---------------------------------------------------------- AeroElectric-List Digest Archive --- Total Messages Posted Fri 12/19/08: 8 ---------------------------------------------------------- Today's Message Index: ---------------------- 1. 02:36 AM - Re: Re: Dual Lightspeed Ignition modules (Andrew Butler) 2. 05:07 AM - Re: Re: Dual Lightspeed Ignition modules (Mike) 3. 06:20 AM - Re: Dual Lightspeed Ignition modules (Mike) 4. 06:37 AM - Re: Re: Dual Lightspeed Ignition modules (Ernest Christley) 5. 09:39 AM - Re: Re: Dual Lightspeed Ignition modules () 6. 11:43 AM - Re: Re: Dual Lightspeed Ignition modules (Robert L. Nuckolls, III) 7. 04:46 PM - LED Position Lights (Dennis Johnson) 8. 06:38 PM - Fw: Re: Ignition Switch (Henry Trzeciakowski) ________________________________ Message 1 _____________________________________ Time: 02:36:56 AM PST US From: Andrew Butler Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: Dual Lightspeed Ignition modules Hi Mike, Thanks for this. All two are welcome, as they help build a big picture of all sides of those coins. I am aware of the issues with the P-Mags (magnets and the like) and this is why I have decided to wire up for dual P-mags, but only install one. This will still give me most of the benefits of the e-ignition, while allowing me to rest easy with regards any gremlins that might exist. I'll let the Slick MAG do its thing and see how things are in a couple of years with regards replacing it............ Cheers, Andrew. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Mike" Sent: Thursday, 18 December, 2008 5:57:58 PM GMT +00:00 GMT Britain, Ireland, Portugal Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Re: Dual Lightspeed Ignition modules Andrew, My two cents! I have personally seen more EMAG/PMAG failures then total electrical failure in single bus electrical systems (Z-11). Add a secondary battery (Z-19) and the statistics improve for a plasma system vs. EMAG/PMAG. Remember during a major electrical failure (for what ever reason) the Plasma systems only need, is a good battery for more flying time then the airplane will hold fuel. The EMAG/PMAG product has had more then it's fair share of field testing failures by the customer. A customer that didn't realize they were test subjects. Just my opinion viewed with actual 1st party data not 3rd! Mike Larkin -----Original Message----- From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Andrew Butler Sent: Thursday, December 18, 2008 5:57 AM Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: Dual Lightspeed Ignition modules Hi Jeff, I also plan on dual electronic ignition and my original design was practically identical to yours. This was when I was looking at Dual Plasma III Ignitions. Then I switched to dual P-MAGS. Reason? Simplicity and internal power. At this point I couldn't reason that the added complexity of the dual battery split bus was justified, and ended up removing the second battery from the design. Both the designs are attached, the dual alt, dual batt dating from April. The current design is more or less finished. Any takers of critiquing it for me? The originals are in Visio. If anyone wants a copy, let me know. Cheers, Andrew. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Jeff Page" Sent: Wednesday, 17 December, 2008 3:44:53 PM GMT +00:00 GMT Britain, Ireland, Portugal Subject: AeroElectric-List: Re: Dual Lightspeed Ignition modules I plan dual electronic ignitions for my aircraft. I started with Z13/8. As much as I expect the designers have done significant things to ensure the ignitions work, in spite of nasty power events, I finally decided I wanted completely isolated electrical systems, so any problem, no matter how unlikely or unpredictable, could not prevent continued flight. So I added a few features from Z14. I didn't go all the way. My aux battery is very small, and driven by an SD-8 alternator. I did not join the batteries together for extra jolt when starting. I do have a small cross-feed relay that will allow the SD-8 to power the essential bus if the main alternator fails. The biggest thing I wrestled with, was how was my wife to know what switches to throw in the event of an alternator failure ? Together we came up with coloured lines joining the warning light and switches that are numbered. This low voltage light goes on, then flip these switches in this order. You can view my power diagram and the switch layout here: http://www.curtispriest.com/tundra/Electrical Jeff Page Dream Aircraft Tundra #10 > Speaking of Hall Effect stuff, I just purchased two LightSpeed III hall > effect ignition modules. The mfg says to connect the + side of the > controller through a pull-able breaker then directly to the battery > terminal. Ok, that covers their insurance folks if I crash. On the other > hand I am using Z-13 and was thinking of using the same scenario but > connecting them to the main battery bus using an ATC fuse and skipping > the breaker. I was never a proponent of having extra wires hanging off > the + side of the battery terminal. AS in Z-13 I will have a switch to > turn them on/off as necessary. > > Has anyone wired up two of these and which method did you use. > > Glenn -Matt Dralle, List Admin. - MS - 10/27/2008 7:57 AM 10/27/2008 7:57 AM ________________________________ Message 2 _____________________________________ Time: 05:07:44 AM PST US From: "Mike" Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: RE: Dual Lightspeed Ignition modules How do those feared risks occur? How do you get a shorted battery bus failure? How does connection directly to the battery protect against an overvoltage condition? What matter of "runaway device" can you imagine that brings the entire system to its knees? As long as we're in the free-ranging imagination mode, how about bursting batteries, open batteries, etc. etc. Lets see, a tool across the bus, or direct short from a chafed wire, the loss of the ground bus on a composite airplane just to name a few. I have a story from a dark and stormy night where the air conditioner started to break down and started to draw over 150 amps and caused both Gen's to go off line and pull the volts down to about seven volts. The CB didn't trip, everything just went almost completely dark before we got the air conditioner off. Then we were able to restore power. The problem, if we couldn't shut the Air conditioner off or couldn't figure out the problem in time (if this airplane had a battery powered ignition system) the engine would have failed, where simply turning the bus off would have restored the engine or maybe even had enough voltage at the battery to keep the engine running. Oh, the airplane referenced was a certified airplane. It's easy to hypothesize about all manner of failure but the acid test is the repeatable experiment. Get any combination of implements you choose and MAKE one of those events happen. If it can happen accidently, then you can make it happen. If it's exceedingly difficult or impossible to MAKE it happen, then concerns for accidental events go away. The physics of events do not change for random versus purposeful failures. Bob, I sometime wonder if you fly or are around flying. This isn't a hypothesis; it's based on real people in real airplanes. The fact is that electrical systems fail with regularity, some worse then others. An engine failure on top of that in many cases is a near death experience. Loosing the engine is not the same as loosing the transponder. Why do we use vacuum or backup batteries to power important instrument systems? Don't you think the ignition system deserves the same respect? Suppose your engine is also dependent upon electrically delivered fuel? The path to Nirvana is more than hooking certain accessories directly to the battery with some notion of fending off nargles. Failure Mode Effects Analysis is a science and exercise in logic that has served aviation (and others) very well for 100+ years. It's not! In aviation failures that occur in the field are often not reported. Airplanes with electrical systems have been around for less the 100 years and electronic ignitions in aviation much less. We are all inventing new system designs that are not able to accept total failure of the total system. Making sure the electrically dependent engine is not left in dark has been discussed here on the list for over ten years. These discussions have included consideration of auxiliary batteries both manually and automatically controlled. Yes, but not everyone has been here for 10 years and most of the products and concepts haven't been either. Mike 10/27/2008 7:57 AM ________________________________ Message 3 _____________________________________ Time: 06:20:06 AM PST US From: "Mike" Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Dual Lightspeed Ignition modules I have had direct interaction with four EMAG/PMAG airplanes where the airplane was unflyable (loss of power in flight, or would not run on the ground). I have seen many more mag failures but I have not seen both fail at the same time making the airplane unflyable. I have also seen one failure on the Lightspeed system but never a dual failure. Some of the EMAG failures may have been isolatable in flight causing a single failure on a dual system vs. the dual failures that caused landing out or not running at all. Mike -----Original Message----- From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of James H Nelson Sent: Thursday, December 18, 2008 12:23 PM Subject: AeroElectric-List: Dual Lightspeed Ignition modules Mike, How many failures do you know about with the E-Mag, P-Mag ignitions? How many failures of magneto ignitions have occured in the same time? Other ignitions of various configurations. Fact vs: opinion is very important. Nothing is perfect. The main reason we all use dual ignitions is for safety. It also gives us better fuel burn. Jim ____________________________________________________________ Live the good life! Click now for great retirement planning assistance! http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL2141/fc/PnY6rw1hgimeim0pl7I4CFc1o21X u2lJFNyMywOmmFBAAdKspEJHz/ 10/27/2008 7:57 AM 10/27/2008 7:57 AM ________________________________ Message 4 _____________________________________ Time: 06:37:04 AM PST US From: Ernest Christley Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: RE: Dual Lightspeed Ignition modules Mike wrote: > Making sure the electrically dependent engine is not > left in dark has been discussed here on the list for > over ten years. These discussions have included consideration > of auxiliary batteries both manually and automatically > controlled. > > Yes, but not everyone has been here for 10 years and most of the > products and concepts haven't been either. > > That statement shows a lot of insight, Mike. As the technology we use evolves, some things that were critical become secondary, and some things that were minor become critical. With respect to electrically dependent (ED) engines, I think we can boil all the concerns down to three things that the engine must have to keep running: air, fuel, and spark. A bulletproof system will have full redundancy across all three. Redundant air is generally provided by some sort of flapper valve or some such thingy to get around a clogged air filter, but the biggest problem with air is carb icing. This is one area where electronic injection shines. A significant portions of accidents occur when a carb ices up where the fuel is evaporated into the air. EI moves the evaporation location closer to the combustion location, where there is more heat to keep the ice from forming. Icing is still possible, just less so. Either way, methods for avoiding cutting off the air supply look the same for all types of engines. Redundant fuel is harder for ED engines. Fuel pumps are hard working devices that are reliable, but do not have infinite lifespan, and it depends on a lot of upstream stuff to work. A backup pump only backs up the pump. For it to be a true alternate system, you have to backup everything, up to and including the power generation source. Even with a second pump, I chose to go low tech and provide a gravity fed drip line to the air intake with a needle valve control. I would never be able to get the engine started with this on the ground...and I'd never want to. Control is slow and unresponsive, but it will get me to the nearest airport. It is meant as a backup to keep the fan turning in an emergency. This would work for any engine. Low wing aircraft would need a header tank higher than the engine. The vast majority of aircraft being built in garages today could stay straight and level for an hour with 5gal of fuel, and travel nearly 100 miles. At a time when everything is going that badly the only place you should be trying to get to is 'nearest'. High wing aircraft would be able to run the tanks dry with this method. The spark is also more difficult for ED. Airplane engines are designed with two independent, self contained spark producers. Each mag has a generator, a distributor and coil all in one tidy package. You just have to bolt them on and plug them in. Moving to ED generally means that you're breaking the generator and spark producer apart. Most designs have two spark producers, but combine the generators into one, and depend on the battery for backup. Again, this isn't really redundancy. My design calls for using two EDIS modules (self-contained electronic ignition controller used by Ford), and converting the old distributor to a generator. One EDIS module runs off ship's power. The other is powered by the tiny generator (less than 5 amps) that was once the distributor. If I lose ship's power, the secondary ignition will keep right on going. The two are completely independent. So Mike is correct. New products call for new thinking...but the thinking really goes back to the same basic principles. The engine must have air, spark and fuel. Backup systems must be able to deliver without depending on the primary system. It is best to assume that the primary system doesn't exist AT ALL when designing the backup. There's a lot of new under the sun....just it's not, really. ________________________________ Message 5 _____________________________________ Time: 09:39:44 AM PST US Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: RE: Dual Lightspeed Ignition modules From: Mike and Bob, Thank you both for your input. I have emailed with Jeff P. and I've decided a second battery (even a small 4.5 ah job) would be a good idea as an independent source for keeping at least one ignition going even if I shut down the power completely and simply had to fly home with just the engine. Mike, as you indicated that is the reason Lightspeed likes it wired directly to the battery. Depending on a bus which is behind a solenoid is asking for trouble. Yes, I've replaced more than one solenoid on aircraft in the field and fortunately with mags there was no dependency. FYI, stealing a solenoid off the FBOs old pick-up truck works in airplanes too. Parts do fail, but only when you're flying - funny that. The Lightspeed draws little power and I only need 1-2 amps to find a landing spot. It may be that I install it inside the cabin and keep it charged just as a backup. A big part of the process is monitoring and recognizing when the system is acting up and when (and how) to shut it down - that's process. I have done enough flying in the dark to realize the importance of a backup something. Thanks to all for the diagrams and discussion. Glenn -----Original Message----- From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Mike Sent: Friday, December 19, 2008 8:01 AM Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: RE: Dual Lightspeed Ignition modules How do those feared risks occur? How do you get a shorted battery bus failure? How does connection directly to the battery protect against an overvoltage condition? What matter of "runaway device" can you imagine that brings the entire system to its knees? As long as we're in the free-ranging imagination mode, how about bursting batteries, open batteries, etc. etc. Lets see, a tool across the bus, or direct short from a chafed wire, the loss of the ground bus on a composite airplane just to name a few. I have a story from a dark and stormy night where the air conditioner started to break down and started to draw over 150 amps and caused both Gen's to go off line and pull the volts down to about seven volts. The CB didn't trip, everything just went almost completely dark before we got the air conditioner off. Then we were able to restore power. The problem, if we couldn't shut the Air conditioner off or couldn't figure out the problem in time (if this airplane had a battery powered ignition system) the engine would have failed, where simply turning the bus off would have restored the engine or maybe even had enough voltage at the battery to keep the engine running. Oh, the airplane referenced was a certified airplane. It's easy to hypothesize about all manner of failure but the acid test is the repeatable experiment. Get any combination of implements you choose and MAKE one of those events happen. If it can happen accidently, then you can make it happen. If it's exceedingly difficult or impossible to MAKE it happen, then concerns for accidental events go away. The physics of events do not change for random versus purposeful failures. Bob, I sometime wonder if you fly or are around flying. This isn't a hypothesis; it's based on real people in real airplanes. The fact is that electrical systems fail with regularity, some worse then others. An engine failure on top of that in many cases is a near death experience. Loosing the engine is not the same as loosing the transponder. Why do we use vacuum or backup batteries to power important instrument systems? Don't you think the ignition system deserves the same respect? Suppose your engine is also dependent upon electrically delivered fuel? The path to Nirvana is more than hooking certain accessories directly to the battery with some notion of fending off nargles. Failure Mode Effects Analysis is a science and exercise in logic that has served aviation (and others) very well for 100+ years. It's not! In aviation failures that occur in the field are often not reported. Airplanes with electrical systems have been around for less the 100 years and electronic ignitions in aviation much less. We are all inventing new system designs that are not able to accept total failure of the total system. Making sure the electrically dependent engine is not left in dark has been discussed here on the list for over ten years. These discussions have included consideration of auxiliary batteries both manually and automatically controlled. Yes, but not everyone has been here for 10 years and most of the products and concepts haven't been either. Mike 10/27/2008 7:57 AM ________________________________ Message 6 _____________________________________ Time: 11:43:49 AM PST US From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: RE: Dual Lightspeed Ignition modules At 07:01 AM 12/19/2008, you wrote: > > > How do those feared risks occur? > > How do you get a shorted battery bus failure? How does > connection directly to the battery protect against > an overvoltage condition? What matter of "runaway > device" can you imagine that brings the entire system > to its knees? As long as we're in the free-ranging > imagination mode, how about bursting batteries, > open batteries, etc. etc. > >Lets see, a tool across the bus, or direct short from a chafed wire, the >loss of the ground bus on a composite airplane just to name a few. . . . and are these all not manifestations of poor craftsmanship or maintenance? If we're going to add band-aids to any system that go to offsetting sub-standard behavior by someone who has touched the airplane . . . where does it end? >I have a story from a dark and stormy night where the air conditioner >started to break down and started to draw over 150 amps and caused both >Gen's to go off line and pull the volts down to about seven volts. The >CB didn't trip, everything just went almost completely dark before we >got the air conditioner off. Then we were able to restore power. The >problem, if we couldn't shut the Air conditioner off or couldn't figure >out the problem in time (if this airplane had a battery powered ignition >system) the engine would have failed, where simply turning the bus off >would have restored the engine or maybe even had enough voltage at the >battery to keep the engine running. Oh, the airplane referenced was a >certified airplane. . . . and what did you learn from this or any other story that would give you pause for evaluating your own project? Are there things that could or should have been done in the original design processes that would have prevented this incident? Suppose your RV doesn't even HAVE a piece-of-@#$@# air conditioner.What is the value of taking one incident where the designers/fabricators/maintainers/operators stubbed there collective toes and then levying new requirements on ALL airplanes that work-around the SYMPTOMS of that one case? >Bob, I sometime wonder if you fly or are around flying. This isn't a >hypothesis; it's based on real people in real airplanes. The fact is >that electrical systems fail with regularity, some worse then others. >An engine failure on top of that in many cases is a near death >experience. Loosing the engine is not the same as loosing the >transponder. Why do we use vacuum or backup batteries to power >important instrument systems? Don't you think the ignition system >deserves the same respect? My career in aviation began in 1955 when I helped an uncle install an MANUAL direction finder loop in his 170. He could put holes in the airplane but couldn't read a diagram or solder. I was 12 years old. I retired from Hawker-Beechcraft 18 months ago as the subject matter expert leader in electronics/electrical systems. I'm still contracting to that organization and several others who specialize in aviation design and production. I'm an 1000 hour private pilot with about that many additional hours as a test engineer on TC aircraft and 50 times that time as a designer, qualifier and troubleshooter of airborne systems. I'm now 66 years old and still in the business. >It's not! In aviation failures that occur in the field are often not >reported. Airplanes with electrical systems have been around for less >the 100 years and electronic ignitions in aviation much less. We are >all inventing new system designs that are not able to accept total >failure of the total system. Agreed. But just as fuel flow under all anticipated flight conditions was the big stumbling block for many a designer 70 years ago, we have a new challenge that isn't any different. Just as there's no excuse for total failure of fuel flow, there is NO EXCUSE for total failure of an electrical system. Yeah, it has happened which means there's a REASON but there is still no excuse. >Yes, but not everyone has been here for 10 years and most of the >products and concepts haven't been either. Just because it is new doesn't mean that the thought processes and fabrication techniques for airworthiness are any different than what has worked well for decades. Suppose we consider an RV with a piece of @#$@ air conditioner with a failure mode that sucks down the entire system? Of what value is it to tie one or both systems directly to the (+) battery post? Which is better, refine the A/C design or add weight, complexity, cost-of-ownership to offset the possibility that the A/C causes an unhappy day in the cockpit? On a related topic. Lots of folks are trying to figure out ways to integrate lithium-ion batteries into aircraft. It's no mean task. While the energy/weight radio of l-ion is seductive, it's sorta like figuring out a way to burn nitro-glycerine in your engine. Wow! What energy potential! Now, how do you integrate this potential into an existing, highly refined system in a way that does not increase risk? There are people who worry a lot about things they don't understand. There are people who are paid to worry a lot about things they presumably understand and use force of law to modify our behavior such that THEIR worries are mitigated . . . all in the name of 'safety'. http://www.hsegroup.com/hse/text/caffiene.htm http://aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Misc/Cowboy_after_OSHA.jpg My point about your posting was that it tended to reenforce the notion that there was a valid WORRY to be address without adding understanding. An understanding of design for failure-tolerance, craftsmanship, maintenance and operation such that worries go away. There are few suppliers to aviation that have a working knowledge of low-risk, light-weight, failure- tolerant system design. If we attached every worry-wart's product to the battery(+) post . . . it's easy to see where that idea leads! Bob . . . ________________________________ Message 7 _____________________________________ Time: 04:46:17 PM PST US From: "Dennis Johnson" Subject: AeroElectric-List: LED Position Lights This isn't an exact answer to your question about LED wingtip position lights, but it might be helpful. I'm using these LED wingtip position lights on my airplane: https://ssl.perfora.net/www.gs-air.com/sess/utn;jsessionid=15494c3e0b2a 590/shopdata/index.shopscript In addition to the red/green forward position light and the white aft position light, that both use LEDs, they also use a conventional strobe light. I talked with GS-Air the other day and they are close to finalizing a new wingtip position light that also uses LEDs for the "strobe" light. Best, Dennis Lancair Legacy, 225 hours ________________________________ Message 8 _____________________________________ Time: 06:38:51 PM PST US From: "Henry Trzeciakowski" Subject: Fw: AeroElectric-List: Re: Ignition Switch ----- Original Message ----- From: Henry Trzeciakowski Sent: Thursday, December 18, 2008 7:09 PM Subject: AeroElectric-List: Re: Ignition Switch Bob: I just purchased an ACS Ignition Switch (A-510-2) [ Off-Right-Left-Both-Start] and was looking at their wiring instructions. I then downloaded your Z-26 diagram for Ignition Switch Options - Magento. Both wiring diagrams are basically identical with a few differences: Both diagrams jumper GRD &R for impulse coupling to Right Mag - shielded wire Both depict L to Left Mag - shielded wire Both depict B to Main Bus (7amp) Both diagram S to Starter Seleniod The differences are: ACS has shielded wire grounded at the right & left mag only, and the GRD terminal grounded at the grounding block or nearest structure. whereas your Z-26 have these wires shielded at both ends with the shield closest to the ignition switch wired to the GRD, but your GRD is NOT grounded to a grounding block or nearest structure.... ACS also says to use all shielded wire....I personally think that is overkill... So, would you recommend grounding at both ends of the shielding wire, but why not ground at the switch, or was this accidently omitted by you? Comments, suggestions appreciated. Henry ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Other Matronics Email List Services ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Post A New Message aeroelectric-list@matronics.com UN/SUBSCRIBE http://www.matronics.com/subscription List FAQ http://www.matronics.com/FAQ/AeroElectric-List.htm Web Forum Interface To Lists http://forums.matronics.com Matronics List Wiki http://wiki.matronics.com Full Archive Search Engine http://www.matronics.com/search 7-Day List Browse http://www.matronics.com/browse/aeroelectric-list Browse Digests http://www.matronics.com/digest/aeroelectric-list Browse Other Lists http://www.matronics.com/browse Live Online Chat! http://www.matronics.com/chat Archive Downloading http://www.matronics.com/archives Photo Share http://www.matronics.com/photoshare Other Email Lists http://www.matronics.com/emaillists Contributions http://www.matronics.com/contribution ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- These Email List Services are sponsored solely by Matronics and through the generous Contributions of its members.