---------------------------------------------------------- AeroElectric-List Digest Archive --- Total Messages Posted Sun 05/18/08: 22 ---------------------------------------------------------- Today's Message Index: ---------------------- 1. 02:43 AM - Re: Dual redundant electrical system - OT (Mickey Coggins) 2. 06:15 AM - Peer review - Z-19RB with RWS controller (Sam Hoskins) 3. 06:35 AM - Try it again. Z-19RB Peer Review (Sam Hoskins) 4. 07:02 AM - Again? - Peer review - Z-19RB with RWS controller (Sam) 5. 07:49 AM - Re: Avoiding strobe noise? (Henry Trzeciakowski) 6. 07:51 AM - Re: Re: 6 AWG vs Copper Bar (Henry Trzeciakowski) 7. 08:57 AM - Re: Getting Off Topic, Was: Schematic Review (Ron Brown) 8. 09:04 AM - Re: Schematic Review (user9253) 9. 09:48 AM - battery tenders (bob noffs) 10. 10:47 AM - Help for English translation (Gilles Thesee) 11. 11:00 AM - Re: battery tenders (Robert L. Nuckolls, III) 12. 11:20 AM - Re: Re: 6 AWG vs Copper Bar (Robert L. Nuckolls, III) 13. 11:35 AM - Re: Re: 6 AWG vs Copper Bar (Henry Trzeciakowski) 14. 11:35 AM - Re: S704-1 Relay Question (Henry Trzeciakowski) 15. 12:55 PM - Re: Help for English translation (Mickey Coggins) 16. 01:09 PM - Re: battery tenders (Ron Quillin) 17. 03:12 PM - battery tenders (bob noffs) 18. 04:37 PM - Re: Use of 700-2-10 switch for Voltage Sense - how to wire? (mikef) 19. 07:58 PM - Re: Re: Use of 700-2-10 switch for Voltage Sense - how to wire? (Robert L. Nuckolls, III) 20. 07:58 PM - Re: battery tenders (Robert L. Nuckolls, III) 21. 08:29 PM - Re: battery tenders (Robert L. Nuckolls, III) 22. 08:36 PM - Re: Re: S704-1 Relay Question (Robert L. Nuckolls, III) ________________________________ Message 1 _____________________________________ Time: 02:43:09 AM PST US From: Mickey Coggins Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Dual redundant electrical system - OT > FWIW, as a former IT geek, I discouraged webmasters from using > underscores in web URL's because when the whole link is automatically > highlighted and the whole link becomes underscored (as it does in most > email programs) the unaware reader may not realize there's a separate > underscore character. If spacing is necessary, hyphens are better. Of > course, spaces never work in a URL. While spaces are technically not allowed in URLs, from a user perspective they do actually work. They eventually get encoded as a %20 by most web servers and browsers. For example this URL http://www.rv8.ch/files/File With Spaces.html will get encoded like this on both ends: http://www.rv8.ch/files/File%20With%20Spaces.html This is a trick used by many "phishing" scams - they use lots spaces to hide or obscure the real URL. http://www.rv8.ch/files/j www.yourbank.com.login.html Be careful out there! -- Mickey Coggins http://www.rv8.ch/ #82007 finishing do not archive ________________________________ Message 2 _____________________________________ Time: 06:15:21 AM PST US From: "Sam Hoskins" Subject: AeroElectric-List: Peer review - Z-19RB with RWS controller ________________________________ Message 3 _____________________________________ Time: 06:35:20 AM PST US From: "Sam Hoskins" Subject: AeroElectric-List: Try it again. Z-19RB Peer Review ________________________________ Message 4 _____________________________________ Time: 07:02:15 AM PST US Subject: AeroElectric-List: Again? - Peer review - Z-19RB with RWS controller From: "Sam" Bob & all, (third try at posting this request) I'm looking for a review of my electrical system, based on Z-19RB. This is a retrofit in my little 22 year-old composite Quickie Q-200. I do a lot of day VFR cross country with this little buggy and do some cross country racing. Since I am converting to "all electric" I would be interested in your thoughts about my proposed system which is attached as a PDF file. Besides the Dynon FlightDEK 180 the biggest change is the conversion to electronic fuel injection. I am using the EC-3 controller from Real World Solutions (RWS). You can see more about the controller here: http://www.rotaryaviation.com/eficont.html The EC-3 controller is divided into two sides, A & B. The fuel injector control and ignition outputs exit the box from a single connector via a shared relay. The controller can receive either a primary or secondary 12V power source. A few bullet points: * I am using a primary fuel pump and a backup fuel pump. I also have two transfer pumps. * I have not yet sized the batteries. * I have an existing AEC9005-201 low voltage monitor, without the relay control. * Output of the ECU will be shown on another page, perhaps later in the week. * I have not yet properly sized the fuses or the wires in this drawing. My concerns: * By the time I add strobes and position lights, I will have around 14 or 15 switches, which seems like a lot for a 650 lb. (empty weight) airplane. Is there a way I could minimize the switch count? * There seem to be a lot of components connected to the unswitched battery busses. I wonder if I should use CBs instead of fuses? * Since I rarely fly at night, is the main buss, as depicted, really needed? Maybe I could combine the main and E busses. Anything else? Your input is very welcome. Thanks! Sam Hoskins Murphysboro, IL http://samhoskins.blogspot.com/ -------- Sam Hoskins www.samhoskins.blogspot.com Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=183649#183649 Attachments: http://forums.matronics.com//files/n202sh_peer_review_01_178.pdf ________________________________ Message 5 _____________________________________ Time: 07:49:36 AM PST US From: "Henry Trzeciakowski" Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Avoiding strobe noise? Thanks..... ----- Original Message ----- From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" Sent: Friday, May 16, 2008 7:26 PM Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Avoiding strobe noise? > > At 05:40 PM 5/16/2008 -0700, you wrote: > > > > > > >So Bob: > > > >as long as all wires are installed and grounded per maunfacture's spec, > >running (stringing) wires like Strobe Power Supply, Nav/Com, Transponder, > >Flaps, Pitot Heat together along the bottom of a fuselage and thru bulkheads > >together are OK ? > > yup . . / > > Bob . . . > > ________________________________ Message 6 _____________________________________ Time: 07:51:46 AM PST US From: "Henry Trzeciakowski" Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: 6 AWG vs Copper Bar Bob: I have .063 X .50"; can I double up and make 2 bars thus giving me .125 x .50" Thanks ----- Original Message ----- From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" Sent: Friday, May 16, 2008 7:25 PM Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: 6 AWG vs Copper Bar > > At 04:37 PM 5/16/2008 -0700, you wrote: > > > > > > >Bob: > > > >Insteard of using 6 AWG from starter contctor to Current Limiter, I want to > >use .063 copper bar...is that adequate or should I use .125. > > > >thanks > > .063 x .75" copper is fine. > > Bob . . . > > ________________________________ Message 7 _____________________________________ Time: 08:57:30 AM PST US From: "Ron Brown" Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Getting Off Topic, Was: Schematic Review Scott, An excellent set of rules for Light IFR for the recreational (non-commercial) flyer! I have been flying my Velocity for the past 5 years with very much the same rules. It has allowed me to get out before the low level fog burns off, out of Hilton Head and Florida before the marine layer burns off, and into airports that have a broken or solid layer above them but a 1500 - 2000' ceiling. I also flew single pilot IFR to Oshkosh in between layers at 8000' but with plenty of good ceilings below the underlying layer. It gives me tremendous flexibility that I didn't have when I was trying to scud run and didn't have my instrument rating - downright dangerous!!!! Getting your instrument rating and using your "Light IFR Rules" is VERY HIGHLY RECOMMENDED if you are going to be flying much cross country. Ronnie Brown ________________________________ Message 8 _____________________________________ Time: 09:04:22 AM PST US Subject: AeroElectric-List: Re: Schematic Review From: "user9253" Suggestion 1. An avionics master switch is controversial because it becomes a single point failure for all of your avionics. Modern avionics are not supposed to be affected by voltage spikes. If concerned about expensive avionics, one could shut off individual units, not as convenient as a master switch but safer. If you must have an avionics master, consider using a double pole switch wired in parallel. If one half of the switch fails, the other half will carry the load. Suggestion 2. Feed the Aux Battery Avionics Master Switch directly from the battery without going through the Aux Battery Master Switch. Having two switches in series doubles the chances of switch failure. Re-label the Aux Bat Avionics Master switch as "Avionics Aux Feed". Suggestion 3. Remove the ground wire from terminal 4 of the Aux Battery Master Switch. Instead, connect terminal 4 to terminal 2 of the Main Master switch. This essentially connects the two battery contactors in parallel for normal operation. Re-label the Aux Bat Master switch to Aux Bat Isolate. This switch would be normally closed, even after engine shut down. You would only open this switch in case of an emergency. This wiring change will simplify your system. There will be only one master switch to deal with. There will be more cranking amps available. And the aux battery will be kept fully charged. Suggestion 4. Mount and wire the "Avionics Aux Feed" and "Aux Bat Isolate" switches so that they are normally in the down position. They would be toggled up in case of an emergency. Suggestion 5. How about using a variation of Bob Nuckolls' Z-19? I like the feature of the low voltage module automatically isolating the aux battery without pilot intervention. These are only suggestions to help and are not meant to criticize. Joe Gores -------- Joe Gores Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=183666#183666 ________________________________ Message 9 _____________________________________ Time: 09:48:43 AM PST US From: "bob noffs" Subject: AeroElectric-List: battery tenders since battery tenders have become popular the last few years i acquired 1/2 dz from harbor frt. they were 3-5 $ each and seem to work well. snowmobile, atv, skidsteer, motorcycle, etc have never had a low battery since. output varied, so much that i would take a voltmeter along to test units before they went in my shopping cart. one unit put out too much voltage and i lowered it with a diode. it keeps the battery at 13.7-13.8 volts now. is the diode inhibiting any function of the tender to regulate current supplied to the battery? does a $5 unit even have the brains to regulate anything? thanks for any input bob noffs ________________________________ Message 10 ____________________________________ Time: 10:47:42 AM PST US From: Gilles Thesee Subject: AeroElectric-List: Help for English translation Hi all, One of my buddies is trying to convince French civil aviation authorities (DGAC) to let him install an Odyssey EFIS in his kitplane project. He is asking for help from naturally English speakers to correct his English translation of the DGAC relevant document. Would any of you gentlemen and ladies care to help correcting the following document for understandable English ? http://contrails.free.fr/translate.php Any inputs appreciated, Thanks in advance, Best regards, -- Gilles http://contrails.free.fr ________________________________ Message 11 ____________________________________ Time: 11:00:40 AM PST US From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: battery tenders At 11:45 AM 5/18/2008 -0500, you wrote: >since battery tenders have become popular the last few years i acquired >1/2 dz from harbor frt. they were 3-5 $ each and seem to work well. >snowmobile, atv, skidsteer, motorcycle, etc have never had a low battery >since. output varied, so much that i would take a voltmeter along to test >units before they went in my shopping cart. one unit put out too much >voltage and i lowered it with a diode. it keeps the battery at 13.7-13.8 >volts now. is the diode inhibiting any function of the tender to regulate >current supplied to the battery? does a $5 unit even have the brains to >regulate anything? > thanks for any input Can't tell without tearing it open and also running tests to deduce performance. What we want to see from a true "tender" is a recharge curve with a behavior like this: http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Curves/Battery_Tender_Recharge.pdf Note the top-off dwell during the interval before it drops to the "tending" mode. There are some semi-smart chargers like: http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Curves/Battery_Minder_Recharge.pdf That don't have a top-off dwell. Further, the voltage at which full-charge is expected is somewhat shy of optimal. I've purchased only one Battery Minder and pitched it after seeing the tests. I have a three or four Battery Tenders in the stable of battery maintenance tools along with a number of Schumacher products. About the best bargain I've seen so far is the Schumacher WM-1562A charger often offered by Wallmart and others. It has a very intelligent recharge profile . . . http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Curves/schumacher_3.jpg . . . and sells for under $20. Schumacher builds some larger, equally sophisticated devices at attractive prices . . . http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Curves/schumacher_5.jpg I failed to write down the charger I was evaluating here but I think it was a middle-sized device and probably sold for under $60. Unless you have the equipment to grab plots like these it's sort a pig-in-a-poke deal. At first blush, I'd guess that the $5 H.F. devices behave more like the Battery Minder and while much better than a trickle charger (no smarts at all) it fall far short of the best we know how to do for just a few dollars more. Just went to the H.F. website and got pictures and stock numbers on their current offerings. I posted them at: http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Battery_Chargers/HF_Chargers/ I'm guessing that the charger you're asking about is one of these two: http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Battery_Chargers/HF_Chargers/42292.gif http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Battery_Chargers/HF_Chargers/Junk_1.jpg There's another interesting one . . . http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Battery_Chargers/HF_Chargers/93258.gif designed to mount permanently in the vehicle where a battery is to be maintained. I've already looked at the Junker . . . next time I'm in the store, I'll pick up copies of the other small chargers and test them. I note further that H.F. is offering Schumacher products as well as their own. Everything we've been talking about sells for under $70 with some devices in the $18 range. Short answer is that anything with Schumacher's name on it is a pretty good bet. The other devices may offer good value and performance too . . . but you don't know without testing. Which H.F. stock number device are you wondering about? Bob . . . ________________________________ Message 12 ____________________________________ Time: 11:20:43 AM PST US From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: 6 AWG vs Copper Bar At 10:56 AM 5/18/2008 -0700, you wrote: > > >Bob: > >I have .063 X .50"; can I double up and make 2 bars thus giving me .125 x >.50" Sure . . . but the .50" width doesn't leave you much edge margin at the clearance holes for 5/16" studs and there's some concern for spreading the high currents across the hole through 3/32" connections at the edges. But lots of folk have used this width of material and I've not heard of any problems. In fact, a single layer offers a cross- section of .063 x .50 = .031 square inches. 4AWG wire is two, 3AWG-doubling steps larger than 10AWG. 10 AWG is .1" diameter or 3.14 x .05^2 = 0.0078 square inches. Taken times 4 yields .031 square inches for 4AWG wire. The same as your proposed straps which will cool better because of larger surface area and heat-sinks at the studs. So electrically and thermally, the proposed strips are fine. How about this? Go to your local well-stocked hardware store and get some 5/16" brass washers. Solder to one side of your 0.5" copper strap at the 5/16" hole locations. I think you said you were working with a shunt at the other end which is a 1/4" stud. No "reinforcement" necessary. "Doubling up" the strap makes it more difficult to get the two pieces to lay together. A soldered on doubler at the 5/16" holes is easier and will look better when you're finished. Bob . . . ----------------------------------------) ( . . . a long habit of not thinking ) ( a thing wrong, gives it a superficial ) ( appearance of being right . . . ) ( ) ( -Thomas Paine 1776- ) ---------------------------------------- ________________________________ Message 13 ____________________________________ Time: 11:35:35 AM PST US From: "Henry Trzeciakowski" Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: 6 AWG vs Copper Bar Thanks Bob: I like the idea of soldering brass washers.....or better yet, I may just order .063 x .75" wide copper bar and KISS. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" Sent: Sunday, May 18, 2008 11:15 AM Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: 6 AWG vs Copper Bar > > At 10:56 AM 5/18/2008 -0700, you wrote: > > > > > > >Bob: > > > >I have .063 X .50"; can I double up and make 2 bars thus giving me .125 x > >.50" > > Sure . . . but the .50" width doesn't leave you much edge > margin at the clearance holes for 5/16" studs and there's some > concern for spreading the high currents across the hole > through 3/32" connections at the edges. But lots of folk > have used this width of material and I've not heard of > any problems. In fact, a single layer offers a cross- > section of .063 x .50 = .031 square inches. 4AWG > wire is two, 3AWG-doubling steps larger than 10AWG. > 10 AWG is .1" diameter or 3.14 x .05^2 = 0.0078 > square inches. Taken times 4 yields .031 square > inches for 4AWG wire. The same as your proposed > straps which will cool better because of larger > surface area and heat-sinks at the studs. > > So electrically and thermally, the proposed strips > are fine. How about this? Go to your local well-stocked > hardware store and get some 5/16" brass washers. > Solder to one side of your 0.5" copper strap at the > 5/16" hole locations. I think you said you were > working with a shunt at the other end which is a > 1/4" stud. No "reinforcement" necessary. > > "Doubling up" the strap makes it more difficult > to get the two pieces to lay together. A soldered > on doubler at the 5/16" holes is easier and will > look better when you're finished. > > Bob . . . > > ----------------------------------------) > ( . . . a long habit of not thinking ) > ( a thing wrong, gives it a superficial ) > ( appearance of being right . . . ) > ( ) > ( -Thomas Paine 1776- ) > ---------------------------------------- > > ________________________________ Message 14 ____________________________________ Time: 11:35:35 AM PST US From: "Henry Trzeciakowski" Subject: AeroElectric-List: Re: S704-1 Relay Question Bob: I'm going to install a "Heavy E-bus and use your architecture: Bat-bus (14AWG) to 704-1 relay with S700-1-3(22AWG) switch coming off relay and 14 awg from relay to e-bus. I'm a little confused on how the Relay is wired. I've printed the wiring picture of the Relay off the aeroelectric website and it didn't help. The diode, via fastabs is wired or jumps the - to + terminal and there are also 2 wires crimped to the same fasttabs. I'm assuming the black goes to ground, but where does the one wired to the + terminal go to ?? Also where does the "COM" wire and N.O. wire go? OR...keeping the question simple ---how do you wire the Relay utilizing Heavy E-Bus architecture? Thanks ________________________________ Message 15 ____________________________________ Time: 12:55:25 PM PST US From: Mickey Coggins Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Help for English translation Hi Gilles, There is a MGL representative in France - perhaps he has already contacted the DGAC. http://www.stratomaster.eu/ If the document you need translated is going to the boys in South Africa, I'd say it is quite understandable. To make sure the translation is accurate, it would help to have a link to the French version. Regards, Mickey Gilles Thesee wrote: > > > Hi all, > > One of my buddies is trying to convince French civil aviation > authorities (DGAC) to let him install an Odyssey EFIS in his kitplane > project. > He is asking for help from naturally English speakers to correct his > English translation of the DGAC relevant document. > > Would any of you gentlemen and ladies care to help correcting the > following document for understandable English ? > > http://contrails.free.fr/translate.php > > Any inputs appreciated, > Thanks in advance, > Best regards, -- Mickey Coggins http://www.rv8.ch/ #82007 finishing do not archive ________________________________ Message 16 ____________________________________ Time: 01:09:45 PM PST US From: "Ron Quillin" Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: battery tenders >From some research I have done in the past couple of years, I've noted Concorde has gotten touchy regarding maximum charge voltage in maintenance or float mode. They assert some units have been applying an excessive, for the ambient temperature, voltage and this has caused a decrease in service life of their AGM type batteries. BatteryMINDer, and perhaps others, have responded by including sensors to adjust float voltage for ambient temperature (it needs to increase with decreasing temperature) even to the point of recalling some of their non compensating units. I suppose one could argue this is just a marketing ploy to sell more chargers, but they are, or at least were, offering replacement units at a 50% discount. Battery details can be found at http://www.concordebattery.com/otherpdf/ownermanual.pdf on page 16. Ron Q. On Sun, May 18, 2008 at 10:55 AM, Robert L. Nuckolls, III wrote: > > > At 11:45 AM 5/18/2008 -0500, you wrote: > >> since battery tenders have become popular the last few years i acquired >> 1/2 dz from harbor frt. they were 3-5 $ each and seem to work well. >> does a $5 unit even have the brains to >> regulate anything? >> thanks for any input > > Can't tell without tearing it open and also > running tests to deduce performance. What we > want to see from a true "tender" is a recharge > curve with a behavior like this: > > That don't have a top-off dwell. Further, the voltage > at which full-charge is expected is somewhat shy > of optimal. I've purchased only one Battery Minder > and pitched it after seeing the tests. I have a > three or four Battery Tenders in the stable of > battery maintenance tools along with a number of > Schumacher products. > > About the best bargain I've seen so far is the > Schumacher WM-1562A charger often offered by > Wallmart and others. It has a very intelligent > recharge profile . . . > > Short answer is that anything with Schumacher's > name on it is a pretty good bet. The other devices > may offer good value and performance too . . . but > you don't know without testing. Which H.F. stock > number device are you wondering about? > > Bob . . . ________________________________ Message 17 ____________________________________ Time: 03:12:35 PM PST US From: "bob noffs" Subject: AeroElectric-List: battery tenders hi bob, the h.f. unit i am talking about is the #42292. appreciate your input. bob noffs ________________________________ Message 18 ____________________________________ Time: 04:37:55 PM PST US Subject: AeroElectric-List: Re: Use of 700-2-10 switch for Voltage Sense - how to wire? From: "mikef" I obtained both the Digikey and B&C 2-7 switches. When wired as indicated on the diagram the Digikey version worked as expected. However the B&C 2-7 did not. The middle position does not show the expected voltage (or any voltage). When I substitute a 2-10 switch it, like the Digikey version, works as expected. I will play further with the B&C 2-7 but it is either not designed for wiring that way or just a bad switch. Mike Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=183735#183735 ________________________________ Message 19 ____________________________________ Time: 07:58:45 PM PST US From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: Use of 700-2-10 switch for Voltage Sense - how to wire? At 04:33 PM 5/18/2008 -0700, you wrote: > >I obtained both the Digikey and B&C 2-7 switches. > >When wired as indicated on the diagram the Digikey version worked as >expected. However the B&C 2-7 did not. The middle position does not show >the expected voltage (or any voltage). When I substitute a 2-10 switch it, >like the Digikey version, works as expected. > >I will play further with the B&C 2-7 but it is either not designed for >wiring that way or just a bad switch. You lost me. Did our conversation start out talking about the 2-7 functionality? A 2-7 is double pole, three position, (ON)-OFF-(ON) device where the parens around the 'ON' denotes a spring-loaded momentary position. The 2-10 is a double pole, three position, PROGRESSIVE TRANSFER, ON-ON-ON device that is stable at all three positions. No spring loading. A few of the ways these two switches can be used are illustrated in: http://aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Schematics/2-Pole_Switch_Options.pdf and in Figure 11-14 in the 'Connection. The 2-7 cannot substitute for a 2-10. A 2-70 (progressive transfer version of a 2-7) can do the same switching job as a 2-10 where you WANT the two extreme positions to be momentary. I don't think B&C stocks the 2-70 so if you got a 2-7 from them, I would predict mystifying results. The Digikey number I gave you was for a 2-70 equivalent in a miniature switch by C&K . . . not a 2-10. If you've already drilled a hole for a standard size 2-70, there's a version of the miniature 2-70 that sports a standard size toggle and mounting hole. See: http://aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Switches/7215TZQE.jpg and http://search.digikey.com/scripts/DkSearch/dksus.dll?Detail?name=CKN1495-ND Bob . . . ________________________________ Message 20 ____________________________________ Time: 07:58:45 PM PST US From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: battery tenders At 05:08 PM 5/18/2008 -0500, you wrote: >hi bob, > the h.f. unit i am talking about is the #42292. appreciate your input. > > bob noffs Okay. I'll pick one up and test it. Bob . . . Bob . . . ----------------------------------------) ( . . . a long habit of not thinking ) ( a thing wrong, gives it a superficial ) ( appearance of being right . . . ) ( ) ( -Thomas Paine 1776- ) ---------------------------------------- ________________________________ Message 21 ____________________________________ Time: 08:29:36 PM PST US From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: battery tenders At 01:06 PM 5/18/2008 -0700, you wrote: > > >From some research I have done in the past couple of years, I've noted >Concorde has gotten touchy regarding maximum charge voltage in >maintenance or float mode. They assert some units have been applying >an excessive, for the ambient temperature, voltage and this has caused >a decrease in service life of their AGM type batteries. Has this shown up in print anywhere? I mean something that illustrates Concord's increasing tension? >BatteryMINDer, and perhaps others, have responded by including sensors >to adjust float voltage for ambient temperature (it needs to increase >with decreasing temperature) even to the point of recalling some of >their non compensating units. I suppose one could argue this is just >a marketing ploy to sell more chargers, but they are, or at least >were, offering replacement units at a 50% discount. Battery details >can be found at >http://www.concordebattery.com/otherpdf/ownermanual.pdf >on page 16. This document hasn't been changed with respect to charging recommendations for many moons. You can go to . . . http://aeroelectric.com/Mfgr_Data.html and get the Concorde battery poop I've posted on website. The maintenance data speaks to fast-charging situations and the techniques are essentially the same for both flooded and AGM batteries . . . including the recommended BUS voltages versus for in-flight recharging. None of this data is particularly relevant to a smart battery maintainer which spends only a limited amount of time in the top-off mode before dropping to a sustain level that is not even mentioned in the Concorde data. Any words from the manufacturers of battery maintainers as to the "tailoring" of their product to the "special needs" of an AGM battery is mostly marketing hype. However the device tops a battery off is not terribly relevant to battery life . . . the event lasts but a few hours at modest current levels compared to the comparatively much larger abuse the battery receives while being replenished by a 60A alternator! As long as the maintainer drops to a true maintenance level (hundreds of millivolts above the battery's open circuit voltage) then the battery is not at-risk for abuse from the maintainer. That temperature compensating stuff doesn't hurt but don't spend a lot of money on it cause it doesn't make that much difference in battery service life. Bob . . . ________________________________ Message 22 ____________________________________ Time: 08:36:36 PM PST US From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: S704-1 Relay Question At 02:34 PM 5/18/2008 -0700, you wrote: > > >Bob: > >I'm going to install a "Heavy E-bus and use your architecture: Bat-bus >(14AWG) to 704-1 relay with S700-1-3(22AWG) switch coming off relay and 14 >awg from relay to e-bus. I'm a little confused on how the Relay is wired. >I've printed the wiring picture of the Relay off the aeroelectric website >and it didn't help. > >The diode, via fastabs is wired or jumps the - to + terminal and there are >also 2 wires crimped to the same fasttabs. I'm assuming the black goes to >ground, but where does the one wired to the + terminal go to ?? > >Also where does the "COM" wire and N.O. wire go? > >OR...keeping the question simple ---how do you wire the Relay utilizing >Heavy E-Bus architecture? > >Thanks As shown in http://www.aeroelectric.com/PPS/Adobe_Architecture_Pdfs/Z32K.pdf The picture at: http://aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Relays/s704inst.jpg shows how to get the diode leads into the same terminals with the wires that go to ends of the relay coil . . . but according to Z32K you'll need to drop two wires into the COM terminal too. Bob . . . ----------------------------------------) ( . . . a long habit of not thinking ) ( a thing wrong, gives it a superficial ) ( appearance of being right . . . ) ( ) ( -Thomas Paine 1776- ) ---------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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.