Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 02:00 AM - Yahoo! Auto Response (bczygan@yahoo.com)
2. 02:14 AM - incandescent light question (Gilles Thesee)
3. 06:25 AM - Re: incandescent light question (rampil)
4. 06:30 AM - Re: Odyssey Battery Alternative (Speedy11@aol.com)
5. 06:31 AM - Re: Odyssey Battery Alternative (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
6. 06:42 AM - Re: incandescent light question (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
7. 07:50 AM - Re: Odyssey Battery Alternative ()
8. 08:24 AM - Re: Impossible problem (Ed Mueller)
9. 08:54 AM - Re: Impossible problem (jaybannist@cs.com)
10. 10:38 AM - Re: Odyssey Battery Alternative (Charlie England)
11. 11:03 AM - Re: Impossible problem (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
12. 11:03 AM - Re: Odyssey Battery Alternative (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
13. 12:15 PM - Re: incandescent light question (Gilles Thesee)
14. 01:51 PM - Basic wiring questions (Ralph Finch)
15. 02:56 PM - Noise in headset when pressing to talk (Neil France)
16. 03:04 PM - Re: Odyssey Battery Alternative (The Kuffels)
17. 03:58 PM - Re: Noise in headset when pressing to talk (Allan Aaron)
18. 06:16 PM - VDC Electronics battery charger offer (Sheldon Olesen)
19. 06:36 PM - Re: Odyssey Battery Alternative (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
20. 08:01 PM - Twisted Pairs, Coils, and EM Fields (Gregory Clawson)
21. 08:04 PM - [Fw: Huuuuuhhhh?] (RScott)
22. 08:09 PM - Re: Odyssey Battery Alternative (Mike Creek)
23. 09:11 PM - Re: [Fw: Huuuuuhhhh?] (Dale Rogers)
24. 09:40 PM - Re: Twisted Pairs, Coils, and EM Fields (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
Message 1
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Yahoo! Auto Response |
Hi Friend,
How are you doing recently? I would like to introduce you a very good company which I know. Their website is *www.myehomebuy*They can offer you all kinds of
Electronic products like laptops, gps,TV LCD,cell phones,ps3,MP3/4, etc........Please
take some time to have a check, There must have something you'd like to
buy.
Their contact email: myehomebuy_service@188.com
MSN: myehomebuy-easylife@hotmail.com
Hope you have a good mood in shopping from their company!
Best Regards
Julie!
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: | incandescent light question |
Hi Bob and all,
The topic has already been adressed, but I was not able to retrieve the
messages or Bob's recommendations on preheating.
The question recently arose on a French pilot list : when and why is a
landing light filament most fragile ?
- When hot ?
- When cold ?
- When heating up ?
- When cooling down ?
-Why ?
Etc...
Thanks in advance for any input,
Best regards,
--
Gilles
http://contrails.free.fr
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: incandescent light question |
Gilles,
The common wisdom is that most lamp failures occur on start due to
three factors:
cold filament stiffness
heat shock/expansion
and 3) flexion of the stiff filament due induction of the magnetic field
in the helical filament
Ira
--------
Ira N224XS
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=237963#237963
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: Odyssey Battery Alternative |
Well said, Dale.
The rest of us knew what you meant.
Stan Sutterfield
Do not archive
Charlie England wrote:
> Dale Rogers wrote:
>> Made in mainland (PDRC) China?
>
> If this is intended to be a political question, it begs another. Have
> you bought any gas for your plane or car lately (terrorism)? Or
> virtually any other consumer product (China again)?
>
> I think that it's instructional that around 50 years of economic
> isolation of Cuba has left it virtually unchanged in it's government,
> economy or human rights. While after 30 years of trade with China it
> isn't 'free', but it's a lot closer than it was 30 years ago, and its
> people are certainly a bit better off economically.
>
> I have an 'alternative' view of this stuff. I think that change must
> come from within, & if you want to have external influence, the best
> way to drive it is to let the citizens see how good it *could* be,
> with better government.
Charlie,
It wasn't ~intended~ to be "political" - more of a QA issue.
There's been a lot of contaminated product coming from the
PRC. I've seen a lot of poor quality hardware (tools, shop
equipment, electronics) coming from there. Dunno if I want
my electric-dependent airplane to rely on a battery coming
from such an environment.
Best regards,
Dale R.
**************Worried about job security? Check out the 5 safest jobs in a
recession.
(http://jobs.aol.com/gallery/growing-job-industries?ncid=emlcntuscare00000003)
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: Odyssey Battery Alternative |
At 10:28 PM 4/5/2009, you wrote:
>
>Charlie England wrote:
>>Dale Rogers wrote:
>>>Made in mainland (PDRC) China?
>>
>>If this is intended to be a political question, it begs another.
>>Have you bought any gas for your plane or car lately (terrorism)?
>>Or virtually any other consumer product (China again)?
>>
>>I think that it's instructional that around 50 years of economic
>>isolation of Cuba has left it virtually unchanged in it's
>>government, economy or human rights. While after 30 years of trade
>>with China it isn't 'free', but it's a lot closer than it was 30
>>years ago, and its people are certainly a bit better off economically.
>>
>>I have an 'alternative' view of this stuff. I think that change
>>must come from within, & if you want to have external influence,
>>the best way to drive it is to let the citizens see how good it
>>*could* be, with better government.
>Charlie,
>
>It wasn't ~intended~ to be "political" - more of a QA issue.
>There's been a lot of contaminated product coming from the
>PRC. I've seen a lot of poor quality hardware (tools, shop
>equipment, electronics) coming from there. Dunno if I want
>my electric-dependent airplane to rely on a battery coming
>from such an environment.
Point taken. However, recall there was a time
when "Made in Japan" labels gave one pause. We
had some discussions here on the List about Harbor
Fright's quality. Bottom line is that for any emerging
technology, process or manufacturing culture, there
will ALWAYS be those who's ambitions exceed their
capabilities or willingness to accomplish the best-we-
know-how-to-do. Shucks we see this today with "Made in
USA" products. Why should we be having startup brownout
discussions on otherwise perfectly wonderful appliances?
Folks who rely on ANY words on any label to do a trade
study are at risk for being disappointed. At the same
time, those who automatically reject any product based
on perceptions of a class of manufacturers are at
risk of expending $time$ with poor return on investment.
Folks who promulgate product avoidance based on
culture are doing a disservice to those within that
culture who are honestly striving to be competitive.
Competition: the free market principal that brought us
monster ram for pennies, gigaflop processors for
dollars and $100 hand-helds that will find your
driveway in zero-zero fog.
I've seen stuff at H.F. that I wouldn't buy. I have
a number of H.F. machine tools in my shop that service
my needs nicely. A $350 lathe paid for itself in the
first job! That was 7 years ago and it's still doing
what I need done within limits of its design.
Discussions here on the List can add the most value
for its members by evaluating specific products from
ANY source based on demonstrated price/performance
benchmarks. Advice that paints a product with a brush
dipped into cultural perceptions is demonstrably lacking
in foundation and places top performers in that culture
at a capriciously invented disadvantage.
Further, while we may have disagreements with and
even have reason to be fearful of governments (our
own not withstanding!) recall that there are folks
who design, build and sell products from all parts
of the world who would probably like to be building an
airplane in THEIR garage too.
Finally, if it's a part with failure implications for an
uncomfortable arrival with the earth . . . isn't
that why failure tolerance is among our design goals?
Bob . . .
----------------------------------------)
( . . . a long habit of not thinking )
( a thing wrong, gives it a superficial )
( appearance of being right . . . )
( )
( -Thomas Paine 1776- )
----------------------------------------
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: incandescent light question |
At 04:12 AM 4/6/2009, you wrote:
><Gilles.Thesee@ac-grenoble.fr>
>
>Hi Bob and all,
>
>The topic has already been adressed, but I was not able to retrieve
>the messages or Bob's recommendations on preheating.
>
>The question recently arose on a French pilot list : when and why is
>a landing light filament most fragile ?
>- When hot ?
>- When cold ?
Tungsten passed from a brittle to ductile state
as it rises in temperature. The legacy automotive
lamp filaments were most vulnerable to vibration
stresses while cold.
>- When heating up ?
Thermal stresses are highest during heat-up
transition.
>- When cooling down ?
>-Why ?
Modern halogen lamps are MUCH more robust than
their ancestors. So much so that concerns about
inrush limiting are almost insignificant in
terms of adding to the service life of a lamp.
Even when the halogen lamps are used in a wig-wag
system, they do not cool enough between flashes
to suffer a deleterious inrush current with each
flash. See:
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Curves/Exemplar_Incandescent_Lamp_Inrush.gif
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Curves/Wig_Wag_Currents.jpg
For new design, I'm certain that the builder
will experience very good service life using
modern automotive halogen lamps operating without
benefit of inrush limiting.
Bob . . .
----------------------------------------)
( . . . a long habit of not thinking )
( a thing wrong, gives it a superficial )
( appearance of being right . . . )
( )
( -Thomas Paine 1776- )
----------------------------------------
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: | Odyssey Battery Alternative |
Bob,
Thanks for the dissertation on batteries J Actually this is very
helpful. If dry cell or sealed batteries are indeed using the same old
technology as the slosh type, then the extra $$ are indeed a complete
waste of money, yes?
I suppose they do a bit of marketing with the carbon fibre casings etc.,
but is there no better mouse trap hiding in there somewhere? I do not
have the Braille factory specs, but that would be an interesting read.
My main interest is their lower weight and smaller size. That takes more
than marketing. There is nothing to say the BB battery at < $50 would
not provide the same performance albeit without the lower internal
resistance. I may be confused, but isn't cranking power what we want in
batteries? When it's 10 degrees outside and I've had my ship plugged in
for 30 minutes, I don't want to hear ra-ra-ra after just one try. If
they can boost cranking power by 30 percent, why wouldn't you want that?
If I lived in Southern CA, perhaps I wouldn't care. A mission specific
thing.
The experience of one of our builders has shown that turning on the
avionics 5 minutes before starting has disabled the Odyssey's ability to
the point where it will not provide enough cranking power to turn over
the engine. He flies a Jabaru 230 with the Jabaru 6-cylinder engine. I
have not put a meter on the draw (I will), but I did learn that he has
two GRT displays installed which require a heartbeat be maintained from
the battery at all times. As you may know the GRT does not support
internal battery backup directly.
I already own an Odyssey and I'm not going to toss it in the trash but I
will meter it and report on its performance later. Nevertheless, I will
add a second battery to feed the Aux bus and the dual Lightspeed
ignition in the event the rest of Z-13/8 fails to co-operate while
flying over the airplane eating PA woods at night.
Glenn
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of
Robert L. Nuckolls, III
Sent: Saturday, April 04, 2009 10:07 AM
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Odyssey Battery Alternative
At 07:28 AM 4/4/2009, you wrote:
<recapen@earthlink.net>
Thanks,
Definitely something to think about when it becomes replacement time.
My 680 is brand new - I replaced a four year old one that I had beaten
up pretty hard during the construction process. The new one seems to do
fine at the present - but I keep a Battery Hawk on it between flights so
it's always topped off.
Why did you replace it? Was it sent to recycle because
it's capacity had fallen below your e-bus run-time benchmark
or because it didn't crank the engine any more?
This thread started with the following statements:
"Several of our hangar members have been experiencing trouble with
reserve power using the popular Odyssey 680 battery. If running avionics
and the like prior to starting (even briefly), the reserve power on
these things really take a hit."
"I am not a huge fan of jump starting an aircraft or starting on reduced
voltage when my craft is already electrically dependent and the taking
off into a emergency situation with less than full reserve."
"Recently I found an option which has more cranking amps, (better A.H.
value and about the same weight (or less). Albeit slightly more
expensive, they may offer a good alternative for 680 users who find
their batteries run down a bit too fast for their liking."
"Reserve power" speaks to watt-seconds of energy
contained when fully charged. This is closely
related to the battery's rated capacity in Ampere-
Hours although apparent capacity can vary widely
depending on loads due to the battery's internal
losses (conduction = 1/resistance). Double the
load on a battery and internal losses go up by
a factor of 4.
The terms "briefly" and "really takes a hit"
are not quantified. Nor were the pre-cranking loads
for operation of "running avionics and the like".
So we're not privy to the numbers that define
expected/desired battery performance. We also
don't know the numbers that drove perceptions
of "experiencing trouble".
My words are not intended to cause anyone discomfort
but it is helpful to understand the numbers behind
a proposed exchange of product. Then each of you
needs to decide how the exchange will improve on
your personal expectations for system performance
and the amount of $time$ you're willing to expend
as a cost of ownership.
The Braille batteries appear to have been fine
tuned for lower internal resistance. This is
suggested by the greater "cranking" or "pulse"
current ratings. But in terms of capacity, watt-seconds
of energy stored is pretty much set by how many
pounds of reactants (lead) is in the battery.
Indeed, their a.h. ratings/pound of product weight
are right in line with everybody else's products.
They speak to the "conductance" test and something
new . . . which it is not. The test is easily
performed with modern "battery analyzers". An
example of this instrument can be seen at:
http://www.midtronics.com/default.asp
where we find no less than 15 different models
of device selling for hundreds of dollars. What
your buying with these capable instruments is
convenience of light weight, compact size,
digital readout, and perhaps some predictions
of service-life. However, the data gathered
is the same as that which you would get from
this piece of arcane technology from Harbor
Freight for about $60.
http://aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Battery_Testers/HF91129_4.jpg
The later device requires some understanding
and skill but ultimately is a BETTER measure
of cranking performance because the test loads
are REAL and not extrapolated from short, pulsed
values in the digital instrument.
What does internal resistance (reciprocal of
conductance) have to do with capacity? Nothing.
Capacity is related to pounds of chemistry
available to store energy. The efficiency with
which that energy can be extracted for useful
purposes IS affected by internal resistance.
This is discussed in some detail in the battery
chapter update published at:
http://aeroelectric.com/R12A/02_Battery_12A2.pdf
Without knowing the nature and magnitude of
"experiencing trouble" which drives the decision
to seek a more robust battery, we're not able
to advance this deliberation based on physics
and comparative measurements. I can only hypothesize
as follows:
The perceptions of poor battery performance are
probably based on a pre-cranking battery load
that is unnecessarily large. Without an e-bus
and the ability to get your ATIS data and
a departure clearance, then flipping on the
battery master burdens the battery with loads
that far exceed present requirements.
Keep in mind too that the energy required to
get a well tuned engine started is but a few
percent of a battery's capacity. This battery
voltage/current curve . . .
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Curves/turbine_start_a.jpg
was taken from a Beechjet engine start. It
begins with over 800A and tapers to 300A
over a period of 27 seconds. After all that
abuse, the battery is tapped for perhaps 6%
of contained energy. I agree that we're
comparing apples and oranges with respect to
types of engines and design goals for two
vastly different airplanes. But I'll suggest
that if somebody is having trouble getting
and engine started -OR- has seriously depleted
a battery during pre-flight operations because
of loads imposed before the alternator comes
on line . . . a serious reevaluation of design
goals and operating procedures is called for.
Back to the Braille battery product.
They probably do conform to marketing hype
concerning a lower internal resistance. This
is easily demonstrated with and instrument not
unlike the Harbor Freight device cited above.
Now the question: What does the more expensive
battery buy you in terms of cost of ownership?
Now that you've installed the Lexus of batteries,
how are you going to modify your rules of
ownership and operation for the purpose of meeting
design goals for your airplane? Are you going to
do periodic capacity checks to make well
considered decisions as to when the battery
needs replacing? Is it a reasonable expectation
that $time$ to maintain plust $time$ to buy the
higher price battery will be SMALLER than $time$
to buy an el-cheepo battery and replace it
every year?
Finally, rushing off to buy this premium
battery product may not get you the same
return on investment expected by those who are
"experiencing trouble" with their current
battery choices. Without an analysis of how
their disappointment arises, there's no
guarantee that YOUR purchase of the more
robust battery will produce a good return
on your investment.
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: Impossible problem |
Jay,
Any luck with the problem? You might consider that maybe the original
wiring isn't correct, only appeared to be. Years ago, I wired a
project (not airplane related) and it worked fine. Couple years later
made a minor alteration and all sorts of strange things started
happening. Turned out the original wiring was incorrect.
Ed
On Apr 1, 2009, at 4:08 PM, jaybannist@cs.com wrote:
> Bob,
>
> Thanks. I had about decided that the laws of physics HAD been
> repealed, or that I was losing my ever-lovin' mind ! Now that you
> have confirmed that those laws are still intact; I know that my next
> step is to take all the wiring off those two switches. Then I will
> positively identify each wire before I reinstall it on the switch.
> I'll let you know if that fixes the problem.
>
> Thanks again - Jay
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Robert L. Nuckolls, III <nuckolls.bob@aeroelectric.com>
> To: aeroelectric-list@matronics.com
> Sent: Wed, 1 Apr 2009 1:53 pm
> Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Impossible problem
>
> At 12:37 PM 4/1/2009, you wrote:
>
>
>> My MAIN source of concern is that EVERYTHING
>> worked properly before I made this change; and the
>> ONLY thing I changed was the source of power to
>> the coil and fuel pump switches.
>>
>> Jay
> Understand. Without being able to put my
> hands on the problem, the most I (or anyone
> else) can do is hypothesize about a lot
> of things . . . the majority of which will
> be irrelevant/wrong.
>
> The laws of physics do not shift their
> effects to confound us. There is a specific
> reason why you are experiencing the problem
> you cited. If you've ever played the board game
> Clue, you'll understand that arriving at root
> cause is a distillation of facts first to
> eliminate those that do not fit into an
> explanation of effects and finally identify the
> order in which remaining facts explain the
> cause for symptoms you've identified.
>
> Snip off the tie wraps, check the wires, follow
> the path from bus to appliance with a voltmeter
> probe . . . nobody sez it's easy . . . but it
> works every time.
>
> Bob . . .
>
>
> Email message sent from CompuServe - visit us today at
> http://www.cs.com
>
>
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: Impossible problem |
Ed,
I think you are right. It did work before the change, but that might have just
been dumb luck.
My airplane is hangered 40 miles and an hour's drive from my home, right through
the middle of Dallas. The upshot is that I don't work on it as often as I want
to, or should.? My next trip (this week) will be to do a BUNCH of re-wiring.?
Stay tuned.
Jay? ??
-----Original Message-----
From: Ed Mueller <ed@muellerartcover.com>
Sent: Mon, 6 Apr 2009 10:22 am
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Impossible problem
?
Jay,?
?
? Any luck with the problem? You might consider that maybe the original
wiring isn't correct, only appeared to be. Years ago, I wired a
project (not airplane related) and it worked fine. Couple years later
made a minor alteration and all sorts of strange things started
happening. Turned out the original wiring was incorrect.?
?
Ed?
?
On Apr 1, 2009, at 4:08 PM, jaybannist@cs.com wrote:?
?
> Bob,?
>?
> Thanks. I had about decided that the laws of physics HAD been
> repealed, or that I was losing my ever-lovin' mind !? Now that you
> have confirmed that those laws are still intact;? I know that my next
> step is to take all the wiring off those two switches.? Then I will
> positively identify each wire before I reinstall it on the switch.?
> I'll let you know if that fixes the problem.?
>?
> Thanks again - Jay?
>?
________________________________________________________________________
Email message sent from CompuServe - visit us today at http://www.cs.com
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: Odyssey Battery Alternative |
________________________________
From: Dale Rogers <dale.r@cox.net>
Sent: Sunday, April 5, 2009 10:28:08 PM
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Odyssey Battery Alternative
Charlie England wrote:
> Dale Rogers wrote:
>> Made in mainland (PDRC) China?
>
> If this is intended to be a political question, it begs another. Have you bought
any gas for your plane or car lately (terrorism)? Or virtually any other consumer
product (China again)?
>
> I think that it's instructional that around 50 years of economic isolation of
Cuba has left it virtually unchanged in it's government, economy or human rights.
While after 30 years of trade with China it isn't 'free', but it's a lot
closer than it was 30 years ago, and its people are certainly a bit better off
economically.
>
> I have an 'alternative' view of this stuff. I think that change must come from
within, & if you want to have external influence, the best way to drive it is
to let the citizens see how good it *could* be, with better government.
Charlie,
It wasn't ~intended~ to be "political" - more of a QA issue.
There's been a lot of contaminated product coming from the
PRC. I've seen a lot of poor quality hardware (tools, shop
equipment, electronics) coming from there. Dunno if I want
my electric-dependent airplane to rely on a battery coming
from such an environment.
Best regards,
Dale R.
Ahh, yes, that makes sense; sorry for the misunderstanding. I wonder where the
higher priced ones are made.
One thing I did notice is that the internal resistance is rather high; from something
like 11 to 16 mOhms. IIRC, the Odessey is closer to 6 mOhms. I'm using
a similarly rated battery in my RV-4 (Lyc O-320) & it cranks 'ok' but I doubt
it would be up to the task on a hi compression IO360.
Charlie
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: Impossible problem |
At 10:52 AM 4/6/2009, you wrote:
>Ed,
>
>I think you are right. It did work before the change, but that might
>have just been dumb luck.
>
>My airplane is hangered 40 miles and an hour's drive from my home,
>right through the middle of Dallas. The upshot is that I don't work
>on it as often as I want to, or should. My next trip (this week)
>will be to do a BUNCH of re-wiring. Stay tuned.
Ed beat me to it. I was about to ask too. We're
all interested in what you find out!
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: | Odyssey Battery Alternative |
At 09:48 AM 4/6/2009, you wrote:
>Bob,
>
>Thanks for the dissertation on batteries J Actually this is very
>helpful. If dry cell or sealed batteries are indeed using the same
>old technology as the slosh type, then the extra $$ are indeed a
>complete waste of money, yes?
No. All lead-acid batteries use lead, lead dioxide, lead sulfate,
sulfuric acid and water to craft a reversible electrical energy
storage system.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lead-acid_battery
Fabrication methods that exploit this reaction have seen
huge evolutionary steps since the time that Plante'
first described the phenomenon in 1859 (before the
civil war!)
Even during my short experience with lead-acid
technology (my first car was a 6v, '41 Pontiac
acquired in 1961) we've see amazing improvements
in robusness, volumetric efficiency, electrical
efficiency, ease of integration and cost of
ownership for this venerable process.
>I suppose they do a bit of marketing with the carbon fibre casings
>etc., but is there no better mouse trap hiding in there somewhere? I
>do not have the Braille factory specs, but that would be an
>interesting read. My main interest is their lower weight and smaller
>size. That takes more than marketing. There is nothing to say the BB
>battery at < $50 would not provide the same performance albeit
>without the lower internal resistance. I may be confused, but isn't
>cranking power what we want in batteries? When it's 10 degrees
>outside and I've had my ship plugged in for 30 minutes, I don't want
>to hear ra-ra-ra after just one try. If they can boost cranking
>power by 30 percent, why wouldn't you want that? If I lived in
>Southern CA, perhaps I wouldn't care. A mission specific thing.
You're speaking in non-quantified concerns, conditions
and design goals. Yes, it's probably a given that a
$200 battery has features justifying its increases
in cost over a $50 battery of the same capacity. Do
you need and/or can you exploit a 30% increase in cranking
power? If you arbitrarily say "yes" . . . then perhaps
an upgrade to Braille products is selling your design
goals short. How about a ni-cad? Those are super cranking
batteries . . . but they have trade-offs.
>
>The experience of one of our builders has shown that turning on the
>avionics 5 minutes before starting has disabled the Odyssey's
>ability to the point where it will not provide enough cranking power
>to turn over the engine. He flies a Jabaru 230 with the Jabaru
>6-cylinder engine. I have not put a meter on the draw (I will), but
>I did learn that he has two GRT displays installed which require a
>heartbeat be maintained from the battery at all times. As you may
>know the GRT does not support internal battery backup directly.
Okay. What is the capacity of the battery he's using?
How large are his avionics loads? Is he just running
the necessary electro-whizzies for pre-flight . . .
or is the whole panel lit up? 5 minutes is a long
time to set there with the panel all lit up. This battery
is supposed to carry e-bus loads for how long? Minutes,
an hour? THREE hours?
Your narrative doesn't inform us sufficiently to offer
considered advice. If a 5-minute panel load is degrading
cranking performance, the FIRST question can be answered
only by capacity and load testing the battery. There's
a high probability that his battery is trashed. But if
his panel loads are say, 50 amps . . . AND assuming that
the 5-minute pre-flight ops are part of his design
goals, then let's see . . .
The PC680 is rated for 7 milliohms internal resistance
and a 20 hour capacity of 17 a.h. We don't have performance
curves for the PC680 but the ratings are similar to this
battery . . .
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Curves/17AH_12V_Capacity_vs_Load.gif
Gee, 50A of panel load is going whack the battery pretty
hard in 5 minutes. Okay how about a 17A panel load. Hmmm . . .
5 minutes of operation should leave plenty of snort to
crank the engine. Lighter loads are still more attractive.
>
>I already own an Odyssey and I'm not going to toss it in the trash
>but I will meter it and report on its performance later.
>Nevertheless, I will add a second battery to feed the Aux bus and
>the dual Lightspeed ignition in the event the rest of Z-13/8 fails
>to co-operate while flying over the airplane eating PA woods at night.
If that design philosophy assuages your concerns, by
all means. My point is that these systems operate
based on easily deduced and interpreted numbers.
Just for grins, if you do have a capacity meter,
fully charge your battery, do a standard preflight,
crank the engine . . . say twice without turning
the alternator on. Shut everything down and THEN
do a capacity test at the discharge level appropriate
to your endurance loads.
If you find that the system falls short on design
goals, perhaps you DO need a different battery . . .
but the upgrade may have more to do with CAPACITY
than it does with getting the engine started. Given
that were comparing TWO 17 a.h. batteries, perhaps
the upgrade you're anticipating would have an
exceedingly poor return on investment.
It concerns me that with two engine-driven power
sources, a battery with an exemplar reputation,
and some form of metering for battery condition
that you're still not comfortable with the as-installed
system. This suggests that you've not created, tested
and are maintaining a plan-a, plan-b, plan-c approach
to failures. This leaves you in the unhappy position
of (1) constantly worrying; a lack of confidence
based on lack of knowledge and (2) being ready to buy some
new electro-whizzy because of some perceived incremental
increase in performance described in their 4-color
marketing brochures.
Bob . . .
Message 13
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: incandescent light question |
Robert L. Nuckolls, III a crit :
>
> Tungsten passed from a brittle to ductile state
> as it rises in temperature. The legacy automotive
> lamp filaments were most vulnerable to vibration
> stresses while cold.
Bob, Ira and all,
Thanks for your response.
Best regards,
--
Gilles
http://contrails.free.fr
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: | Basic wiring questions |
I have landing/taxi lights, LED nav lights, a Bob Archer VOR antenna, and an
APRS tx/rx antenna in the ends of the wings of an RV-9A (one antenna in each
tip).
1. For the powered items, can I run a single positive wire of adequate size
to a terminal block, then feed the devices from the block?
2. For the antennas, yes they will be using coax, but should I nevertheless
try to run the coax physically separate from the power wires? In addition
to the above power wire I have a 3-wire bundle run from the strobe power
supply in the fuselage to the wing-tip strobe lights. I installed a conduit
about 18 inches away from the Vans wire holes for this purpose.
Thanks,
Ralph Finch
Davis, CA
RV-9A QB-SA
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: | Noise in headset when pressing to talk |
Hello listers, I hope you can help me figure out a small problem I have
please.
I have a mk IV Kitfox fitted with a Bendix King KY97A radio coupled to a
Flightcom 403mc intercom, which has been in service without trouble for
a number of years.
The aircraft has not flown for around seven months, and I am putting it
back into service.
When the pilots side ptt is pressed, there is a loud constant noise
through both headsets, when the copilots ptt is pressed, there is no
noise.
I replaced the wiring and earths to the pilots stick, but it made no
difference
I then removed the wire from pin no. 7( pilots ptt switch), on the rear
of the unit to eliminate the ptt switch and wiring, and substituted a
long length of wire which I touched directly to the battery negative,
and the noise was still there.
I checked the pins and sockets which all look in perfect condition, but
cleaned them anyway.
If I use the long length of wire from the battery to pin no. 6 (copilot
ptt switch ) it works perfectly with no noise.
The noise I hear in my headset, is not transmitted , I have checked the
radio reception from a hand held radio using different headsets plugged
into the pilot and copilot sockets, and reception is perfect with no
background noise.
Has anyone any ideas what it could be please?
Any help would be greatly appreciated, thanks in advance,
Neil.
Message 16
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Odyssey Battery Alternative |
Don't understand the problem with PC-680 batteries. This is the type
supplied by Glasair for their Sportsman kits. No-one has reported any
similar experience. Glenn said his friend has two GRTs with the need for a
keep alive clock current. Can't find a specification on the GRT web site
for this current but most circuits of this type use about 1 ma. But suppose
the current is 10 ma. In this case if he hasn't flown in a while this load
could significantly deplete the battery (over 10 amp-hours) in only 3 weeks.
At least it is worth measuring to determine if this is part of the problem.
Tom Kuffel
Message 17
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Noise in headset when pressing to talk |
I had a similar problem and it turned out to be a problem with my
lightspeed headset. I send them back to lightspeed and they fixed them
at no charge.
Allan
________________________________
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Neil
France
Sent: Tuesday, 7 April 2009 7:55 AM
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Noise in headset when pressing to talk
Hello listers, I hope you can help me figure out a small problem I have
please.
I have a mk IV Kitfox fitted with a Bendix King KY97A radio coupled to a
Flightcom 403mc intercom, which has been in service without trouble for
a number of years.
The aircraft has not flown for around seven months, and I am putting it
back into service.
When the pilots side ptt is pressed, there is a loud constant noise
through both headsets, when the copilots ptt is pressed, there is no
noise.
I replaced the wiring and earths to the pilots stick, but it made no
difference
I then removed the wire from pin no. 7( pilots ptt switch), on the rear
of the unit to eliminate the ptt switch and wiring, and substituted a
long length of wire which I touched directly to the battery negative,
and the noise was still there.
I checked the pins and sockets which all look in perfect condition, but
cleaned them anyway.
If I use the long length of wire from the battery to pin no. 6 (copilot
ptt switch ) it works perfectly with no noise.
The noise I hear in my headset, is not transmitted , I have checked the
radio reception from a hand held radio using different headsets plugged
into the pilot and copilot sockets, and reception is perfect with no
background noise.
Has anyone any ideas what it could be please?
Any help would be greatly appreciated, thanks in advance,
Neil.
Message 18
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | VDC Electronics battery charger offer |
Bob,
VDC Electronics is offering aviation specific battery chargers at a
reduced price if you trade in an a non-aviation charger. Their
aviation chargers are temperature compensated so there is no over or
undercharging. They claim that the new chargers will increase the
battery life. Are regular battery chargers inadequate for the task,
especially if the batteries are being replace every year or so? Is
this a marketing gimmick or something worthwhile?
Sheldon Olesen
http://www.batteryminders.com/batterycharger/home.php
Message 19
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Odyssey Battery Alternative |
At 04:29 PM 4/6/2009, you wrote:
>
>Don't understand the problem with PC-680 batteries. This is the
>type supplied by Glasair for their Sportsman kits. No-one has
>reported any similar experience. Glenn said his friend has two GRTs
>with the need for a keep alive clock current. Can't find a
>specification on the GRT web site for this current but most circuits
>of this type use about 1 ma. But suppose the current is 10 ma. In
>this case if he hasn't flown in a while this load could
>significantly deplete the battery (over 10 amp-hours) in only 3
>weeks. At least it is worth measuring to determine if this is part
>of the problem.
>
>Tom Kuffel
The thread started with an observation that one or more
folks where having trouble getting their engine started
after a 5 minute pre-starting load of unknown magnitude.
An idea was proposed that a particular brand of
battery might be a good replacement. It was advertised
to have greater cranking capability.
This isn't about the goodness of one battery or the
badness of another. It's about KNOWING what the
design goals are and then deducing why they're
not being met. The original problem may be no more
profound than the fact that PC680 was shot. Without
getting the numbers, all the rest is conversation.
Bob . . .
----------------------------------------)
( . . . a long habit of not thinking )
( a thing wrong, gives it a superficial )
( appearance of being right . . . )
( )
( -Thomas Paine 1776- )
----------------------------------------
Message 20
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Twisted Pairs, Coils, and EM Fields |
Bob-
I recently bought an IVOPROP magnum inflight adjustable propeller; the adjustment
is done with an electric motor. The power and ground leads are both approximately
12 feet long, as are the two leads that go from the switch to the carbon
brushes. The installation directions explicitly state "Do not cut the wires";
I called IVOPROP and asked if that applied to all four wires, or only the
ones going out to the prop. They stated that all the wires should be left alone,
as the resistance of the wires was part of the calculation for circuit breaker
selection, and shorter wires would result in the breaker tripping more easily.
So, I have two pair of 12 fort wires to stow in behind the panel of an
RV-7.
I don't want simply to coil the wires out of concern for the EM field the coil
would produce whenever I'm changing the pitch of the prop. Can I take the power/ground
pair and twist them, take the two leads out to the prop and twist them,
then twist the two twisted pairs together, and finally stow them in a loose
but well-secured coil? Memories from college physics lead me to think the electrons
flowing in opposite directions should cancel each others' fields, but
those memories are a little hazy.
Thank you,
Gregory Clawson
RV-7, E-6/200, N687LC (res)
Message 21
| 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: | [Fwd: Huuuuuhhhh?] |
Message 22
| 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: | Odyssey Battery Alternative |
Forgive me for adding more "conversation", but 680's have performed well for
me.
I use a PC-680 on an O-540 installation. I'm on the second 680 and both
have performed well. I trashed the first one during the building process by
hitting it with 15 or so full discharges after leaving the master on. Then
I overcharged it numerous times with a non-maintaining car charger. It still
started the 540 but was getting weak after two months of flying. I put in
the second one and it just goes and goes even on cold morning starts. I have
to say it has plenty of reserve, but I haven't measured how much.
Mike
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Robert L.
Nuckolls, III
Sent: Monday, April 06, 2009 6:34 PM
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Odyssey Battery Alternative
<nuckolls.bob@aeroelectric.com>
At 04:29 PM 4/6/2009, you wrote:
<kuffel@cyberport.net>
>
>Don't understand the problem with PC-680 batteries. This is the
>type supplied by Glasair for their Sportsman kits. No-one has
>reported any similar experience. Glenn said his friend has two GRTs
>with the need for a keep alive clock current. Can't find a
>specification on the GRT web site for this current but most circuits
>of this type use about 1 ma. But suppose the current is 10 ma. In
>this case if he hasn't flown in a while this load could
>significantly deplete the battery (over 10 amp-hours) in only 3
>weeks. At least it is worth measuring to determine if this is part
>of the problem.
>
>Tom Kuffel
The thread started with an observation that one or more
folks where having trouble getting their engine started
after a 5 minute pre-starting load of unknown magnitude.
An idea was proposed that a particular brand of
battery might be a good replacement. It was advertised
to have greater cranking capability.
This isn't about the goodness of one battery or the
badness of another. It's about KNOWING what the
design goals are and then deducing why they're
not being met. The original problem may be no more
profound than the fact that PC680 was shot. Without
getting the numbers, all the rest is conversation.
Bob . . .
----------------------------------------)
( . . . a long habit of not thinking )
( a thing wrong, gives it a superficial )
( appearance of being right . . . )
( )
( -Thomas Paine 1776- )
----------------------------------------
Message 23
| 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: [Fwd: Huuuuuhhhh?] |
Obviously a product of the public school system.
Dale R.
COZY MkIV #0497
Ch. 13
RScott wrote:
>
< newspaper clipping >
Message 24
| 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: Twisted Pairs, Coils, and EM Fields |
At 09:58 PM 4/6/2009, you wrote:
>Bob-
>I recently bought an IVOPROP magnum inflight adjustable propeller;
>the adjustment is done with an electric motor. The power and ground
>leads are both approximately 12 feet long, as are the two leads that
>go from the switch to the carbon brushes. The installation
>directions explicitly state "Do not cut the wires"; I called IVOPROP
>and asked if that applied to all four wires, or only the ones going
>out to the prop. They stated that all the wires should be left
>alone, as the resistance of the wires was part of the calculation
>for circuit breaker selection, and shorter wires would result in the
>breaker tripping more easily. So, I have two pair of 12 fort wires
>to stow in behind the panel of an RV-7.
This borders on bizarre. I cannot imagine anbody
figuring wire length into the sizing of a circuit
breaker.
>I don't want simply to coil the wires out of concern for the EM
>field the coil would produce whenever I'm changing the pitch of the
>prop. Can I take the power/ground pair and twist them, take the two
>leads out to the prop and twist them, then twist the two twisted
>pairs together, and finally stow them in a loose but well-secured
>coil? Memories from college physics lead me to think the electrons
>flowing in opposite directions should cancel each others' fields,
>but those memories are a little hazy.
I'm pretty sure just running them in parallel
bundles is fine. I've written the company to
inquire as to the physics behind any determination
of criticality for bundle length.
Watch this space.
Bob . . .
----------------------------------------)
( . . . a long habit of not thinking )
( a thing wrong, gives it a superficial )
( appearance of being right . . . )
( )
( -Thomas Paine 1776- )
----------------------------------------
Other Matronics Email List Services
These Email List Services are sponsored solely by Matronics and through the generous Contributions of its members.
-- Please support this service by making your Contribution today! --
|