Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 06:57 AM - BOM for control cabinet for line #4 (eddieedwards@mindspring.com)
2. 07:52 AM - Re: AEC 9051 Filtered LED Driver Circuit Question (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
3. 08:59 AM - Philosophy of Design - Endurance Bus (Dale Rogers)
4. 09:20 AM - Re: Re: Dual Lightspeed Ignition modules ()
5. 12:08 PM - Re: Philosophy of Design - Endurance Bus (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
6. 12:18 PM - Re:LED's (EMAproducts@aol.com)
7. 12:59 PM - Re: Fw: Re: Ignition Switch - VAF Thread (Henry Trzeciakowski)
8. 02:05 PM - Re: Re: Dual Lightspeed Ignition modules (Michael Pereira)
9. 02:28 PM - Re: Li-Ion Batteries for aircraft (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
10. 02:30 PM - Re: Re:LED's (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
11. 02:59 PM - Re: Re: Dual Lightspeed Ignition modules (Terry Watson)
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: | BOM for control cabinet for line #4 |
Sarah,
See attached a BOM for SMC items that Michael Stahl at Chewning and Wilmer requested.
This is for a Control Cabinet on Line #4.
Please let me know if there are any problems with part numbers or lead times.
Thanks and have a great Holiday,
Eddie
eddieedwards@mindspring.com
EarthLink Revolves Around You.
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: AEC 9051 Filtered LED Driver Circuit Question |
At 11:23 PM 12/21/2008, you wrote:
>
>This is probably a question for Bob . . . .
>
> I am in the process of building an LED driver that has 4 of
> the 3021-D-E-1000 Buck Pucks on the same board. I am attempting to
> parrot the filter design that Bob used for the AEC 9051 to quiet
> down the Buck Pucks but I have a couple of questions:
>
>1. This board will use PWM (100 Hz) from a PIC to control the
>intensity of the LEDs attached to it. The Buck Pucks can be
>"flashed" at up to 10 kHz by toggling the control pin between 0 and
>5V. I have tested this at 100 Hz and they work very well this way
>"bare". If I add the the filter network a-la the AEC 9051 to the
>LED+ and LED- lines, will it detrimentally affect the ability to
>toggle the output of the Buck Puck on and off at 100 Hz? I suspect
>that it won't but I'd like a second (more informed) opinion.
No problem . . .
>2. Each of the 4 Buck Pucks will have to have it's own filter
>network on LED+ and LED-. But I would really like to avoid having
>to replicate the filters 4 times for the VIN+ and VIN- lines. If I
>combined these into a single filter, would I need to change the
>inductance and capacitance values of the components? Inductance and
>capacitance values aside, it would seem that I would now have to
>have an inductor rated for at least 4A to feed the 4 Buck Pucks.
Yes . . .
> Does that sound right? The problem there is that a 100uH
> inductor rated for 4A is physically pretty large and I'm really
> trying to keep the size of this thing down. Any other suggested solutions?
The values were WAGGED . . . I didn't have access to
the DO160 lab at the time to refine the components. All
we know now is that the components cited reduced observed
interference to acceptable if not imperceptible levels.
The filter may be overkill, or even less than suggested
by DO160. There were no objective measurements made.
I have some other test programs coming up that may
give me an opportunity to check the AEC9051's real
noise numbers. In the mean time, the values cited
offer a good starting point for your own experiments.
Bob . . .
----------------------------------------)
( . . . a long habit of not thinking )
( a thing wrong, gives it a superficial )
( appearance of being right . . . )
( )
( -Thomas Paine 1776- )
----------------------------------------
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: | Philosophy of Design - Endurance Bus |
Robert L. Nuckolls, III wrote:
> ...
> I presume you're talking about the alternate feed path
> to the e-bus. What is the value in putting a breaker on
> the panel for this function as opposed to a switch? Do you
> plan to pre-flight check this path? Is there also wire
> protection on this path located right at the battery
> bus?
Bob,
There are apparently some elements of the concept that I
don't have a good handle on yet. Forgive me if it is already
covered in AEC; but that's a big volume and I'm actually
jumping a bit ahead in my build, so that I can do some of the
ground-work while it's still convenient to do them in an
early stage of the fuselage construction.
I'm building a glass pusher (COZY) with an "alternative"
engine. No mags.
To my understanding - so far - the "endurance" bus has only
the things on it that I ~must~ have to conclude my flight
safely - albeit possibly truncated - in the event that my
alternator fails. So, I'm having a problem understanding why
one would want to switch access to that bus. To connect to
a back-up supply of electrons?
I'm planning to connect the bus supporting my bare
essentials directly to the battery, then run a switched/fused
connection to my "everything else" bus from that. To
accomplish that, I'm running a "0" cable from the B+
terminal to my starter solenoid (about 18") and then a pair
of #6 welding cables (+ & -) to the front of the airplane, and
another #10 wire to the ECU which, at present, is only a few
inches from the battery.
Am I overlooking something important?
Dale R.
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: Dual Lightspeed Ignition modules |
Ah, good point Bob. I think as long as aircraft and human nature exist,
there is no end. One gets the impression that by introducing new
technology we somehow lesson our faith in its reliability.
I embrace new technology, but I don't want to have to build a
triple-redundant system on the chance it may take a bow. The goal of
simplicity with reliability should still be enforced.
Glenn
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of
Robert L. Nuckolls, III
Sent: Friday, December 19, 2008 2:41 PM
Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: RE: Dual Lightspeed Ignition modules
<nuckolls.bob@aeroelectric.com>
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 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: Philosophy of Design - Endurance Bus |
At 10:56 AM 12/22/2008, you wrote:
>
>Robert L. Nuckolls, III wrote:
>>...
>> I presume you're talking about the alternate feed path
>> to the e-bus. What is the value in putting a breaker on
>> the panel for this function as opposed to a switch? Do you
>> plan to pre-flight check this path? Is there also wire
>> protection on this path located right at the battery
>> bus?
>
>Bob,
>
> There are apparently some elements of the concept that I
>don't have a good handle on yet. Forgive me if it is already
>covered in AEC; but that's a big volume and I'm actually
>jumping a bit ahead in my build, so that I can do some of the
>ground-work while it's still convenient to do them in an
>early stage of the fuselage construction.
>
> I'm building a glass pusher (COZY) with an "alternative"
>engine. No mags.
>
> To my understanding - so far - the "endurance" bus has only
>the things on it that I ~must~ have to conclude my flight
>safely - albeit possibly truncated - in the event that my
>alternator fails. So, I'm having a problem understanding why
>one would want to switch access to that bus. To connect to
>a back-up supply of electrons?
Not necessarily. The original concept for an E-bus
was to support devices useful for en-route flight
ops for the purpose of (1) bypassing the battery contactor
and eliminating its parasitic (no value added) load and
(2) powering up goodies useful for confident continued flight
until airport of destination is in sight.
> I'm planning to connect the bus supporting my bare
>essentials directly to the battery, then run a switched/fused
>connection to my "everything else" bus from that. To
>accomplish that, I'm running a "0" cable from the B+
>terminal to my starter solenoid (about 18") and then a pair
>of #6 welding cables (+ & -) to the front of the airplane, and
>another #10 wire to the ECU which, at present, is only a few
>inches from the battery.
>
> Am I overlooking something important?
Dunno . . . the z-figures architectures are finely
sorted for the purpose of minimizing failure modes,
keeping transition from plan-a to plan-b. The grand
notion was that loss of an alternator should not
automatically turn into an emergency with an immediate
landing on foreign tarmac. The premise of the e-bus
stood on a 3-legged "stool" that says (a) equipment
needed for x-hours of en-route flight can be exceedingly
low energy, (b) it's easy to KNOW how long the ship's
battery will support this energy requirement and (c)
once you're cleared to land, the concrete ahead belongs
to you and turning the master switch back ON to support
more goodies adds no potential for hazard to the flight
even if the battery folds before you get the wheels on
the ground.
Adding the SD-8 allows one to increase endurance loads
up to and perhaps a bit over the ability of the SD-8
to deliver . . . while keeping the battery mostly (if
not totally) reserved for descent and approach to landing.
If shuffling the busses and re-sorting items feed by
those accommodates alternative design goals,
by all means. Just be aware not all changes are "golden"
and may introduce failure mode effects that demand
a new understanding on the part of the pilot.
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 |
|
Gentlemen:
I am not an electronics man, however I have been using LED's in our AOA
systems for 14 years. Use caution and be aware just because the LED's come
from the same supplier, they may NOT have the same intensity. They also have
different dimming requirements for different colors. We have found that if
using the Ultra-Bright LED's they must be individually paired (same colors and
different) to insure they all dim the same. Not a big deal, but if you are
looking for professional results best to take the extra time and compare them
prior to soldering and saying darn I should have All except the Ultra
bright by the same mfg. seem pretty good, but a large variance even in same order
of 50 LED's ordered at same time.
Elbie Mendenhall
_www.riteangle.com_ (http://www.riteangle.com)
**************One site keeps you connected to all your email: AOL Mail,
Gmail, and Yahoo Mail. Try it now.
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: Ignition Switch - VAF Thread |
Thanks Bob:
----- Original Message -----
From: Robert L. Nuckolls, III
To: aeroelectric-list@matronics.com
Sent: Sunday, December 21, 2008 6:48 PM
Subject: Re: Fw: AeroElectric-List: Re: Ignition Switch - VAF Thread
At 08:08 PM 12/21/2008, you wrote:
Thanks Bill:
This definitely answers my question.......I can now see the "light"
regarding grounding the sheilded wire at both ends per Bob's
Z-26......the link to the 2005 VAF Forum was excellent. The one thng I
noticed was that they are using 18awg shieded and Bob's Z-26 uses 20 awg
shielded....20 is what I have and plan on using unless 18 is better than
20 !!
Thanks again
Some TC aircraft designs specify 20AWG or larger to
any accessories on the engine . . . it's some sort
of robustness thing. I suppose 18AWG is more robust
still. On canard pushers, there IS a voltage drop issue
for the long run from start switch to the tail mounted
starter contactor combined with low battery and cold
temperatures. 20AWG is fine but if you have some scraps
of 18 laying around waiting for useful duty on your
airplane it would be fine too. The only wires that benefit
from shielding are the p-leads and then only if wired
as depicted in the z-figures. There again 20 is adequate
but 18 is fine if you have it.
Bob . . .
Message 8
INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Subject: | Re: RE: Dual Lightspeed Ignition modules |
> 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?
Oh good lord, li-poly batteries are awesome for *model*
aviation. I hope the manufacturers you're alluding to are
considering the "A123 Systems" type chemistry batteries (which
will take abuse without emiting a napalm like lithium/cobalt
fog).
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: Li-Ion Batteries for aircraft |
At 03:59 PM 12/22/2008, you wrote:
><mjpereira68@gmail.com>
>
> > 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?
>
>Oh good lord, li-poly batteries are awesome for *model*
>aviation. I hope the manufacturers you're alluding to are
>considering the "A123 Systems" type chemistry batteries (which
>will take abuse without emiting a napalm like lithium/cobalt
>fog).
Everybody with a product has a dog in this hunt. I'm aware
of at least three serious efforts by folks who understand
batteries and their role in aviation . . . and perhaps
a dozen more wannabes.
A friend of mine made this anecdotal observation about
batteries in the numerous crashes he investigated: He
said that if the airplane didn't burn after impact, more
often than not, the battery was pitched out and could
be found in the weeds. If the airplane did burn, more
often than not, the battery was still in the airplane.
While an exceedingly unscientific observation, it plays
homage to the high energy density of these devices along
with their willingness to dump that energy to the outside
world without regard to the fondest desires of those
individuals close by.
Li-Ion batteries have the potential for being several
times worse than their lead-acid or ni-cad cousins when
it comes to undesirable energy spills!
Bob . . .
----------------------------------------)
( . . . a long habit of not thinking )
( a thing wrong, gives it a superficial )
( appearance of being right . . . )
( )
( -Thomas Paine 1776- )
----------------------------------------
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 |
|
At 02:16 PM 12/22/2008, you wrote:
>
>
>Gentlemen:
> I am not an electronics man, however I have been using LED's in
> our AOA systems for 14 years. Use caution and be aware just
> because the LED's come from the same supplier, they may NOT have
> the same intensity. They also have different dimming requirements
> for different colors. We have found that if using the Ultra-Bright
> LED's they must be individually paired (same colors and different)
> to insure they all dim the same. Not a big deal, but if you are
> looking for professional results best to take the extra time and
> compare them prior to soldering and saying darn I should have All
> except the Ultra bright by the same mfg. seem pretty good, but a
> large variance even in same order of 50 LED's ordered at same time.
>Elbie Mendenhall
I've heard this before. A number of folks who supply
sunlight viewable dead-front annunciators have mentioned
a need for matching sets of leds for output to achieve
uniform appearance across the panel.
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: Dual Lightspeed Ignition modules |
Here is something from the archives. I think it followed a poll where Bill
Dube was asking how many of us would be interested in a really good aircraft
battery at a relatively high price:
Sep 07, 2007 From: Bill Dube <William.P.Dube(at)noaa.gov> Subject: Re:
A123 Systems Nano-phosphate technology and aircraft
(was: KillaCycle on Dish Net Tonight)
Whomever is designing the electronics doesn't have real experience with
A123 Systems cells. They think they are dealing with conventional Li-Ion
cells, and they are wrong.
A123 Systems nano-phosphate cells are quite different than other
Li-Ion cells. They will take a LOT of abuse. About the same amount as an
AGM. It is straightforward to make a drop-in replacement for a 12 volt
(or 24 volt) lead-acid battery using A123 Systems cells. The existing
charging system will work just fine. (It must have the voltage set
somewhere between 13.5 and 14.8 volts.)
In an airplane, you would want a warning that alerted the pilot that
the system was going over 14.8 volts and would make noise if the system
was going over 15 volts. It would also be useful to know if the battery
temperature was going over 80 Celsius. (You can go up to about 100 C
without damage, but no higher or you risk venting the cells and damaging
the plastic separator.)
>>> Case study <<<<
I have had a 3.5 lb A123 Systems battery running in my completely
unmodified GMC van for the past 7 months. It snaps the engine over much
better than the original 35 lb lead-acid battery.
Let's talk about abuse. My wife left my van door unlocked and
someone rifled my glove box and left it open with the light on. This
killed the battery and it sat at ZERO VOLTS for over a week. I thought,
"So much for THAT battery." I then decided to do what the typical
consumer would do and I connected up the 3.5 lb completely dead battery
to a fully-charged car battery with jumper cables. Hundreds of amps
flowed and slightly warmed the cables. I waited a couple of minutes for
the 3.5 lb battery voltage to come up, disconnected the jumper cables
(the worst thing you could do) and cranked up the van. It started
instantly. The alternator then gave the 3.5 lb battery ~100 amps until
it came up to 13.4 volts and then tapered off. The BMS showed that all
the cells were still in balance!
This was five months ago. I haven't capacity-tested the battery, but
I can't tell the difference in cranking performance. It was just as if
nothing had happened. I even left it parked for 5 weeks while I was out
of town and it cranked right up without a problem.
If you were to torture a conventional Li-Ion battery like this, it
would have burst into flames, or at least it would have just burst. I
tell this story to folks with years of experience with conventional
Li-Ion cells and they cringe when I get to the part about the jumper
cables. :-)
The A123 Systems cells will, indeed, "take the abuse". I have a very
simplistic charge-balancing electronics (BMS) on my GMC van battery.
Nothing fancy is needed.
If you overcharge them grossly, they will vent a small amount of
flammable vapor (like paint thinner.) If there is an ignition source,
this vapor could catch fire. The cells can also burst if overcharged
severely. That is the extent of the hazard this technology presents.
Bill Dube'
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Michael
Pereira
Sent: Monday, December 22, 2008 1:59 PM
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: RE: Dual Lightspeed Ignition modules
<mjpereira68@gmail.com>
> 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?
Oh good lord, li-poly batteries are awesome for *model*
aviation. I hope the manufacturers you're alluding to are
considering the "A123 Systems" type chemistry batteries (which
will take abuse without emiting a napalm like lithium/cobalt
fog).
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! --
|