Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 06:13 AM - Re: Re: Battery Choices - what is too small AH capacity? (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
2. 09:08 AM - Re: Battery Choices - what is too small AH capacity? (Jim McBurney)
3. 09:52 AM - Re: Re: IR to ER alternator mod (Dale Rogers)
4. 11:06 AM - Re: 30 Amp switch? (Dale Rogers)
5. 12:04 PM - Re: 30 Amp switch? (RV Builder (Michael Sausen))
6. 02:22 PM - Re: John Deere dynamo (Beemer)
7. 03:04 PM - SD-8 + Key West rectifier/regulator ? (Bob Bittner)
8. 04:44 PM - Re: Re: John Deere dynamo (Ed Mueller)
9. 05:14 PM - KT-70 Lens (Don Curry)
10. 05:51 PM - Re: Re: John Deere dynamo (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
11. 05:51 PM - Re: 30 Amp switch? (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
12. 06:07 PM - Re: SD-8 + Key West rectifier/regulator ? (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
13. 06:20 PM - Starter Contactor (Beemer)
14. 06:24 PM - Re: Starter Contactor (Beemer)
15. 07:18 PM - Re: 30 Amp switch? (Dale Rogers)
Message 1
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Battery Choices - what is too small AH capacity? |
At 07:55 PM 8/13/2008 -0500, you wrote:
>I purchased one of the West Mountain units for the same reason that you
>are concerned about, Mike. It's a nifty tool.
>
>I was surprised to find the 11 a.h. battery I had laying around the shop
>was actually only good for 7 a.h.
>Sam
Keep in mind that the nameplate capacity of any battery is based on
some published discharge rate. For most of the SVLA industry, the
published capacity is at a 20 hour rate. See:
http://aeroelectric.com/Mfgr_Data/Batteries/Panasonic/lc-rd1217p.pdf
Note in the box under "Characteristics" we find a RANGE of
capacity values that runs from 17 a.h. at 850 mA discharge
down to 10 a.h. at a 10 Amp discharge.
There is also a plot of battery capacity vs. discharge rate.
Here's an enlarged copy.
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Curves/17AH_12V_Capacity_vs_Load.gif
When sizing your battery selection you need to know the current
draw of your alternator-only loads. Then go into the data
for the battery under consideration and extrapolate the battery
capacity AT THAT LOAD. As noted, one can test a battery
under various loads using devices like the West Mountain
cap tester. I have two of those things. Not only are they
useful as programmable load cap testers, you can put them
into a very low current mode (0.01A) and use them as a
data acquisition system.
For example, when studying the performance of the various
battery charger product, the West Mountain cap tester
was used to acquire voltage plots like these:
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Curves/Battery_Minder_Recharge.pdf
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Curves/Battery_Tender_Recharge.pdf
http://aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Battery_Chargers/Schumacher_Chargers/SC2500-50AH.jpg
The AA alkaline battery studies I've published over the
past several years use this same piece of test equipment
and associated software to gather a publish families of
performance curves on various battery products. See:
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Curves/AA_Battery_Tests_80622.jpg
Like yourself, I've found the West Mountain Radio battery
tester to be very useful.
http://westmountainradio.com/CBA_ham.htm
Keep in mind also that your battery has a service-life.
The industry benchmark for battery sizing is to pick
a device with about 125% more capacity-at-load than
you need for meeting design goals. Then replace the battery
when it falls to 80% of as-new capacity so that those
design goals are maintained.
Obviously, these considerations will drive you to
install a battery with a name-plate rating that is
substantially larger than the service rating that
meets your design goals.
Bob . . .
Message 2
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Battery Choices - what is too small AH capacity? |
If you need to know actual current draw, check out
www.sears.com/shc/s/p_10153_12605_03482369000P. DC clamp-on ammeter, works
well for this kind of situation, not too expensive. Just be sure you're
clamping around the wire that you really want to read. It's easy to get on
the wrong side of a terminal. (Don't ask how I know -- I know!)
Do not archive
Blue skies and tailwinds
Jim
CH-801
DeltaHawk diesel
Augusta GA
90% done, 90% left
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: IR to ER alternator mod |
Hi All - and, specifically, gmcjetpilot,
Admittedly, I'm a little late coming to this party. Even though I've
only been reading the list for about half a year, available time has me
currently with 90 unread messages in the queue.
There are a couple of things that I've found rather irritating about
these exchanges. One has been the verbosity about peripheral issues
(~I'm more qualified than /you are/you think I am/ ~) and precious
little about the core issues of OBAM aircraft electrical systems. It
seems that at least two of the "dissenters" (my characterization) have
forgotten what OBAM stands for and that this is supposed to be a forum
for DIY activity. In most other venues for experimental aviation, the
focus of responses is on "here is how I did it, and these were its
limitations" - with a bit of "here's how I intend to do it; what are the
likely drawbacks?"
At least two participants here seem to want to promote their own
enterprises, via messages of: "I've done it better, and if you'll come
to my website, I'll sell you a solution." I don't see that as in the
spirit of DIY. Again, in other similar venues, the message is more
like: "here's how I solved the issue; here's what you need to know to
implement the same solution; AND, if doing it yourself is beyond your
current capabilities, or capabilities you're willing to acquire along
the way, I'll sell you a kit or a finished solution."
Does it sound like I'm asking you to give away the store? No.
Giving away precise knowledge is the nature of a ~cooperative~
undertaking; we trade what we've learned for knowledge that others have
acquired. The rising tide lifts all boats, including some who will
always be behind the knowledge curve and never have anything to
contribute - except, possibly, verification of someone else's solution.
That has value, too, though, doesn't it?
To sum, if a person is not willing to share a new schematic, and/or
list of components, and/or concrete test results ... I don't understand
why you're here, except to SPAM the list on behalf of your business. My
email has a "twit file" function which spares me having to wade through
the bloviations of such posters. It's apparently time to implement it
for this list.
Cedat Fortuna Peritis,
Dale R.
Mesa, AZ
COZY MkIV #497, Ch. 12
Ch's. 13, 16, 22 & 23 in-progress
http://www.canardzone.com/forum/showthread.php?t=1388
http://canardaviationforum.dmt.net/showthread.php?t=1588
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: 30 Amp switch? |
Bob,
May I make a suggestion? Years from now, someone searching through
the archives (or their own G-mail) will read:
Robert L. Nuckolls, III wrote:
> if you need to put your hands on a suitable product
> right away and there's a Radio Shack handy, you
> might consider this device:
>
> http://tinyurl.com/69mypb
>
> Bob . . .
and discover that the tinyurl has expired. Including the RS part # in
the text - in this case, 275-001- will give them something to search for
on the RS site.
Dale R.
COZY MkIV #0497
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 |
|
Tinyurl's don't expire. Of course that doesn't mean the service will never go
away.
Do not archive
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Dale Rogers
Sent: Thursday, August 14, 2008 12:24 PM
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: 30 Amp switch?
Bob,
May I make a suggestion? Years from now, someone searching through
the archives (or their own G-mail) will read:
Robert L. Nuckolls, III wrote:
> if you need to put your hands on a suitable product
> right away and there's a Radio Shack handy, you
> might consider this device:
>
> http://tinyurl.com/69mypb
>
> Bob . . .
and discover that the tinyurl has expired. Including the RS part # in
the text - in this case, 275-001- will give them something to search for
on the RS site.
Dale R.
COZY MkIV #0497
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: John Deere dynamo |
nuckolls.bob(at)cox.net wrote:
> At 06:38 AM 8/12/2008 -0700, you wrote:
>
>
>
> That's a popular myth promulgated mostly by two individuals
> who are demonstrably un-qualified to judge my work.
> They appear to have never read and/or understood design
> goals I (and hundreds of my colleagues) have embraced as
> aircraft system integrators and component designers for 30+ years.
Well, my design goals are different than someone building a Lancair IV. They are
also different than Cessna's. I think the overall objective should be the same
- supply me 12 volts and don't hurt me. I see that you are leading us toward
this objective.
I have no desire to re-hash opinion differences nor point fingers. I want to wire
my Kitfox.
>
> I'm not sure you understand the spirit and intent of
> my offerings here on the List and elsewhere. I think we
> can agree that airplanes, with all the potential for
> utility and pleasure, are exceedingly unforgiving machines.
> The environment in which we operate them can be equally
> unforgiving. Everything I've bolted to an airplane has
> these design goals in mind. (1) Utility (function as
> specified/advertised). (2) Weight. (3) Cost of ownership.
> and last but not least (4) Risk Mitigation.
>
> In categories 1-3, the stock automotive alternator is
> a stellar performer and quite suited to the task aboard
> airplanes but with two shortcomings"
>
> In the category of UTILITY: ON/OFF control at any time
> under any conditions without risk to itself or other
> components in the system. This is how alternators/generators
> have functioned in aircraft since day-one. There are both
> operational and risk mitigation advantages for giving the pilot
> and OV protection systems a means of managing alternator operations . . .
>
> and RISK MITIGATION: I have seen no design to data for
> which the risk of OV runaway is zero. Further, the potential
> for a high-energy even in a runaway alternator is significant.
> See:
>
> http://aeroelectric.com/articles/When_is_110V_not_Over_Voltage.pdf
>
> Since day one in aircraft, independent monitoring of bus voltage
> COMBINED with the ability to shut an alternator/generator off
> at will relieves the system designer of a time-consuming
> and costly effort of designing, proving and maintaining a system
> reliability in the 10-to-the-minus-9-failures-per-flight-hour
> category (FAA-speak for 'never happens').
>
> Failure tolerance is integral to every design and goes directly
> to both Cost of Ownership and Risk Mitigation.
>
>
>
> By making my part of the program failure tolerant without
> adding risk to the overall flight system, costs of ownership
> goes down, and parts-count goes down (driving reliability
> up). But even if my gizmo craps every 1000 hours, it's not
> a safety of flight issue - only a cost of ownership issue.
>
>
I don't see any debate here. I'm not a fan of the "more is better" philosophy.
KISS is the rule on the K'fox. I'm agonizing over following Z-19RB, but with my
EFI engine, I feel the redundancy outweighs the complicity.
>
> If I were building an airplane, it WOULD have a
> stock automotive alternator with Z-24 installed as
> an interim solution to get flying and laying the
> ground work for installation of a permanent solution
> at a later date as described in:
>
> http://www.aeroelectric.com/articles/Adapting_IR_Alternators_to_Aircraft.pdf
>
>
Wow. Telling statement, that. It quite well answers the question "What would Bob
do...?"
>
>
> Why would I have even crafted Z-24 if I were attempting
> to quash the use of IR alternators? And why would I
> follow up the Z-24 interim with the new-and-improved
> alternative? I'll suggest that these two drawings are
> a positive if not enthusiastic endorsement of the
> value offered by a host of automotive alternator
> products.
>
> No, I have never said that IR alternators do not belong
> on aircraft. I have said that I cannot RECOMMEND them because
> the current state of our art does not allow me to integrate
> them in satisfaction of the design goals cited above.
> Z-24 was a first crack at meeting those design goals.
> It has some short comings which are discussed in detail in
> publications on my website. Those short comings will
> be addressed in due course.
>
But you just said you would use one, yet not recommend one. Am I mis-interpreting
this somehow?
>
> First, there are ways to make ANY selection of engine driven
> power source suited to use in the aircraft environment.
> Further, if you choose not to embrace my design goals, then
> there is still good value to be received from bolting a stock
> automotive alternator to your airplane. As long as you
> understand and accept the risks and perhaps lack of utility
> compared to the majority of the GA fleet, then I have
> no heartburn with it. But if you're being mis-advised into
> believing there is little or no increased risks as
> compared to contemporary aircraft design philosophies,
> you owe it to yourself to at least elevate your understanding
> to the level needed to make a well considered decision.
> Don't do anything based on my (or anyone else's recommendations)
> unless you understand and personally embrace the design
> goals that go along with those recommendations.
>
>
By installing Z-13RB with Z-24 integrated, I'm providing for the bad alternator
all together, by disconnecting it from the system entirely. From then on, I am
carried by the battery(s), and need to design enough ah margin to get me home
or nearest, anyway.
>
> Sounds like a 3.5# SD-8 would do nicely for you. There are
> thousands of LongEz and VariEz aircraft flying with this
> machine as the only source of engine driven power.
>
Ummm, I'm sure they're great units, and would do fine. But I can't use the gear
drive.
>
> But if you wanted to put a little 35 or 40A wound
> field alternator on, that would not be a bad
> decision either . . . internally or externally
> regulated.
>
> Let's channel this discussion toward establishing
> your design goals and then meeting them. Please set
> aside any notions that I or anyone else here on the
> list is going to twist your arm to do anything except
> perhaps those things which are overtly foolhardy or
> dangerous.
>
> Have you completed a load analysis of just what
> your energy requirements are?
>
> See:
>
> http://www.aeroelectric.com/PPS/Load_Analysis/Blank_Form.pdf
>
> This form is designed to facilitate a study of your
> true energy needs. Until those are known, may I
> suggest that alternator selection for the purpose
> of minimizing weight is premature?
>
> Bob . . .
No ones talking me into anything. I'm trying to decide how to proceed on my new
airplane.
I haven't analyzed it. I have no idea how to check the ECM and coil draw. Right
now I have 55amps, Z-24, and 17ah running the motor just fine. I have two readily
available alternator options, both 40amp, one weighs 6.5lbs, the other 4.5
lbs. I'm just trying to figure out if there's a better way to wire up the new
airplane. If I can install the JD dynamo with external reg, spin it up to 9000rpm,
and live to tell the tale, I'll consider it on its merits. But I would
like to know if it's feasible to do so, or a bad choice due to something I'm not
being told by the advertising.
Bradley
--------
Beemer
KF2 (and now an M3!)
Middle Georgia
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=198613#198613
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: | SD-8 + Key West rectifier/regulator ? |
The surprising but apparent inability for the B&C SD-8 to self-activate
makes me wonder if a simple solution is a different regulator/rectifier.
The Key West product works fine with the Rotax PM alternators and without
any battery. Anyone out there know specs enough on both units to know if
they wouldn't or might work together?
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: John Deere dynamo |
If you have the engine actually running, can't you turn all the other
electrics off and measure the draw of the ECM and coil?
Ed
On Aug 14, 2008, at 5:15 PM, Beemer wrote:
>
>
> nuckolls.bob(at)cox.net wrote:
>> At 06:38 AM 8/12/2008 -0700, you wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> That's a popular myth promulgated mostly by two individuals
>> who are demonstrably un-qualified to judge my work.
>> They appear to have never read and/or understood design
>> goals I (and hundreds of my colleagues) have embraced as
>> aircraft system integrators and component designers for 30+ years.
>
>
> Well, my design goals are different than someone building a Lancair
> IV. They are also different than Cessna's. I think the overall
> objective should be the same - supply me 12 volts and don't hurt me. I
> see that you are leading us toward this objective.
>
> I have no desire to re-hash opinion differences nor point fingers. I
> want to wire my Kitfox.
>
>
>>
>> I'm not sure you understand the spirit and intent of
>> my offerings here on the List and elsewhere. I think we
>> can agree that airplanes, with all the potential for
>> utility and pleasure, are exceedingly unforgiving machines.
>> The environment in which we operate them can be equally
>> unforgiving. Everything I've bolted to an airplane has
>> these design goals in mind. (1) Utility (function as
>> specified/advertised). (2) Weight. (3) Cost of ownership.
>> and last but not least (4) Risk Mitigation.
>>
>> In categories 1-3, the stock automotive alternator is
>> a stellar performer and quite suited to the task aboard
>> airplanes but with two shortcomings"
>>
>> In the category of UTILITY: ON/OFF control at any time
>> under any conditions without risk to itself or other
>> components in the system. This is how alternators/generators
>> have functioned in aircraft since day-one. There are both
>> operational and risk mitigation advantages for giving the pilot
>> and OV protection systems a means of managing alternator
>> operations . . .
>>
>> and RISK MITIGATION: I have seen no design to data for
>> which the risk of OV runaway is zero. Further, the potential
>> for a high-energy even in a runaway alternator is significant.
>> See:
>>
>> http://aeroelectric.com/articles/When_is_110V_not_Over_Voltage.pdf
>>
>> Since day one in aircraft, independent monitoring of bus voltage
>> COMBINED with the ability to shut an alternator/generator off
>> at will relieves the system designer of a time-consuming
>> and costly effort of designing, proving and maintaining a system
>> reliability in the 10-to-the-minus-9-failures-per-flight-hour
>> category (FAA-speak for 'never happens').
>>
>> Failure tolerance is integral to every design and goes directly
>> to both Cost of Ownership and Risk Mitigation.
>>
>>
>>
>> By making my part of the program failure tolerant without
>> adding risk to the overall flight system, costs of ownership
>> goes down, and parts-count goes down (driving reliability
>> up). But even if my gizmo craps every 1000 hours, it's not
>> a safety of flight issue - only a cost of ownership issue.
>>
>>
>
>
> I don't see any debate here. I'm not a fan of the "more is better"
> philosophy. KISS is the rule on the K'fox. I'm agonizing over
> following Z-19RB, but with my EFI engine, I feel the redundancy
> outweighs the complicity.
>
>
>>
>> If I were building an airplane, it WOULD have a
>> stock automotive alternator with Z-24 installed as
>> an interim solution to get flying and laying the
>> ground work for installation of a permanent solution
>> at a later date as described in:
>>
>> http://www.aeroelectric.com/articles/
>> Adapting_IR_Alternators_to_Aircraft.pdf
>>
>>
>
>
> Wow. Telling statement, that. It quite well answers the question "What
> would Bob do...?"
>
>
>>
>>
>> Why would I have even crafted Z-24 if I were attempting
>> to quash the use of IR alternators? And why would I
>> follow up the Z-24 interim with the new-and-improved
>> alternative? I'll suggest that these two drawings are
>> a positive if not enthusiastic endorsement of the
>> value offered by a host of automotive alternator
>> products.
>>
>> No, I have never said that IR alternators do not belong
>> on aircraft. I have said that I cannot RECOMMEND them because
>> the current state of our art does not allow me to integrate
>> them in satisfaction of the design goals cited above.
>> Z-24 was a first crack at meeting those design goals.
>> It has some short comings which are discussed in detail in
>> publications on my website. Those short comings will
>> be addressed in due course.
>>
>
>
> But you just said you would use one, yet not recommend one. Am I
> mis-interpreting this somehow?
>
>
>>
>> First, there are ways to make ANY selection of engine driven
>> power source suited to use in the aircraft environment.
>> Further, if you choose not to embrace my design goals, then
>> there is still good value to be received from bolting a stock
>> automotive alternator to your airplane. As long as you
>> understand and accept the risks and perhaps lack of utility
>> compared to the majority of the GA fleet, then I have
>> no heartburn with it. But if you're being mis-advised into
>> believing there is little or no increased risks as
>> compared to contemporary aircraft design philosophies,
>> you owe it to yourself to at least elevate your understanding
>> to the level needed to make a well considered decision.
>> Don't do anything based on my (or anyone else's recommendations)
>> unless you understand and personally embrace the design
>> goals that go along with those recommendations.
>>
>>
>
>
> By installing Z-13RB with Z-24 integrated, I'm providing for the bad
> alternator all together, by disconnecting it from the system entirely.
> From then on, I am carried by the battery(s), and need to design
> enough ah margin to get me home or nearest, anyway.
>
>
>>
>> Sounds like a 3.5# SD-8 would do nicely for you. There are
>> thousands of LongEz and VariEz aircraft flying with this
>> machine as the only source of engine driven power.
>>
>
>
> Ummm, I'm sure they're great units, and would do fine. But I can't use
> the gear drive.
>
>
>>
>> But if you wanted to put a little 35 or 40A wound
>> field alternator on, that would not be a bad
>> decision either . . . internally or externally
>> regulated.
>>
>> Let's channel this discussion toward establishing
>> your design goals and then meeting them. Please set
>> aside any notions that I or anyone else here on the
>> list is going to twist your arm to do anything except
>> perhaps those things which are overtly foolhardy or
>> dangerous.
>>
>> Have you completed a load analysis of just what
>> your energy requirements are?
>>
>> See:
>>
>> http://www.aeroelectric.com/PPS/Load_Analysis/Blank_Form.pdf
>>
>> This form is designed to facilitate a study of your
>> true energy needs. Until those are known, may I
>> suggest that alternator selection for the purpose
>> of minimizing weight is premature?
>>
>> Bob . . .
>
>
> No ones talking me into anything. I'm trying to decide how to proceed
> on my new airplane.
>
> I haven't analyzed it. I have no idea how to check the ECM and coil
> draw. Right now I have 55amps, Z-24, and 17ah running the motor just
> fine. I have two readily available alternator options, both 40amp, one
> weighs 6.5lbs, the other 4.5 lbs. I'm just trying to figure out if
> there's a better way to wire up the new airplane. If I can install the
> JD dynamo with external reg, spin it up to 9000rpm, and live to tell
> the tale, I'll consider it on its merits. But I would like to know if
> it's feasible to do so, or a bad choice due to something I'm not being
> told by the advertising.
>
> Bradley
>
> --------
> Beemer
> KF2 (and now an M3!)
> Middle Georgia
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=198613#198613
>
>
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 |
|
Does anybody know where to buy a lens for a KT-70 transponder (-0101
version)? Any idea what the part number for the lens might be?
Thanks,
Don
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: John Deere dynamo |
>
>I have no desire to re-hash opinion differences nor point fingers. I want
>to wire my Kitfox.
Understood.
>
>
>I don't see any debate here. I'm not a fan of the "more is better"
>philosophy. KISS is the rule on the K'fox. I'm agonizing over following
>Z-19RB, but with my EFI engine, I feel the redundancy outweighs the complicity.
No debated intended. Are you interested in any time, any
conditions ON/OFF and/or ov protection for your alternator
of choice?
> > If I were building an airplane, it WOULD have a
> > stock automotive alternator with Z-24 installed as
> > an interim solution to get flying and laying the
> > ground work for installation of a permanent solution
> > at a later date as described in:
> >
> >
> http://www.aeroelectric.com/articles/Adapting_IR_Alternators_to_Aircraft.pdf
> >
> >
>
>
>Wow. Telling statement, that. It quite well answers the question "What
>would Bob do...?"
Or anyone else who is interested in design goals cited . . .
> >
> >
> > Why would I have even crafted Z-24 if I were attempting
> > to quash the use of IR alternators? And why would I
> > follow up the Z-24 interim with the new-and-improved
> > alternative? I'll suggest that these two drawings are
> > a positive if not enthusiastic endorsement of the
> > value offered by a host of automotive alternator
> > products.
> >
> > No, I have never said that IR alternators do not belong
> > on aircraft. I have said that I cannot RECOMMEND them because
> > the current state of our art does not allow me to integrate
> > them in satisfaction of the design goals cited above.
> > Z-24 was a first crack at meeting those design goals.
> > It has some short comings which are discussed in detail in
> > publications on my website. Those short comings will
> > be addressed in due course.
> >
>
>
>But you just said you would use one, yet not recommend one. Am I
>mis-interpreting this somehow?
The time when I was unable to recommend them was BEFORE Z-24
was crafted . . . I've designed dozens of engine driven power
systems for both OBAM and TC aircraft. Until about 10 years
ago, the alternators of choice were externally regulated . . .
but mostly because that's the way we've been doing it for
quite some time.
The IR alternator was obviously future king-of-the-market
even in airplanes. The challenge was to figure out how
one could take any size, any brand, any pedigree IR
alternator and integrate it into an aircraft while not
giving up control and protection philosophies that have
served us well.
Z-24 was the first crack at it . . . but if the pilot
operates the system to turn the alternator OFF while
it's running loaded and at RPM, then there was risk
of a load-dump transient killing the alternator's own
regulator. A few folks experienced this unhappy event
which did place a cloud over the Z-24 control/protection
philosophy.
We went back to the drawing board and crafted a product
that will drop into an existing Z-24 installation that
takes care of the load-dump, protects the el-cheeso
contactor from arcing, provides any time, any
conditions ON/OFF control -AND- OV protection in
a single product.
>By installing Z-13RB with Z-24 integrated, I'm providing for the bad
>alternator all together, by disconnecting it from the system entirely.
> From then on, I am carried by the battery(s), and need to design enough
>ah margin to get me home or nearest, anyway.
Yes, as long as you don't exercise the ON/OFF switch
except at low rpm (pre takeoff, pre parking) then
Z-24 does offer OV protection.
> >
> > Sounds like a 3.5# SD-8 would do nicely for you. There are
> > thousands of LongEz and VariEz aircraft flying with this
> > machine as the only source of engine driven power.
> >
>
>
>Ummm, I'm sure they're great units, and would do fine. But I can't use the
>gear drive.
I didn't grasp until now that you were running an
automotive conversion . . . okay, how about the 3.5
pound cousin to the SD-8
http://aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Alternators/Kubota.jpg
This critter is good for about 12-15A when turned
fast enough and assuming that the companion regulator-
rectifier isn't over-stressed by the higher input
operating voltage. I've prayed a bit over the
schematics for an exemplar device . . .
http://aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Schematics/3-Phase_PM_Rectifier_Regulator.gif
. . . and it seems likely that the device would
tolerate the higher rpm. In a few months, I'll have
a drive stand up and running and will be able to
test the hypothesis in the shop. If you're willing
to invest in the experiment, you can supply results
that would be of interest to lots of other folks
here on the List.
>I haven't analyzed it. I have no idea how to check the ECM and coil draw.
>Right now I have 55amps, Z-24, and 17ah running the motor just fine. I
>have two readily available alternator options, both 40amp, one weighs
>6.5lbs, the other 4.5 lbs. I'm just trying to figure out if there's a
>better way to wire up the new airplane. If I can install the JD dynamo
>with external reg, spin it up to 9000rpm, and live to tell the tale, I'll
>consider it on its merits. But I would like to know if it's feasible to do
>so, or a bad choice due to something I'm not being told by the advertising.
The risks for trying are low. The regulator's stability
might be less than idea and/or the regulator could fail due
to higher than design voltage. As long as you have OV protection,
risks are to the regulator only.
One thing we DO know is that automotive wound-field alternators
do live happily in airplanes running 10,000+ RPM. This is the
next-to-zero-risk approach.
How much time are you willing to invest in the experiment
to validate the 4.5# decision?
Bob . . .
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: 30 Amp switch? |
At 10:24 AM 8/14/2008 -0700, you wrote:
>
>Bob,
>
> May I make a suggestion? Years from now, someone searching through the
> archives (or their own G-mail) will read:
>
>Robert L. Nuckolls, III wrote:
>> if you need to put your hands on a suitable product
>> right away and there's a Radio Shack handy, you
>> might consider this device:
>>
>>http://tinyurl.com/69mypb
>>
>> Bob . . .
>
>
>and discover that the tinyurl has expired. Including the RS part # in the
>text - in this case, 275-001- will give them something to search for on
>the RS site.
Hi Dale,
The header paragraph in the tinyurl.com front page
includes the following statement:
"By entering in a URL in the text field below, we will
create a tiny URL that will not break in email postings
and never expires."
Are you perhaps thinking of another service?
Bob . . .
----------------------------------------)
( . . . a long habit of not thinking )
( a thing wrong, gives it a superficial )
( appearance of being right . . . )
( )
( -Thomas Paine 1776- )
----------------------------------------
Message 12
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: SD-8 + Key West rectifier/regulator ? |
At 05:00 PM 8/14/2008 -0500, you wrote:
>
>The surprising but apparent inability for the B&C SD-8 to self-activate
>makes me wonder if a simple solution is a different regulator/rectifier.
>The Key West product works fine with the Rotax PM alternators and without
>any battery. Anyone out there know specs enough on both units to know if
>they wouldn't or might work together?
The Key West product is designed to handle the 18+ amp
output from a Rotax 912/914. It should work just fine
on the SD-8.
I'd really like to talk to the designer/manufacturer
of the Key West regulator but have yet to identify
anyone on net-searches. Has anyone on the list ever
installed a Kew West product? Did the accompanying literature
speak to who makes these critters?
Bob . . .
----------------------------------------)
( . . . a long habit of not thinking )
( a thing wrong, gives it a superficial )
( appearance of being right . . . )
( )
( -Thomas Paine 1776- )
----------------------------------------
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: | Starter Contactor |
Sorry if this has been covered before...
What is the purpose of the additional starter contactor on the drawings? If my
ND starter has a solenoid, isn't that the contactor from the start button? Why
would I install a second relay? Or is this for another type of starter that does
not have a solenoid?
Seems like more parts to fail...
Bradley
--------
Beemer
KF2 (and now an M3!)
Middle Georgia
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=198648#198648
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: Starter Contactor |
Disregard this, I just found Bob's article on the subject...via Google, no less.
Bradley
--------
Beemer
KF2 (and now an M3!)
Middle Georgia
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=198652#198652
Message 15
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: 30 Amp switch? |
Re:
>> May I make a suggestion? Years from now, someone searching through
>> the archives (or their own G-mail) will read:
>>
>> Robert L. Nuckolls, III wrote:
>>> if you need to put your hands on a suitable product
>>> right away and there's a Radio Shack handy, you
>>> might consider this device:
>>>
>>> http://tinyurl.com/69mypb
>>>
>>> Bob . . .
>>
>>
>> and discover that the tinyurl has expired. Including the RS part #
>> in the text - in this case, 275-001- will give them something to
>> search for on the RS site.
>
> Hi Dale,
>
> The header paragraph in the tinyurl.com front page
> includes the following statement:
>
> "By entering in a URL in the text field below, we will
> create a tiny URL that will not break in email postings
> and never expires."
>
> Are you perhaps thinking of another service?
>
> Bob . . .
>
Nope. Just a non-optimal choice of words. After 28 years in the
computer industry, I have less than full confidence that a free service
like tinyurl will continue forever. Maybe they are well funded by a
subsidy from one of Gilby Productions' other operations. Maybe ...
Dale R.
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! --
|