Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 08:03 AM - Auto alternator system design (Paul)
2. 08:54 AM - Re: Rare find . . . (Pebvjs@aol.com)
3. 09:36 AM - Re: Rare find . . . (Bob White)
4. 09:42 AM - Re: Rare find . . . (Matt Prather)
5. 09:50 AM - Re: Nippondenso alternator question (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
6. 10:04 AM - Re: Rare find . . . (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
7. 10:10 AM - Re: Rare find . . . (Jerry2DT@aol.com)
8. 10:39 AM - Re: Rare find . . . (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
9. 10:41 AM - Re: Rare find . . . (Harley)
10. 01:08 PM - Re: Nippondenso alternator question (James Robinson)
11. 01:25 PM - Re: Nippondenso alternator question (Paul)
12. 02:10 PM - Re: Nippondenso alternator question (Roger & Jean)
13. 02:42 PM - Re: Nippondenso alternator question (Henador Titzoff)
14. 02:50 PM - Re: Nippondenso alternator question (Bill Boyd)
15. 03:15 PM - Cabbages and kings . . . (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
16. 03:16 PM - Re: Nippondenso alternator question (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
17. 03:46 PM - Re: Rare find . . . (Pebvjs@aol.com)
18. 04:07 PM - Re: Nippondenso alternator question (Jon Finley)
19. 05:40 PM - Re: Nippondenso alternator question (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
20. 05:59 PM - FYI: Dancing ammeter . . . Generators can do it too! (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
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: | Auto alternator system design |
Years ago Eric and I experimented with the OBAM use of IR alternators and
developed a reliable flexible solution. This was developed in part to the
faulty design of the Aeroelectric OVP (sort of fixed some time later,and
still not reliable in my opinion and my testing) and the problems discovered
by Vans builders. It was an extension of much earlier work I performed over
10 years ago to be able to recommend a solution to auto engine conversions.
The problems with the rest of that OVP approach did result in Bob stopping
the support of IR alternators. I simply stopped trying to discuss this here
and Eric produced his own OVP, recommended the proper contactor to use, and
produced the alternator V load dump clamp required to protect the alternator
as a result of the, not designed for, condition when the alternator is used
in OBAM system which is very different from an auto. The need to crowbar a
circuit breaker is eliminated also. Simple reliable glitch proof faster and
no ridiculous battery crow bar shorting of a CB to open the circuit. NO
where in my entire career have I seen a design that shorts out a huge
battery like this. Its a gross miss use of a crow bar circuit.
Any solution must use a different contactor, a different OVP, and a
alternator "B" lead load dump protection circuit among other issues. Its a
very simple solution actually IF the alternator brand is restricted to one
of hundreds of choices in current ranges from 40A to over 100A. this covers
most any application and the alternators are readily available most
everywhere NEW.
Eric designed a simple OVP based on a single simple to use commercial IC
specifically designed for that purpose that is simple, glitchless and very
reliable. We have not been able to produce false tripping etc. Further its
reduces the maximum OV detection to "B" lead opening time by a factor of up
to 25 times shorter. The old design can take as long as 100 milli seconds
worst case demonstrated by both analysis and testing.
Working with Eric we developed and tested a complete design of an electrical
charging system that allowed for safe disconnection during operation and
false tripping was totally eliminated. We used engineering analysis and
never allowed the parts to exceed the manufacturers published design
parameters. I have not recently discussed this with Eric but I believe he
has sold a large number of components as a result of this design.
Bottom line is a simple safe solution has been available for more than 4
years. No, I have no intent to post the details here and subject my self to
thousands of words of negative and incorrect comments. I had expected
otherwise but that has not happened. I believe Bob is making unnecessary
requirements on the system he desires as well as our basic difference on
design approach. Analysis and test to verify vs. test and analyze the test
results. his recent post clearly to means his mind is made up and that
before ANY details about the design has been posted, further he has
essentially demanded his design approach be used. His initial plan of
testing appears to omit testing of the driving conditions of the design
requirements.
I have far too many other personal demands to try to defend my solution
here. It has been designed to worst case requirements and tested as proof.
Many have implemented this approach and I have not received any negative
comments nor failure reports. Reinventing the wheel makes no sense to me and
I do not have the interest in being a part of that kind of effort. I had
hoped to have a fair and open discussion but....
Thus I am going silent and not reply to comments posted by anyone regardless
of their content.
Paul
PS. When I have some time I will update (later this year at the earlierest)
my web site and perhaps announce it here among other groups.
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: Rare find . . . |
In a message dated 7/12/2008 11:26:08 P.M. Eastern Standard Time,
nuckolls.bob@cox.net writes:
http://aeroelectric.com/Mfgr_Data/Regulators/Delco-Remy/Delco-Remy_Generator_R
egulators.pdf
Bob,
Adobe reports that the file is damaged and could not be repaired.
Ed. sadler
**************Get the scoop on last night's hottest shows and the live music
scene in your area - Check out TourTracker.com!
(http://www.tourtracker.com?NCID=aolmus00050000000112)
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: Rare find . . . |
Hi Ed,
It worked OK for me with Acroread 7.0. Possibly you got a bad download.
Bob W.
On Sun, 13 Jul 2008 11:49:33 EDT
Pebvjs@aol.com wrote:
>
> In a message dated 7/12/2008 11:26:08 P.M. Eastern Standard Time,
> nuckolls.bob@cox.net writes:
>
> http://aeroelectric.com/Mfgr_Data/Regulators/Delco-Remy/Delco-Remy_Generator_R
> egulators.pdf
>
>
>
> Bob,
>
> Adobe reports that the file is damaged and could not be repaired.
>
> Ed. sadler
>
>
>
> **************Get the scoop on last night's hottest shows and the live music
> scene in your area - Check out TourTracker.com!
> (http://www.tourtracker.com?NCID=aolmus00050000000112)
>
--
N93BD - Rotary Powered BD-4 - http://www.bob-white.com
3.8 Hours Total Time and holding
Cables for your rotary installation - http://roblinstores.com/cables/
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: Rare find . . . |
It's working for me. Be sure to get the whole link (extending to the
.pdf). Here's the link tiny:
http://tinyurl.com/5uf58j
Also, maybe you've got an older version of the adobe reader.. Time to
update?
Matt-
>
> In a message dated 7/12/2008 11:26:08 P.M. Eastern Standard Time,
> nuckolls.bob@cox.net writes:
>
> http://aeroelectric.com/Mfgr_Data/Regulators/Delco-Remy/Delco-Remy_Generator_R
> egulators.pdf
>
>
> Bob,
>
> Adobe reports that the file is damaged and could not be repaired.
>
> Ed. sadler
>
>
> **************Get the scoop on last night's hottest shows and the live
> music
> scene in your area - Check out TourTracker.com!
> (http://www.tourtracker.com?NCID=aolmus00050000000112)
>
Message 5
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Nippondenso alternator question |
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Nippondenso alternator question
At 10:59 PM 7/12/2008 -0700, you wrote:
Well (very sadly but it did seem too good to be true and I am not surprised)
I had hoped for mutual cooperation but I guess you want to do it all your
self. Good timing as I was just finishing the first part of the planned
discussion.
WHOA! There was no intent on my part to exert any
form of control over how you responded to this
new initiative. If you have information to share
on any topic and in any form, I'm sure it will
be welcomed by many including myself . . .
Be my guest, I had thought you had changed. Clearly you want to frive the
discussion VS get the benefit of my extensive work.
Absolutely! However, I just finish an archiological dig
through records and drives looking for work I did on a
project at Beech some years back. The $time$ expended looking
COULD have been well spent looking . . . but in this case,
BETTER spent repeating the work which I am going to have
to do anyway. I was only attempting to perhaps relieve you
of some efforts trying to resurrect past work.
Random comments as its not worth my time to put them in ordered sequence. I
have made some suggestions about how and what to test to avoid missing
information that is not gathered just using your sketched circuit.
You are incorrect about my approach and intent and about my past analysis
and testing which is in my opinion adequate to determine the problem and I
have "crafted" a proven solution. In my opinion there is ZERO need for more
testing other for self aggrandizement.
Wrong. The repeatable experiment is the CORE of good science.
No how much testing your or I do, there is always risk of
error, variability in process or materials, and variability
in interpretation of results. Finally, there are individuals
in our society that will stand up, point a finger and accuse
the tester of having some hidden agenda. There is no stronger
validation of anyone's work than to say, "Here's what I did,
here's what happened, here's the significance of the data.
Oh, by the way, Mr. X in Arizona and Ms. Y in Georgia did
similar if not identical work and our respective conclusions
support each other." Besides, I need that equipment and test
set-up for other activities.
I find this sad as you have not seen
any real results of my testing nor the scope of it. Reading your suggested
approach I find little to agree with so there is no point in my being a part
of your long promised study.
Paul . . . I don't know what I can write that
encourages you not to respond to what I do in the
worst possible light. You have not published one
White Paper, not one schematic, not one explanation
of features that helps me or anyone else understand
diddly-squat about what you're proposing.
Further most of your below comments about my position are totally incorrect
assumptions which is not surprising as you have never spent the time to find
out what my approach is; the amount of analysis, investigation nor testing
setup and results.
But Paul, you have not shared even the smallest part of what
you've accomplished. I've reviewed our past exchanges and
the majority of your efforts were directed at tearing down
what I had been doing successfully for decades. The only
data you cited came from manufacturer's data sheets.
I will not tolerate testing as anything other as proof of
pre testing design analysis. I also simply will not design using assumptions
or unofficial verbal assurances from one manufacturer its safe to exceed the
specifications as that is simply a high risk approach no engineer will do.
If you're talking about crow-barring breakers, exactly WHAT
limit was being violated? I cited the Mil Std under which all
those breakers were certified that requires they function as
advertised when subjected to fault currents of over 1000 amps.
Many times the values cited in guaranteed performance curves. Curves you
chose to interpret as limits.
My results are identical design solution for all reasonable alternator but
clearly its not reasonable to allow any alternator to be covered and that
position indicates to me a lack of modern alternator designs etc. Further
you seem fixated on maintaining several design flexiblities and pilot
control that I feel is not only not required but potentially dangerous.
??? Now I'm really lost. Are you suggesting that alternators
can and should be used for aircraft in the manner we've accepted
for cars? No control whatsoever, no ov protection, no ability
to manage loads and power generation in multiple alternator
systems? Is it your suggestion that the design and operation
protocols common to 99.999% of all aircraft flying can be
summarily dispensed with?
Also your sketch does not reproduce the real world load dump conditions what
with fixed load and relay contact bounce in the real circuit.
The sketch depicts only the energy sources and sinks and the
organization needed to explore the characteristics of an alternator.
No more. Exploration of contactor performance in the task of
energy control is a separate experiment.
Finally it
appears you intend to have a constant string of load dumps which is very
likely to destroy the internal to the regulator load dump protection
components. Each single load dump needs time for the protection circuits to
cool down.
The "string" for T(off) can be ANYTHING out to infinity. This is a general
arrangement I used 30 years ago to fine tune the dynamics of
voltage regulator designs. Obviously, getting the energy signature
from a particular combination of L(fixed)+L(switched) can be done
with very few events. The schematic was intended to describe setup,
not process details.
But your statement raises a new question. Where and what are the
components of "load dump protection" that might be expected to
sink the overshoot energy? Is this some new feature of an alternator
for which we are not familiar? What are these energy-sinking devices
that need resting between events to cool off?
Hopefully you will end up with far more evaluation, studying, and testing
than what you listed below as its not adequate nor has it addressed ALL the
problems I have addressed.
Never suggested it was. It's a beginning that goes to satisfaction
of my own curiosity and the sketch was offered as a means for
revealing those thoughts to you . . . nothing more.
You really should test all the brands of
alternators you intend to approve of and in the several different types and
amps in each style. There are differences to consider. For example different
regulator transient response as well as the winding charactericts which will
determine the load dump information.
Yup . . . not a simple task and it won't happen quickly.
It can happen quicker if folks interested in doing such things
share their work, deduce where variables cited dilute the
value of comparisons.
Obviously, we'll never test every brand/configuration of
alternator available . . . but there are statistical
sampling techniques that improve the accuracy on upper
and lower bounds that you adopt for designing a new
product or system.
Further you should take note of the fact just how much (or more important,
how little) is replaced in rebuilt alternators as if you know what is
replaced you would never recommend a rebuilt alternator (rebuilt is a
misnomer minimal repair is what actually happens).Junk yard is not a source
for ANY aircraft as who knows how close to failure the parts are.
Really? If the system is truly failure tolerant, why
would we dissuade anyone from using a salvage yard take-off?
Who knows, maybe he can find a good deal for a device of
a Mercedes or something. The goal of failure tolerant design
is to take reliability concerns for safety out of the decision.
In any
event testing alone, with out first doing an analysis and manufacturers
detailed data is NEVER sufficient. Both Myself and Jet Pilot found getting
more detailed information was not easy and getting past the sales staff if
difficult at best. However a lot of useful information was passed on and
poo-pooed on this groups list.
Forgive me. What information beyond hearsay? I have seen
no documents the manufacturing community offered here. Have
I missed something? Paul, it's precisely these kinds of
words that raise concerns for your own "hidden agenda". You
appear to totally dismiss failure tolerance and absolute
control as noble design goals. As one who has made a living
in this environment for nearly 40 years, I'm perplexed by this.
If these are NOT noble goals, then what goals would you suggest
replaces them? I've not seen one white paper, not one schematic,
not one array of test data and interpretation of its significance . . .
Yup, so in lieu of good data from the source, we gather
what we can in the field and then utilize those products
ways that do not compromise safety.
Also be sure to test with a full load current and zero fixed load. Note my
selected 50 amp rated alternator is specified to put out 70 amps at 13V and
more amps at lower voltages so a full output failure results in a much
higher current than your suggested testing which based on my testing is not
nearly worst case!
Yes . . . that's a subsequent test investigation that looks at
runaway conditions where the alternator is force to max-out. Or
if severly overloaded, one might expect greater-than-nameplate
output current. Name plates are often but should not be LIMITS
to performance but guanranteed (like those breaker curves?). There
are explainable conditions under which larger (and smaller) values
can be expected.
Another comment about getting the real data first. My NEW
alternator came with a computer printout of the actual alternator during
final test prior to shipment. Note the full amp output is a lot higher than
past comments have been clearly assumed on this list in the past.
I have assumed nothing . . . and I don't think others here on
the List have assumed anything either.
. . . .40% higher
is not small in my opinion and under load dump conditions the load being
dumped is much higher energy as well as the peak voltage.
Your opinion may be well based . . . so? This means we design
load dump mitigation for some head-room over name-plate-value.
That's all part of the ball game.
My testing was
based on a real duplication of a typical aircraft wiring including wire
gauge and lengths as well as flight batteries. It started with your OVP and
contactor with the diode on the contactor coil. Very different than what
your sketch shows. Also very long alternator failure point to final
contactor opening requiring voltage clamping during that time of a lot more
energy than what has been assumed in one of your tests from years ago.
Paul, I was only trying to explain my strongest curiosities for
the moment that focused on alternator/regulator performance that
was in no way influenced by methodology for control or OV protection.
I was hoping that you might have data that went to those questions.
The sketch illustrated a tool for getting just that data. I WAS hoping
to focus on one item at a time starting with alternator/regulator then
control philosophies/techniques and finally over-voltage protection.
But then we have a large and fundamental difference on how to design any
electrical (including aircraft) systems. My approach is to discard many of
the proven pilot opportunities to mess up that have been a reason for past
crashes and leap into the 21st century. Building on the past and not address
the fundamental cause of most accidents is not progress in my opinion. The
more pilot required actions greatly increases the pilots lack or incorrect
action. Today there is no need to do things manually in most cases. Every
manual control available to the pilot 's another opportunity to make a
mistake that can lead to a crash.
What percentage of crashes have root causes in electrical system
failures? What scenarios (FMEA) can you imagine that the complexities
of any of the Z-Figures present extra-ordinary operational problems
to the pilot? A light comes on, two switches are repositioned, DONE.
Your words suggest a marketing philosophy based on a climate of
fear . . . one of the most powerful behavior modification tools
available to Madison Avenue (or government). Please assuage my
concerns. IF a tool supporting your endeavors is to scare the socks
off (and dollars out?) of the ignorant consumer, then your purpose
and actions here are unwelcome. I'd rather we share good science.
Today we have Integrated Solid state
switches/circuit breakers. Schottky diodes are not really needed much less
silicon bridges which have no use in aircraft. Yes Solid state switching is
easy to make with full bi-directional isolation and ON resistance less that
of mechanical relays etc switching (as low as 0.002 ohms ON resistance). The
pilot needs to be notified of any CB failure not by finding out by failure
of the component to work for example.
CB failure? I have worked ONE, count 'em, ONE CB failure issue in
decades. That had to do with a design flaw in the product. Recall when
we discussed the consequences of not having the spring-insulator shown
in:
http://aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Breakers/W31_1.jpg
Circuit breakers/fuses are just not high on my list of performance concerns.
Paul, you seem to be working on another plane of
existence. A plane that is shared by many of my customers in the
VLJ business. I'm seeing trends toward a LOT of bells and whistles
driven by software and the latest in electro-whizzies. I design
my products to integrate with those systems . . . it's my job
and I get paid well for it. But we're working with RV's and
Kitfoxes. There are very few Lancairs or Glasairs interested in
what the 'Connection has to offer. Those folks have so much invested
in their projects that most simply farm their electrical system
out to whoever offers the most attractive combination of glass and price
. . .
architecture and understanding their airplane is WAAAyyyy down
on the list of concerns.
Dave Saylor, are you reading this? How many of your Lancair
customers give a rat's patootie about components of their airplane's
electrical system work? What percentage would welcome offloading
understanding and responsibility to the operation of some electronics
behind the touch-screen?
The aircraft instruments have migrated from steam gauges to flat panels yet
we still find the old contactor relay// switch approach of 1950 etc and that
ignores the modern components available today that are far more reliable and
more pilot friendly.
Excellent marketing hype. Please quantify "reliability" as it relates to
safety or cost of ownership in a failure tolerant system. In particular,
tie this to return on investment in an airplane that on average is
flown 50 hours a year and seldom ventures into IMC and spends very
time flying in the dark.
It would be interesting to survey the OBAM aircraft marketplace and
see how often the guy uses/needs all those electro-whizzies on
the panel. I have 850 or so logged hours. I've punched perhaps
a dozen cloud layers. Except for punching layers, all of my flying
from J-3 to A-36 could have been handily accomplished with the
electrical system shut down - using hand-helds and flashlight
from my flight bag.
I'll suggest that for the majority of readers on this List
the electrical system in their project will offer no greater
criticality than I have experienced over the last 27 years.
Its a fact that pilot error is the major cause of accidents. Its pilot error
if you run out of fuel, deplete the battery based on an assumption of
battery condition and electrical load etc etc. The requirement to throw a
switch in an emergency is bad design if there is a reasonable solution that
eliminates the mechanical pilot action and its done automatically. Its sad
that there is no truly modern system available at a reasonable price on the
market today that automates the system and provides the pilot with useful
real time electrical system conditions. My designs have been peer reviewed
by my (multiple) peers and all have stated its both more reliable and a
great improvement to current 1950's parts and today's arrangements and
approaches. You have long promoted fly the airplane and trouble shoot back
on the ground which is not what your design requirement to turn on and off
the alternator in flight and a simple voltage check is enough for preflight.
Personal situation has delayed getting my system on the market.
Okay, Paul's agenda identified? I have a customer who asked for some
advice some years ago about designing a glass-panel, does-everything-
but-wash-dishes, power management system for light aircraft. He
threw in a programmable check list to boot. The thing markets for
over $5,000.
Paul, I'm writing and designing for folks who choose NOT to
worry and have FUN building, maintaining and flying an airplane.
You appear focused on "reliability" and preventing Joe Cool
pilot from loosing his cool when presented with an electrical
system conundrum. I prefer to offer solutions where the electrical
system components are easily acquired, easily understood by the user,
and TOTAL cost is probably under $2,000. Further, Joe Cool is
qualified to operate his behaving or mis-behaving system in confidence.
The E-bus is a good example where there is a design requirement to have a
group of avionics disabled during part of the flight and then guess about
how much battery life is left.
This statement demonstrates that you've NOT read and understood
the design goals for the e-bus and the admonition that the most
reliable electrical system flies on a battery of KNOWN capacity.
. . . A simple additional electrical instrument I
have designed allows the pilot to simply see the real flight time left and
change the load and have the flight time left update. It also determines the
true battery life dynamically. If I am IFR I may need a different set of
avionics than what is on the E bus for example depending on the actual
flight conditions. Or what if the battery power left at any point is less
that what was predicted or measured months ago?. I know of several off
field crashes due to the battery being depleted well before the expected
time. Another bad design to assume something in particular when it ns not
required to assume. Fuel tank gauges system when the only accurate
requirement is full and empty has been replaced with fuel flow measurement
and totalized as seen in modern automobiles. No reason the battery cannot be
treated the same way, sure its a little more complex but not hard to do with
reasonable accuracy.
There are many ways to make flying safer than having a check list of which
switches to throw under different failure modes and make assumptions of
flight time left for example. How about a warning and a count down display
that tells the time left to fly and updates as the pilot changes the
equipment powered on. No action is required if the time remaining is long
enough.
Do you have ANY idea what it takes to get such a product
onto a TC aircraft? There are valid (if not overworked)
concerns about the accuracy, reliability and effects on
pilot mind-set when we put highly automated devices into
the flight management loop. I'm not suggesting that your
product is any less valuable if you do NOT jump all the
regulatory hoops but I am suggesting that when you replace
UNDERSTANDING and COMPETENT operation with an electro-whizzy,
the potential for unintended consequences are there. Further,
when we design and sell such devices, we're in essence taking
on responsibility for operation of that portion of the aircraft.
I don't mention this from any perspective of assumed liability,
only from the perspective of Joe Cool pilot who is now even
more ignorant of his system and more dependent upon his suppliers
to manage it. Yes, modern electronics lets us do many interesting
and sometimes amazing things. We'll have to leave it up to
our customers to decide what dollars are better spent on
the panel as opposed to fuel and tires.
I prefer to preach the doctrine of low parts count, low
cost of ownership, simple-operations backed up by UNDERSTANDING
of how the system works. I don't believe that products and
ideas from a 787 trickle down well into an RV.
Your insistence of performing your own testing is fine but you are
discarding months of investigation as well as hundreds of hours of testing
and analysis. On the other hand it will save me a lot of time producing a
machine readable copy etc.
I am discarding nothing. It was my hope that I SUPPORT
what you've accomplished and that things you're doing would
SUPPORT what I'm doing. That appears not to be part of your
professional modus operandi.
A lot of people blindly used your OVP crowbar until it was used with Vans
aircraft and had many reported failures.
And not one user of the crowbar OVP system contacted me
for his/her money back. Not one user came forward even
when offered a $50 bonus on top of money back if they
would help me understand the circumstances under which
their problems occurred.
As far as I know there was never
and failure analysis to prove the true reason for the failures.
. . . but my requests for data from folks who were ostensibly
in communication with "victims" produced no feedback from
the field.
My own
testing found fault at least two faults with the OVP design but they only
caused false tripping and the real reason appeared to be the use of the
contactor and perhaps rebuilt alternators with possible second rate (read
lower cost) regulators that could not stand up to the resulting load dump
voltage peaks. In any event the OVP design was not properly designed in the
first place likely due to the test first and skip the analysis under
transient conditions.
It is true I had intended to produce an engineering document VS a
technicians experimental results.
Excellent! There is nothing anyone has said that argues with
that. I produced and published volumes of data and analysis
that argued with your assertions with no responses other than
to aspersions cast upon my skills and integrity as a designer.
To date (including my most recent, narrow request for data
that would define alternator/regulator overshoot performance)
I don't recall that you've answered a single direct question.
I have far too much to do, so its easy to simply bow out. Further I will not
comment on your results as I have better things to do. There is no need to
try to discuss your approach as your mind is seemingly always made up ahead
of time.
You win and I think the group looses. Jet Pilot tried with a lot of real
research and was not listened to either.
Other than a lot of tense words in e-mails, he produced no documents
worthy of a teacher who has practical assemblage of simple-ideas to share.
I have a standing offer to ANYONE . . . George, Eric, yourself . . .
anyone to publish any credible work. If you'd like your work-product
published and indexed on aeroelectric.com, you need only produce it.
We have very very different backgrounds and approaches to design. I had
hoped we could work together but that is not to be. I simply do not have the
time, nor can I stand the frustration of writing one paragraph and getting a
response of several pages of comments which are mostly, to me, not to the
point.
Absolutely agree. You don't embrace failure tolerance . . . else
your tools for scaring the potential consumer are crippled. You
don't embrace teaching your customers how components of their
system work toward the goal of competent assemblage and
operation by the user. Those are the points I write and design
to.
Paul, it's apparent to me now that nothing has changed in
either your goals, confrontational mind-set, and inability/
unwillingness to discuss simple-ideas as they relate to
servicing our respective constituents with practical designs.
I'll suggest that your design philosophy and products are
better suited to pilots who have evolved in the "padded
cockpit" environment and like to "drive" high-dollar,
high-performance airplanes. Your offerings might find more
favorable reception on a Lancair List. If you really believe
this group has lost, then start your own group. There are about
1,500 folks on this List who are potential consumers of your
philosophical and physical work product. If you can entice them
away from this group, then more power to you sir. If you have
a better way, then sell it. The marketplace is our ultimate judge
of success. I wish you well.
Bob . . .
Message 6
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Rare find . . . |
At 11:49 AM 7/13/2008 -0400, you wrote:
>In a message dated 7/12/2008 11:26:08 P.M. Eastern Standard Time,
>nuckolls.bob@cox.net writes:
>http://aeroelectric.com/Mfgr_Data/Regulators/Delco-Remy/Delco-Remy_Generator_Regulators.pdf
>
>Bob,
>
>Adobe reports that the file is damaged and could not be repaired.
>
>Ed. sadler
Hmmm . . . several folks including myself have reported
successful downloads. You might try it again. Let me
know. I'll drop it to you on a CD if necessary.
Bob . . .
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: Rare find . . . |
Thanks! just what I need for my Ford tractor with 6V electrical "system".
I just used it to mow 5 acres. She runs beautifully still... The entire
system is protected by one (1) 30A fuse which recently blew when the coil cracked
right down the side and shorted. Just one magneto tho... unlike our
aircraft. The new coil brought a handsome price of $25+shipping
Thanks is part to your teachings, I was able to quickly diagnose and repair.
Jerry Cochran
Sherwood, OR
RV-6a 18XP flying since 03/21/07
1951 Ford 8N, working hard since, well.. 1951
In a message dated 7/13/2008 12:00:30 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time,
aeroelectric-list@matronics.com writes:
Stumbled across this document published by Delco-Remy in 1959.
It's a service manual that speaks to 6v generators and their
companion electro-mechanical regulators. It's doubtful that
many of you will ever encounter this technology in operation
but I found the document interesting and thought I would
share it with you.
http://aeroelectric.com/Mfgr_Data/Regulators/Delco-Remy/Delco-Remy_Generator_R
egulators.pdf
I have a lot of respect for the designers that had to accomplish
these tasks with copper, steel, bakelite and a few tungsten
contact points.
Bob . . .
**************Get the scoop on last night's hottest shows and the live music
scene in your area - Check out TourTracker.com!
(http://www.tourtracker.com?NCID=aolmus00050000000112)
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: Rare find . . . |
At 01:06 PM 7/13/2008 -0400, you wrote:
>Thanks! just what I need for my Ford tractor with 6V electrical
>"system". I just used it to mow 5 acres. She runs beautifully still...
>The entire system is protected by one (1) 30A fuse which recently blew
>when the coil cracked right down the side and shorted. Just one magneto
>tho... unlike our aircraft. The new coil brought a handsome price of
>$25+shipping
>
>Thanks is part to your teachings, I was able to quickly diagnose and repair.
Cool! Thanks for the feedback.
Bob . . .
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: Rare find . . . |
First...due to a project that I've just started, I had a need to install
and use an old version of Adobe Acrobat...version 4, to be exact (not
the reader...the full program)...and even with that, this Delco Remy
pamphlet downloaded fine.
And next, the REAL the reason I'm writing...
Wow! What a booklet! Immediately brings back memories of cleaning and
adjusting those regulators in my 1953 Buick...or at least something that
looked like those regulators, even if they weren't Delco Remy! Didn't
have that book to follow then...but somehow we kept it running...
This has been a week with a lot of walks down memory lane for me.
Exchanged emails with my college buddy and best man who has lived in
North Carolina for decades. Photos of college days, even pictures from
high school. This booklet polishes off a memorable week in style!
Thanks!
Harley Dixon
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Robert L. Nuckolls, III wrote:
> <nuckolls.bob@cox.net>
>
> At 11:49 AM 7/13/2008 -0400, you wrote:
>> In a message dated 7/12/2008 11:26:08 P.M. Eastern Standard Time,
>> nuckolls.bob@cox.net writes:
>> http://aeroelectric.com/Mfgr_Data/Regulators/Delco-Remy/Delco-Remy_Generator_Regulators.pdf
>>
>> Bob,
>>
>> Adobe reports that the file is damaged and could not be repaired.
>>
>> Ed. sadler
>
> Hmmm . . . several folks including myself have reported
> successful downloads. You might try it again. Let me
> know. I'll drop it to you on a CD if necessary.
>
> 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: Nippondenso alternator question |
Hi Bob
I have been trying to follow this thread with little luck, mainly because I
got in late and I don't have time for it.- But, that said I want to say
there are a lot of Glasairs other than my own that swear by your info and a
re flying your systems.- My Glll has the dual bat dual alternator system
and has run perfectly for 4 yrs.- Others I know, the same.- Keep up the
good work
Jim Robinson
Glll- N79R
--- On Sun, 7/13/08, Robert L. Nuckolls, III <nuckolls.bob@cox.net> wrote:
From: Robert L. Nuckolls, III <nuckolls.bob@cox.net>
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Nippondenso alternator question
<nuckolls.bob@cox.net>
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Nippondenso alternator question
At 10:59 PM 7/12/2008 -0700, you wrote:
<info@mtfind.com>
Well (very sadly but it did seem too good to be true and I am not surprised
)
I had hoped for mutual cooperation but I guess you want to do it all your
self. Good timing as I was just finishing the first part of the planned
discussion.
WHOA! There was no intent on my part to exert any
form of control over how you responded to this
new initiative. If you have information to share
on any topic and in any form, I'm sure it will
be welcomed by many including myself . . .
Be my guest, I had thought you had changed. Clearly you want to frive the
discussion VS get the benefit of my extensive work.
Absolutely! However, I just finish an archiological dig
through records and drives looking for work I did on a
project at Beech some years back. The $time$ expended looking
COULD have been well spent looking . . . but in this case,
BETTER spent repeating the work which I am going to have
to do anyway. I was only attempting to perhaps relieve you
of some efforts trying to resurrect past work.
Random comments as its not worth my time to put them in ordered sequence. I
have made some suggestions about how and what to test to avoid missing
information that is not gathered just using your sketched circuit.
You are incorrect about my approach and intent and about my past analysis
and testing which is in my opinion adequate to determine the problem and I
have "crafted" a proven solution. In my opinion there is ZERO need
for more
testing other for self aggrandizement.
Wrong. The repeatable experiment is the CORE of good science.
No how much testing your or I do, there is always risk of
error, variability in process or materials, and variability
in interpretation of results. Finally, there are individuals
in our society that will stand up, point a finger and accuse
the tester of having some hidden agenda. There is no stronger
validation of anyone's work than to say, "Here's what I did,
here's what happened, here's the significance of the data.
Oh, by the way, Mr. X in Arizona and Ms. Y in Georgia did
similar if not identical work and our respective conclusions
support each other." Besides, I need that equipment and test
set-up for other activities.
I find this sad as you have not seen
any real results of my testing nor the scope of it. Reading your suggested
approach I find little to agree with so there is no point in my being a par
t
of your long promised study.
Paul . . . I don't know what I can write that
encourages you not to respond to what I do in the
worst possible light. You have not published one
White Paper, not one schematic, not one explanation
of features that helps me or anyone else understand
diddly-squat about what you're proposing.
Further most of your below comments about my position are totally incorrect
assumptions which is not surprising as you have never spent the time to fin
d
out what my approach is; the amount of analysis, investigation nor testing
setup and results.
But Paul, you have not shared even the smallest part of what
you've accomplished. I've reviewed our past exchanges and
the majority of your efforts were directed at tearing down
what I had been doing successfully for decades. The only
data you cited came from manufacturer's data sheets.
I will not tolerate testing as anything other as proof of
pre testing design analysis. I also simply will not design using assumption
s
or unofficial verbal assurances from one manufacturer its safe to exceed th
e
specifications as that is simply a high risk approach no engineer will do.
If you're talking about crow-barring breakers, exactly WHAT
limit was being violated? I cited the Mil Std under which all
those breakers were certified that requires they function as
advertised when subjected to fault currents of over 1000 amps.
Many times the values cited in guaranteed performance curves. Curves you
chose to interpret as limits.
My results are identical design solution for all reasonable alternator but
clearly its not reasonable to allow any alternator to be covered and that
position indicates to me a lack of modern alternator designs etc. Further
you seem fixated on maintaining several design flexiblities and pilot
control that I feel is not only not required but potentially dangerous.
??? Now I'm really lost. Are you suggesting that alternators
can and should be used for aircraft in the manner we've accepted
for cars? No control whatsoever, no ov protection, no ability
to manage loads and power generation in multiple alternator
systems? Is it your suggestion that the design and operation
protocols common to 99.999% of all aircraft flying can be
summarily dispensed with?
Also your sketch does not reproduce the real world load dump conditions wha
t
with fixed load and relay contact bounce in the real circuit.
The sketch depicts only the energy sources and sinks and the
organization needed to explore the characteristics of an alternator.
No more. Exploration of contactor performance in the task of
energy control is a separate experiment.
Finally it
appears you intend to have a constant string of load dumps which is very
likely to destroy the internal to the regulator load dump protection
components. Each single load dump needs time for the protection circuits to
cool down.
The "string" for T(off) can be ANYTHING out to infinity. This is a
general
arrangement I used 30 years ago to fine tune the dynamics of
voltage regulator designs. Obviously, getting the energy signature
from a particular combination of L(fixed)+L(switched) can be done
with very few events. The schematic was intended to describe setup,
not process details.
But your statement raises a new question. Where and what are the
components of "load dump protection" that might be expected to
sink the overshoot energy? Is this some new feature of an alternator
for which we are not familiar? What are these energy-sinking devices
that need resting between events to cool off?
Hopefully you will end up with far more evaluation, studying, and testing
than what you listed below as its not adequate nor has it addressed ALL the
problems I have addressed.
Never suggested it was. It's a beginning that goes to satisfaction
of my own curiosity and the sketch was offered as a means for
revealing those thoughts to you . . . nothing more.
You really should test all the brands of
alternators you intend to approve of and in the several different types and
amps in each style. There are differences to consider. For example differen
t
regulator transient response as well as the winding charactericts which wil
l
determine the load dump information.
Yup . . . not a simple task and it won't happen quickly.
It can happen quicker if folks interested in doing such things
share their work, deduce where variables cited dilute the
value of comparisons.
Obviously, we'll never test every brand/configuration of
alternator available . . . but there are statistical
sampling techniques that improve the accuracy on upper
and lower bounds that you adopt for designing a new
product or system.
Further you should take note of the fact just how much (or more important,
how little) is replaced in rebuilt alternators as if you know what is
replaced you would never recommend a rebuilt alternator (rebuilt is a
misnomer minimal repair is what actually happens).Junk yard is not a source
for ANY aircraft as who knows how close to failure the parts are.
Really? If the system is truly failure tolerant, why
would we dissuade anyone from using a salvage yard take-off?
Who knows, maybe he can find a good deal for a device of
a Mercedes or something. The goal of failure tolerant design
is to take reliability concerns for safety out of the decision.
In any
event testing alone, with out first doing an analysis and manufacturers
detailed data is NEVER sufficient. Both Myself and Jet Pilot found getting
more detailed information was not easy and getting past the sales staff if
difficult at best. However a lot of useful information was passed on and
poo-pooed on this groups list.
Forgive me. What information beyond hearsay? I have seen
no documents the manufacturing community offered here. Have
I missed something? Paul, it's precisely these kinds of
words that raise concerns for your own "hidden agenda". You
appear to totally dismiss failure tolerance and absolute
control as noble design goals. As one who has made a living
in this environment for nearly 40 years, I'm perplexed by this.
If these are NOT noble goals, then what goals would you suggest
replaces them? I've not seen one white paper, not one schematic,
not one array of test data and interpretation of its significance . . .
Yup, so in lieu of good data from the source, we gather
what we can in the field and then utilize those products
ways that do not compromise safety.
Also be sure to test with a full load current and zero fixed load. Note my
selected 50 amp rated alternator is specified to put out 70 amps at 13V and
more amps at lower voltages so a full output failure results in a much
higher current than your suggested testing which based on my testing is not
nearly worst case!
Yes . . . that's a subsequent test investigation that looks at
runaway conditions where the alternator is force to max-out. Or
if severly overloaded, one might expect greater-than-nameplate
output current. Name plates are often but should not be LIMITS
to performance but guanranteed (like those breaker curves?). There
are explainable conditions under which larger (and smaller) values
can be expected.
Another comment about getting the real data first. My NEW
alternator came with a computer printout of the actual alternator during
final test prior to shipment. Note the full amp output is a lot higher than
past comments have been clearly assumed on this list in the past.
I have assumed nothing . . . and I don't think others here on
the List have assumed anything either.
. . . .40% higher
is not small in my opinion and under load dump conditions the load being
dumped is much higher energy as well as the peak voltage.
Your opinion may be well based . . . so? This means we design
load dump mitigation for some head-room over name-plate-value.
That's all part of the ball game.
My testing was
based on a real duplication of a typical aircraft wiring including wire
gauge and lengths as well as flight batteries. It started with your OVP and
contactor with the diode on the contactor coil. Very different than what
your sketch shows. Also very long alternator failure point to final
contactor opening requiring voltage clamping during that time of a lot more
energy than what has been assumed in one of your tests from years ago.
Paul, I was only trying to explain my strongest curiosities for
the moment that focused on alternator/regulator performance that
was in no way influenced by methodology for control or OV protection.
I was hoping that you might have data that went to those questions.
The sketch illustrated a tool for getting just that data. I WAS hoping
to focus on one item at a time starting with alternator/regulator then
control philosophies/techniques and finally over-voltage protection.
But then we have a large and fundamental difference on how to design any
electrical (including aircraft) systems. My approach is to discard many of
the proven pilot opportunities to mess up that have been a reason for past
crashes and leap into the 21st century. Building on the past and not addres
s
the fundamental cause of most accidents is not progress in my opinion. The
more pilot required actions greatly increases the pilots lack or incorrect
action. Today there is no need to do things manually in most cases. Every
manual control available to the pilot 's another opportunity to make a
mistake that can lead to a crash.
What percentage of crashes have root causes in electrical system
failures? What scenarios (FMEA) can you imagine that the complexities
of any of the Z-Figures present extra-ordinary operational problems
to the pilot? A light comes on, two switches are repositioned, DONE.
Your words suggest a marketing philosophy based on a climate of
fear . . . one of the most powerful behavior modification tools
available to Madison Avenue (or government). Please assuage my
concerns. IF a tool supporting your endeavors is to scare the socks
off (and dollars out?) of the ignorant consumer, then your purpose
and actions here are unwelcome. I'd rather we share good science.
Today we have Integrated Solid state
switches/circuit breakers. Schottky diodes are not really needed much less
silicon bridges which have no use in aircraft. Yes Solid state switching is
easy to make with full bi-directional isolation and ON resistance less that
of mechanical relays etc switching (as low as 0.002 ohms ON resistance). Th
e
pilot needs to be notified of any CB failure not by finding out by failure
of the component to work for example.
CB failure? I have worked ONE, count 'em, ONE CB failure issue in
decades. That had to do with a design flaw in the product. Recall when
we discussed the consequences of not having the spring-insulator shown
in:
http://aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Breakers/W31_1.jpg
Circuit breakers/fuses are just not high on my list of performance conce
rns.
Paul, you seem to be working on another plane of
existence. A plane that is shared by many of my customers in the
VLJ business. I'm seeing trends toward a LOT of bells and whistles
driven by software and the latest in electro-whizzies. I design
my products to integrate with those systems . . . it's my job
and I get paid well for it. But we're working with RV's and
Kitfoxes. There are very few Lancairs or Glasairs interested in
what the 'Connection has to offer. Those folks have so much invested
in their projects that most simply farm their electrical system
out to whoever offers the most attractive combination of glass and price
. . .
architecture and understanding their airplane is WAAAyyyy down
on the list of concerns.
Dave Saylor, are you reading this? How many of your Lancair
customers give a rat's patootie about components of their airplane's
electrical system work? What percentage would welcome offloading
understanding and responsibility to the operation of some electronics
behind the touch-screen?
The aircraft instruments have migrated from steam gauges to flat panels yet
we still find the old contactor relay// switch approach of 1950 etc and tha
t
ignores the modern components available today that are far more reliable an
d
more pilot friendly.
Excellent marketing hype. Please quantify "reliability" as it
relates to
safety or cost of ownership in a failure tolerant system. In particular,
tie this to return on investment in an airplane that on average is
flown 50 hours a year and seldom ventures into IMC and spends very
time flying in the dark.
It would be interesting to survey the OBAM aircraft marketplace and
see how often the guy uses/needs all those electro-whizzies on
the panel. I have 850 or so logged hours. I've punched perhaps
a dozen cloud layers. Except for punching layers, all of my flying
from J-3 to A-36 could have been handily accomplished with the
electrical system shut down - using hand-helds and flashlight
from my flight bag.
I'll suggest that for the majority of readers on this List
the electrical system in their project will offer no greater
criticality than I have experienced over the last 27 years.
Its a fact that pilot error is the major cause of accidents. Its pilot erro
r
if you run out of fuel, deplete the battery based on an assumption of
battery condition and electrical load etc etc. The requirement to throw a
switch in an emergency is bad design if there is a reasonable solution that
eliminates the mechanical pilot action and its done automatically. Its sad
that there is no truly modern system available at a reasonable price on the
market today that automates the system and provides the pilot with useful
real time electrical system conditions. My designs have been peer reviewed
by my (multiple) peers and all have stated its both more reliable and a
great improvement to current 1950's parts and today's arrangements and
approaches. You have long promoted fly the airplane and trouble shoot back
on the ground which is not what your design requirement to turn on and off
the alternator in flight and a simple voltage check is enough for preflight
.
Personal situation has delayed getting my system on the market.
Okay, Paul's agenda identified? I have a customer who asked for some
advice some years ago about designing a glass-panel, does-everything-
but-wash-dishes, power management system for light aircraft. He
threw in a programmable check list to boot. The thing markets for
over $5,000.
Paul, I'm writing and designing for folks who choose NOT to
worry and have FUN building, maintaining and flying an airplane.
You appear focused on "reliability" and preventing Joe Cool
pilot from loosing his cool when presented with an electrical
system conundrum. I prefer to offer solutions where the electrical
system components are easily acquired, easily understood by the user,
and TOTAL cost is probably under $2,000. Further, Joe Cool is
qualified to operate his behaving or mis-behaving system in confidence.
The E-bus is a good example where there is a design requirement to have a
group of avionics disabled during part of the flight and then guess about
how much battery life is left.
This statement demonstrates that you've NOT read and understood
the design goals for the e-bus and the admonition that the most
reliable electrical system flies on a battery of KNOWN capacity.
. . . A simple additional electrical instrument I
have designed allows the pilot to simply see the real flight time left and
change the load and have the flight time left update. It also determines th
e
true battery life dynamically. If I am IFR I may need a different set of
avionics than what is on the E bus for example depending on the actual
flight conditions. Or what if the battery power left at any point is less
that what was predicted or measured months ago?. I know of several off
field crashes due to the battery being depleted well before the expected
time. Another bad design to assume something in particular when it ns not
required to assume. Fuel tank gauges system when the only accurate
requirement is full and empty has been replaced with fuel flow measurement
and totalized as seen in modern automobiles. No reason the battery cannot b
e
treated the same way, sure its a little more complex but not hard to do wit
h
reasonable accuracy.
There are many ways to make flying safer than having a check list of which
switches to throw under different failure modes and make assumptions of
flight time left for example. How about a warning and a count down display
that tells the time left to fly and updates as the pilot changes the
equipment powered on. No action is required if the time remaining is long
enough.
Do you have ANY idea what it takes to get such a product
onto a TC aircraft? There are valid (if not overworked)
concerns about the accuracy, reliability and effects on
pilot mind-set when we put highly automated devices into
the flight management loop. I'm not suggesting that your
product is any less valuable if you do NOT jump all the
regulatory hoops but I am suggesting that when you replace
UNDERSTANDING and COMPETENT operation with an electro-whizzy,
the potential for unintended consequences are there. Further,
when we design and sell such devices, we're in essence taking
on responsibility for operation of that portion of the aircraft.
I don't mention this from any perspective of assumed liability,
only from the perspective of Joe Cool pilot who is now even
more ignorant of his system and more dependent upon his suppliers
to manage it. Yes, modern electronics lets us do many interesting
and sometimes amazing things. We'll have to leave it up to
our customers to decide what dollars are better spent on
the panel as opposed to fuel and tires.
I prefer to preach the doctrine of low parts count, low
cost of ownership, simple-operations backed up by UNDERSTANDING
of how the system works. I don't believe that products and
ideas from a 787 trickle down well into an RV.
Your insistence of performing your own testing is fine but you are
discarding months of investigation as well as hundreds of hours of testing
and analysis. On the other hand it will save me a lot of time producing a
machine readable copy etc.
I am discarding nothing. It was my hope that I SUPPORT
what you've accomplished and that things you're doing would
SUPPORT what I'm doing. That appears not to be part of your
professional modus operandi.
A lot of people blindly used your OVP crowbar until it was used with Vans
aircraft and had many reported failures.
And not one user of the crowbar OVP system contacted me
for his/her money back. Not one user came forward even
when offered a $50 bonus on top of money back if they
would help me understand the circumstances under which
their problems occurred.
As far as I know there was never
and failure analysis to prove the true reason for the failures.
. . . but my requests for data from folks who were ostensibly
in communication with "victims" produced no feedback from
the field.
My own
testing found fault at least two faults with the OVP design but they only
caused false tripping and the real reason appeared to be the use of the
contactor and perhaps rebuilt alternators with possible second rate (read
lower cost) regulators that could not stand up to the resulting load dump
voltage peaks. In any event the OVP design was not properly designed in the
first place likely due to the test first and skip the analysis under
transient conditions.
It is true I had intended to produce an engineering document VS a
technicians experimental results.
Excellent! There is nothing anyone has said that argues with
that. I produced and published volumes of data and analysis
that argued with your assertions with no responses other than
to aspersions cast upon my skills and integrity as a designer.
To date (including my most recent, narrow request for data
that would define alternator/regulator overshoot performance)
I don't recall that you've answered a single direct question.
I have far too much to do, so its easy to simply bow out. Further I will no
t
comment on your results as I have better things to do. There is no need to
try to discuss your approach as your mind is seemingly always made up ahead
of time.
You win and I think the group looses. Jet Pilot tried with a lot of real
research and was not listened to either.
Other than a lot of tense words in e-mails, he produced no documents
worthy of a teacher who has practical assemblage of simple-ideas to shar
e.
I have a standing offer to ANYONE . . . George, Eric, yourself . . .
anyone to publish any credible work. If you'd like your work-product
published and indexed on aeroelectric.com, you need only produce it.
We have very very different backgrounds and approaches to design. I had
hoped we could work together but that is not to be. I simply do not have th
e
time, nor can I stand the frustration of writing one paragraph and getting
a
response of several pages of comments which are mostly, to me, not to the
point.
Absolutely agree. You don't embrace failure tolerance . . . else
your tools for scaring the potential consumer are crippled. You
don't embrace teaching your customers how components of their
system work toward the goal of competent assemblage and
operation by the user. Those are the points I write and design
to.
Paul, it's apparent to me now that nothing has changed in
either your goals, confrontational mind-set, and inability/
unwillingness to discuss simple-ideas as they relate to
servicing our respective constituents with practical designs.
I'll suggest that your design philosophy and products are
better suited to pilots who have evolved in the "padded
cockpit" environment and like to "drive" high-dollar,
high-performance airplanes. Your offerings might find more
favorable reception on a Lancair List. If you really believe
this group has lost, then start your own group. There are about
1,500 folks on this List who are potential consumers of your
philosophical and physical work product. If you can entice them
away from this group, then more power to you sir. If you have
a better way, then sell it. The marketplace is our ultimate judge
of success. I wish you well.
Bob . . .
============0A=0A=0A
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: Nippondenso alternator question |
----Bob: If you knew my background you would understand how wrong you are
about
my design approach as well as nearly all your comments in this and many
other responses.
My resume includes personal congratulations from the President of the USA
for outstanding scientific excellence, Another is the Presidents award for
outstanding engineering performance at Lockheed. Also there is the multiple
management positions typically manager of the command and control systems
for spacecraft including the Space Telescope.
I have published OBAM designs and design details on several other groups, my
web site, and three national mags. I guess there is a world outside of
aeroelectric.
But this post is breaking my comment not to post again.
I do congratulant your efforts in supporting the group and best wishes.
Paul
- Original Message -----
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob@cox.net>
Sent: Sunday, July 13, 2008 9:47 AM
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Nippondenso alternator question
> <nuckolls.bob@cox.net>
>
>
> To: aeroelectric-list@matronics.com
> Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Nippondenso alternator question
>
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: | Nippondenso alternator question |
Thank you Paul, for going silent!!
Your negative contribution to this forum has taken a lot of time and has
accomplished nothing. Since you have only tried to tear down Bob's work,
with NO positive contributions. Trying to promote your agenda by trashing
someone else does not work.
Bob, as opposed to Paul, has published many documents to assist the OBAM
community. There are a variety of different approaches to suit the needs of
most builders. I have asked questions on several occasions and got a good
accurate professional reply. In my opinion, the KISS approach with
attention to failure tolerance is the best method for the average builder.
I must commend Bob for the volumes of useful info, free for the taking.
Thanks Bob, and keep up the good work.
Roger
Message 13
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Nippondenso alternator question |
Here's what's really strange about Paul's reply. I've worked in theaerospace field
for decades. I've never known engineersto receive USA Presidentialawardsunless
they were way up at the top and extremely goodpoliticians, totally away from
true engineering. Usually these guys are so far removedfrom the lab and from
where the real action is that they do not know what's going on. Instead, they
are at meeting after meeting determinng budgets and how to kill programs,who
to promote, who to lay off, taking credit for whatpeople far below have done,
etc. So Paul and whatever your last name is, if you truly have received awards
from the USA president, congratulations, you are a great politician.
Henador Titzoff
----- Original Message ----
From: Paul <info@mtfind.com>
Sent: Sunday, July 13, 2008 4:23:11 PM
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Nippondenso alternator question
----Bob: If you knew my background you would understand how wrong you are
about
my design approach as well as nearly all your comments in this and many
other responses.
My resume includes personal congratulations from the President of the USA
for outstanding scientific excellence, Another is the Presidents award for
outstanding engineering performance at Lockheed. Also there is the multiple
management positions typically manager of the command and control systems
for spacecraft including the Space Telescope.
I have published OBAM designs and design details on several other groups, my
web site, and three national mags. I guess there is a world outside of
aeroelectric.
But this post is breaking my comment not to post again.
I do congratulant your efforts in supporting the group and best wishes.
Paul
Message 14
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Nippondenso alternator question |
Well, Bob - you tried. Or, more likely - you fell for it again.
Somewhere out there in the vastness of the 'net, there probably exists a
discussion (tirade) group for engineers with borderline personality
disorder. He'll find his way "home," I'm sure.
Your core constituency may have dropped from 1,500 interested
readers/contributors to 1,499 this weekend - but I doubt it's dropped any
more than that.
Carry on, sir. Keep us posted. Don't fret about what's transpired.
-Bill B
>
>
Message 15
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Cabbages and kings . . . |
At 01:23 PM 7/13/2008 -0700, you wrote:
>
>
>----Bob: If you knew my background you would understand how wrong you are
>about
>my design approach as well as nearly all your comments in this and many
>other responses.
>
>My resume includes personal congratulations from the President of the USA
>for outstanding scientific excellence, Another is the Presidents award for
>outstanding engineering performance at Lockheed. Also there is the multiple
>management positions typically manager of the command and control systems
>for spacecraft including the Space Telescope.
So that's it? All we get is your resume? A list
of the certificates on your office wall? I've received
a few of those. They looked just like the ones that
everyone who worked on the program received. I've
not kept a single one.
>I have published OBAM designs and design details on several other groups, my
>web site,
. . . all I get at http://mtfind.com is a blank "Under Construction"
page. While Googling the web looking for other possible Messinger
websites I found some comments attributed to you supporting the NSI
Subaru conversion over Eggenfellner. I was contacted a few
years back by a group of NSI hopefuls who had put up lots
of dollars and still had no engine. They were interested in
hiring me to look into the NSI design. The data they were
able to provide showed a horribly complex, fully redundant
EFI design. I had to advise them that unless NSI was considering
a clean piece of paper restart, I didn't think there was anything
I could do for them that would justify my participation. I note
that Maxwell Propulsion is attempting to pull that tar baby out of
the sticky with a much simpler configuration. As I recall, this
photo . . .
http://aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Misc/Too_Many_Relays.jpg
was an NSI installation. If not, I stand corrected but in any
case, WWWAAAaaaayyyy too many relays. I guess I'm only mildly
interested in what had you excited about the original NSI concept.
> . . . and three national mags. I guess there is a world outside of
>aeroelectric.
There is indeed and if the editors of those magazines are
pleased with what they purchased, then I am pleased for
them. But YOU posted to the AeroElectric-List
to voice your objections to my writing . . . again.
I don't collect awards/commendations. Well, I do
have a really nice picture of a Model 17 Beech given
to me at my retirement party and signed by several dozen
of my associates from 30+ years of Wichita aviation.
It was signed by the VP of engineering as he was asking
me what my consulting rate was going to be. THAT'S the
kind of "award" I strive for . . . a satisfied customer
that wants to spend more money. I got my contractor's
badge for Hawker-Beech a few months later.
I've made my way by putting every idea out in writing
along with schematics, bills of materials, suggested
sources of supply, 400 Mb of website original materials
and reference documents, all supported by sales of
about 15,000 books and 10+ years of weekend seminars.
I derive no small satisfaction in solving a stubborn
problem on an airplane in a few days that others have
fretted with for weeks, sometimes months.
I've stood in front of countless gatherings of my
peers to offer up and then defend my designs, take
my lumps when I screw up, and be justifiably
proud of products that are still flying on
production aircraft after more than 25 years.
Finally, I back all this up with a money-back
guarantee of satisfaction to the OBAM aviation
community for for anything received from me.
So far all we've received from you in THIS
venue is a load of cabbages and tomatoes tossed
in from the sidelines with not a single alternative
solution. You talk about some "golden system of
the future" crafted by yourself and Eric and no
doubt blessed by GMC_Jetpilot. While the dedicated
members of this list keep hammering away on projects
that stand head-and-shoulders above the TC world,
what support has been forthcoming from you? What
advice have you offered any builder that saved him
money, time or made the airplane "safer"?
Nada, zilch, zip.
Paul, it takes more than words, awards and a good
cabbage throwing arm to be a creative engineer
and successful entrepreneur. My customers expect (and I
endeavor to deliver) simple, safe, economical, repeatable
experiments supported with understanding - recipes for
success.
I'll ask it again Paul . . . please go away.
You are not making a positive contribution to the
mission here on the AeroElectric-List.
Bob . . .
Message 16
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Nippondenso alternator question |
At 12:58 PM 7/13/2008 -0700, you wrote:
>Hi Bob
>I have been trying to follow this thread with little luck, mainly because
>I got in late and I don't have time for it. But, that said I want to say
>there are a lot of Glasairs other than my own that swear by your info and
>are flying your systems. My Glll has the dual bat dual alternator system
>and has run perfectly for 4 yrs. Others I know, the same. Keep up the
>good work
>Jim Robinson
>Glll N79R
Don't worry about it my friend. It's difficult for me
to follow . . . and even when I've tried to direct it by
requesting answers to specific questions, enlightenment
was not forthcoming.
I'm pleased that you're enjoying your airplane!
Bob . . .
Message 17
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Rare find . . . |
Thanks to all,
I tried again after closing a bunch of browser windows and it came through
OK.
Ed. Sadler
**************Get the scoop on last night's hottest shows and the live music
scene in your area - Check out TourTracker.com!
(http://www.tourtracker.com?NCID=aolmus00050000000112)
Message 18
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Nippondenso alternator question |
But this post is breaking my comment not to post again.
Bummer. Please try harder next time.
<nuckolls.bob@cox.net>
I'll ask it again Paul . . . please go away.
YIPPEE!!! Good show!!
I can't believe I fell for it AGAIN!!! I actually thought Paul was going
to deliver something useful but he proved he is just the same as he was ten
years ago. Wish he would stop changing his email address - makes it tough
for my spam filters to catch his messages.
Jon
DO NOT ARCHIVE
Message 19
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Nippondenso alternator question |
At 02:57 PM 7/13/2008 -0400, you wrote:
>Well, Bob - you tried. Or, more likely - you fell for it again.
>
>Somewhere out there in the vastness of the 'net, there probably exists a
>discussion (tirade) group for engineers with borderline personality
>disorder. He'll find his way "home," I'm sure.
>
>Your core constituency may have dropped from 1,500 interested
>readers/contributors to 1,499 this weekend - but I doubt it's dropped any
>more than that.
>
>Carry on, sir. Keep us posted. Don't fret about what's transpired.
Not a problem my friend. I was advised by a wise
teacher some years ago that such encounters are not
worth emotional capital. I know more about me than
anybody. If someone points a finger with an allegation,
I'm the first to know if its validity. If valid then
I fix it. If specious then ignore it. Expending
emotional capital on being offended, or angry in such
instances is a voluntary abrogation of liberty to
the tormentor.
Honorable people go out of their way to protect the
liberty of themselves and others. Hence, giving vexatious
persons more than passing notice is in itself a dishonorable
thing to do. I am obligated to explore the potential
for advancing our knowledge but nothing more.
Bob . . .
Message 20
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | FYI: Dancing ammeter . . . Generators can do it too! |
I recently had occasion to converse with Concorde Battery about
several cases of "dancing ammeters" on older airplanes that were
fitted with generators and recently retrofitted with RG batteries.
The change in battery internal resistance seemed to have triggered
the events.
Back in '04 we had a discussion the problem as it related to
a negative resistance effect that occurs in alternator/regulator
combinations where VOLTAGE SENSE and FIELD POWER share the same
conductor. See:
http://tinyurl.com/5pee5j
This can happen in systems that use the "generic ford" regulators.
Zeftronics speaks to the phenomenon in their R15V00 data sheet:
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Mfgr_Data/Regulators/Zeftronics/R15V00_Ford_Style_Reulator.pdf
Seems the same thing can and does happen in generator systems
even when they use the old electro-mechanical regulators. In the
case of the Concorde Battery substitution, increased path
resistance in the Vsense/Field_Supply lead was root cause . . .
changing the battery only added the final stress that
tripped the system.
Renewing all components (breaker, switches, connectors, etc)
in the subject power path fixes the problem for another 20+
years.
Any time you see the dancing ammeter phenomenon in any airplane,
be sure to refer the owner to the "dancing ammeter" discussion
on the List.
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
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! --
|