
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr@cox.net>
Sent: Thursday, August 09, 2007 10:06 PM
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Mr. Nuckolls
> <nuckollsr@cox.net>
>
> At 05:37 PM 8/8/2007 -0700, you wrote:
>
>><terry@tcwatson.com>
>>
>>
>>Bob,
>>
>>We didn't get (or I missed) a report on your Dad. I hope the news was
>>better.
>>
>>Terry
>
> After 83 years of gracefully playing the cards dealt
> to him, Dad cashed out in peace and comfort about 10
> days ago. It was time and he was ready. Dr. Dee and
> I were with him at the end. He left us with many
> admirable goals and recipes for success. He will
> be missed but will live on in all those who learned
> from him. Thanks for asking.
>
> See:
>
> http://aeroelectric.com/articles/In_Memory_of_Robert_L_Nuckolls_Jr.pdf
>
> Bob . . .
>
>
>
Message 10
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Mr. Nuckolls |
In a message dated 8/9/2007 9:07:47 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
nuckollsr@cox.net writes:
http://aeroelectric.com/articles/In_Memory_of_Robert_L_Nuckolls_Jr.pdf
Dear Bob, I read about your Dad's passing. I also read the biography that
you wrote. He seemed like quite a guy. One I wouldn't of minded knowing. Please
accept our sympathy's
Tom & Sandy Saccio
http://discover.aol.com/memed/aolcom30tour
Message 11
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Mr. Nuckolls |
Bob, Thank you for sharing this with us. Your love for this very special
man is quite moving.
Maurice Fitzgerald
----- Original Message -----
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr@cox.net>
Sent: Thursday, August 09, 2007 7:06 PM
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Mr. Nuckolls
> <nuckollsr@cox.net>
>
> At 05:37 PM 8/8/2007 -0700, you wrote:
>
>><terry@tcwatson.com>
>>
>>
>>Bob,
>>
>>We didn't get (or I missed) a report on your Dad. I hope the news was
>>better.
>>
>>Terry
>
> After 83 years of gracefully playing the cards dealt
> to him, Dad cashed out in peace and comfort about 10
> days ago. It was time and he was ready. Dr. Dee and
> I were with him at the end. He left us with many
> admirable goals and recipes for success. He will
> be missed but will live on in all those who learned
> from him. Thanks for asking.
>
> See:
>
> http://aeroelectric.com/articles/In_Memory_of_Robert_L_Nuckolls_Jr.pdf
>
> Bob . . .
>
>
>
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: | P-mag to VM-1000C tach signal |
I've been trying to get my Vision Microsystems VM-1000C to read the RPM pul
ses coming from my P-mag ignition. After much testing, here is where I am:
=0A =0ATesting the ignition separately with an oscilloscope determined that
it is putting out a 5V pulse with a 4ms duration. The bottom of the pulse
(baseline) is at ground. Some of the pulses are slightly distorted on the b
ack end, but I don't think that should matter.=0A =0ATesting the VM-1000C s
eparately with the scope and a frequency generator determined that it corre
ctly counts pulses as long as the bottom of the pulse (baseline) is within
300mv of ground. If the bottom of the pulse gets higher than this, the VM-1
000C doesn't see it.=0A =0AHowever... When I connect the ignition to the VM
-1000C and watch both of them together with the scope, I see that the VM-10
00C raises the baseline of the ignition output from 0V to 2.7V. This is obv
iously way too high for it to count, and the RPM indicator thus reads zero.
=0A =0AThe ignition people suggested putting a 0.47 microfarad capacitor in
series between the ignition and the VM-1000C in an attempt to move the bot
tom of the pulse closer to ground. However, the capacitor actually raised t
he bottom of the pulse from 2.7V to 4.8V. That obviously doesn't help.=0A
=0ACan anyone offer me any guidance here? Something in the VM-1000C appears
to be raising the baseline of the tach signal and preventing the pulses fr
om being counted because they never get close enough to ground.=0A =0APleas
e reference these images from the scope:=0A=0Ahttp://home.comcast.net/~n70g
e/end_images/Ign.jpg shows the ignition output by itself.=0A=0Ahttp://home.
comcast.net/~n70ge/end_images/ignvms.jpg shows the ignition output when con
nected to the VM-1000C.=0A=0Ahttp://home.comcast.net/~n70ge/end_images/ignv
mscap.jpg shows the ignition output connected to the VM-1000C through the c
apacitor.=0A =0AThere must be a simple fix for this...=0A=0AThanks,=0A=0A-G
eoff=0A=0ARV-8 ready to fly for the first time once I get this bug fixed=0A
=0A=0A =0A___________________________________________________________
_________________________=0ABe a better Heartthrob. Get better relationship
nswers.yahoo.com/dir/?link=list&sid=396545433
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! --
|