Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 05:12 AM - Re: Re: Time to Battery Exhaustion (Ed Anderson)
2. 06:52 AM - Re: Noise Problem (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
3. 07:15 AM - Re: Re: Time to Battery Exhaustion (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
4. 08:14 AM - FW: Re: Time to Battery Exhaustion (Ed Anderson)
5. 08:46 AM - Re: Noise Problem (Ian)
6. 09:15 AM - AEC 9005-101 Low Voltage Monitor module not found (Eric Schlanser)
7. 10:14 AM - Re: FW: Re: Time to Battery Exhaustion (jon@finleyweb.net)
8. 11:19 AM - Re: AEC 9005-101 Low Voltage Monitor module not found (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
9. 11:19 AM - Re: Noise Problem (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
10. 11:31 AM - Re: FW: Re: Time to Battery Exhaustion (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
11. 01:21 PM - Battery facts and myths redux . . . (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
12. 01:27 PM - Re: FW: Re: Time to Battery Exhaustion (Ed Anderson)
13. 04:26 PM - Re: Noise Problem (Matt Prather)
14. 09:56 PM - Race timing help (Greg Young)
15. 11:52 PM - Re: Race timing help ()
Message 1
INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Subject: | Re: Time to Battery Exhaustion |
Hi Bob,
The "isolation diode" was a poor choice of words for the schokkty battery
feed diode between alternator power and the essential bus battery circuit.
If I had installed that diode 10 years ago (per your design) then having the
switch in the wrong position wouldn't have affected the ability of the
battery to get alternator voltage.
The problem with my "low voltage warning" indicator (both LED and Voltmeter)
was they were on the alternator circuit and NOT the battery. Since the
alternator was working fine and continued to produce power (until the
dropping battery voltage opened the master relay), these two devices never
indicated low voltage. IF I had thought to switch the voltmeter to the
battery then I would likely have noticed the decreasing battery voltage.
Thanks for the battery drain curve, appears my system does not have as much
current drain as I had estimated. Also looks like the powered required for
starting did not much affect the duration.
Ed
Ed Anderson
Rv-6A N494BW Rotary Powered
Matthews, NC
eanderson@carolina.rr.com
http://www.andersonee.com
http://www.dmack.net/mazda/index.html
http://www.flyrotary.com/
http://members.cox.net/rogersda/rotary/configs.htm#N494BW
http://www.rotaryaviation.com/Rotorhead%20Truth.htm
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Robert L.
Nuckolls, III
Sent: Tuesday, June 30, 2009 12:20 AM
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Re: Time to Battery Exhaustion
<nuckolls.bob@aeroelectric.com>
<eanderson@carolina.rr.com>
Having had some recent real-world experience with battery exhaustion, I
though some of you might be interested in actual flight duration with all
systems on - until the battery voltage dropped below that necessary to run
crucial flight systems.
<snip>
Next morning, once switch was placed in the proper position (connecting
battery to alternator) a test flight was made and all checked out and I
continued on to Texas. Flew back with no incident. However, I doubt the
battery would do as well a second time as the voltage had dropped to 6 volts
by the time I checked on the ground. From what I understand is that once a
battery undergoes that degree of discharge, its capacity is less than it
was.
This is why the Z-figures and other writings in
the 'Connection suggest ACTIVE NOTIFICATION OF
LOW VOLTAGE on the main bus. When you turn the
battery master on before cranking the engine, that
light is an irritating feature on the panel and
remains so until the alternator comes on to boost
the bus above 13.0 volts.
The battery is rated at 17 AH, don't know how much the engine start drained
but at 400 amp for say 5 second for engine start = 0.55 amp-hour leaving
theoretically 16.45 amp hour in the battery. Flew for 45 minutes before the
dropping voltage started undesirable things happening so 45/60 = .75 hour of
battery powered flight. That theoretically would indicate a 16.45/.75 = 21
amp/hour load. Clearly lots of estimation here but that load (with two 50
watt landing lights on) does not seem unreasonable to me.
See . . .
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Curves/17AH_12V_Capacity_vs_Load.gif
The typical 17 a.h. battery being discharged in 40
minutes when presented with a 17A load. This yields
a useful capacity on the order of 17 x 0.7 or 12 ampere
hours.
But all things considered - the battery did a credible job of lasting as
long as it did. Just wanted to post a real world example of battery power
duration.
Lessons learned - stick in the isolation diode so battery will get
alternator juice regardless of essential bus switch
position.
Without seeing your power distribution diagram, I'm
not sure what the "isolation diode" is about. Active
and irritating notification of low voltage becomes
a expected event that cannot missed or ignored. I
requires no training and/or checklist activity for
making sure things are up and running before flight.
Bob . . .
__________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature
database 3267 (20080714) __________
The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.
__________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature
database 3267 (20080714) __________
The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.
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: Noise Problem |
>
>It's all about the same pitch, but almost sounds almost like some form
>of sparking or discharging.
>
>There is no whining or other noise, and this seems to only happen when
>the engine in running (i.e. most of the time). The sound reduces when I
>turn down the volume, and goes away when I "isolate" the pilot from the
>passenger on the Flightcomm 403 with the "ICS/Isolate" switch.
>
>This is such a unique noise I just wondered if anyone else had heard it
>or heard of it.
>
>Thanks in advance for any of your wisdom.
What is the repetition rate for the noise. How many
times per minute. Its it a regular rate or random?
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: | Re: Time to Battery Exhaustion |
At 07:09 AM 6/30/2009, you wrote:
><eanderson@carolina.rr.com>
>
>Hi Bob,
>
>The "isolation diode" was a poor choice of words for the schokkty battery
>feed diode between alternator power and the essential bus battery circuit.
>If I had installed that diode 10 years ago (per your design) then having the
>switch in the wrong position wouldn't have affected the ability of the
>battery to get alternator voltage.
I'm still not getting a mental image of
how you had it wired. How does the
existence or lack of the diode affect
connection between battery and alternator?
>The problem with my "low voltage warning" indicator (both LED and Voltmeter)
>was they were on the alternator circuit and NOT the battery. Since the
>alternator was working fine and continued to produce power (until the
>dropping battery voltage opened the master relay), these two devices never
>indicated low voltage. IF I had thought to switch the voltmeter to the
>battery then I would likely have noticed the decreasing battery voltage.
So have (or are you planning) you movee the low
voltage sensing point in your system?
Could you sketch and scan the distribution
system and share with us? Normally, alternator
has no way NOT to charge the battery if the
engine is running -AND- both the alternator
and battery control circuits are closed. I'm
having trouble visualizing how "both were
functioning" but the alternator was still not
connected to the battery.
>Thanks for the battery drain curve, appears my system does not have as much
>current drain as I had estimated. Also looks like the powered required for
>starting did not much affect the duration.
While starters take a lot of POWER it is for
just a few seconds. The total ENERGY is quite
low. Even in large aircraft, the percentage of
battery energy used to start is a small fraction
of the total. In this start current curve we
took off a Beechjet . . .
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Curves/turbine_start_a.jpg
. . . it takes about 20 seconds for cranking
current to taper from 800A to 300A and another
7 seconds to go to zero. Yet this 44 a.h. battery
is tapped for only 5 to 6 percent of total
stored energy. In piston singles where the engine
starts readily, it's about half that total.
You mentioned in the earlier post that you thought
you might have seriously whacked the battery's
ability to store energy when you allowed it to be
so severely depleted. This is generally no big
deal.
Brand new batteries subjected to a series of 90%
depletion cycles will slowly drop in capacity with
each cycle. Most RG batteries are good for several
hundred deep-cycles before they lose 20% of their
capacity.
Emacs!
Here's an exemplar cycle-life performance curve for a
lithium battery . . . lead-acid curves are similar
they just don't go out to those really big numbers.
But a single deep discharge of your battery followed
by a recharging activity does not seriously affect
future performance.
Now, leaving the master switch on and leaving the
battery discharged for a couple of weeks is another
matter . . .
Bob . . .
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: Time to Battery Exhaustion |
Ok, Bob, here is a crude sketch of the essential elements
ALT B Lead ------------------- Aircraft
Bus---------------------------------------------------- None Essential Load
|
|
|
|
|
|
Switch
Diode (not installed at time of incident)
Essential Bus Load ---------------------------- |---------- |
|
|
Battery
The alternator B lead feeds the aircraft main bus. The switch is designed
to be closed during normal operation permitting the alternator to charge/
recharge the battery - in this incident it became open - therefore no
alternator voltage to charge battery. The diode would have permitted the
alternator to charge the battery (regardless of switch position) IF I had
installed it back 10 years ago. The idea back then was that if the
alternator failed, I could remove the battery and essential load from that
circuit by opening the switch. The diode (if I had installed it) would have
prevent the very problem I encountered - that of the battery being exhausted
because it could get no voltage from the alternator due to the inadvertently
opened switch. Why a diode and a switch - well, diodes can fail, switches
can fail - unlikely both would at the same time. - In reality, I have never
moved the switch from the Alternator connection position in 10 years of
flying - until, of course, this incident.
The idea of having the low voltage warning LED tied to the alternator
circuit was that it would give first notice (before the battery started to
drain) if there was a problem with alternator. The volt meter has a toggle
switch so I can monitor either alternator or battery voltage.
Unfortunately, I had it set to alternator and therefore it didn't register
the deteriorating battery voltage. Of course, if the switch in question is
ON then alternator and battery voltage will read the same - so to check the
battery voltage solely, I would need to open the Switch removing the
alternator temporarily from feeding the battery.
This all seemed reasonable 10 years ago, less so since the incident - as you
might imagine. Providing this so others may avoid my mistakes - certainly
not trying to defend what in hindsight are obvious {:>) deficiencies in my
design.
Ed
Ed Anderson
Rv-6A N494BW Rotary Powered
Matthews, NC
eanderson@carolina.rr.com
<http://www.andersonee.com> http://www.andersonee.com
<http://www.dmack.net/mazda/index.html>
http://www.dmack.net/mazda/index.html
http://www.flyrotary.com/
<http://members.cox.net/rogersda/rotary/configs.htm>
http://members.cox.net/rogersda/rotary/configs.htm#N494BW
http://www.rotaryaviation.com/Rotorhead%20Truth.htm
<http://www.dmack.net/mazda/index.html>
_____
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Robert L.
Nuckolls, III
Sent: Tuesday, June 30, 2009 10:12 AM
Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Re: Time to Battery Exhaustion
At 07:09 AM 6/30/2009, you wrote:
<eanderson@carolina.rr.com>
Hi Bob,
The "isolation diode" was a poor choice of words for the schokkty battery
feed diode between alternator power and the essential bus battery circuit.
If I had installed that diode 10 years ago (per your design) then having the
switch in the wrong position wouldn't have affected the ability of the
battery to get alternator voltage.
I'm still not getting a mental image of
how you had it wired. How does the
existence or lack of the diode affect
connection between battery and alternator?
The problem with my "low voltage warning" indicator (both LED and Voltmeter)
was they were on the alternator circuit and NOT the battery. Since the
alternator was working fine and continued to produce power (until the
dropping battery voltage opened the master relay), these two devices never
indicated low voltage. IF I had thought to switch the voltmeter to the
battery then I would likely have noticed the decreasing battery voltage.
So have (or are you planning) you movee the low
voltage sensing point in your system?
Could you sketch and scan the distribution
system and share with us? Normally, alternator
has no way NOT to charge the battery if the
engine is running -AND- both the alternator
and battery control circuits are closed. I'm
having trouble visualizing how "both were
functioning" but the alternator was still not
connected to the battery.
Thanks for the battery drain curve, appears my system does not have as much
current drain as I had estimated. Also looks like the powered required for
starting did not much affect the duration.
While starters take a lot of POWER it is for
just a few seconds. The total ENERGY is quite
low. Even in large aircraft, the percentage of
battery energy used to start is a small fraction
of the total. In this start current curve we
took off a Beechjet . . .
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Curves/turbine_start_a.jpg
. . . it takes about 20 seconds for cranking
current to taper from 800A to 300A and another
7 seconds to go to zero. Yet this 44 a.h. battery
is tapped for only 5 to 6 percent of total
stored energy. In piston singles where the engine
starts readily, it's about half that total.
You mentioned in the earlier post that you thought
you might have seriously whacked the battery's
ability to store energy when you allowed it to be
so severely depleted. This is generally no big
deal.
Brand new batteries subjected to a series of 90%
depletion cycles will slowly drop in capacity with
each cycle. Most RG batteries are good for several
hundred deep-cycles before they lose 20% of their
capacity.
Emacs!
Here's an exemplar cycle-life performance curve for a
lithium battery . . . lead-acid curves are similar
they just don't go out to those really big numbers.
But a single deep discharge of your battery followed
by a recharging activity does not seriously affect
future performance.
Now, leaving the master switch on and leaving the
battery discharged for a couple of weeks is another
matter . . .
Bob . . .
__________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature
database 3267 (20080714) __________
The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.
__________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature
database 3267 (20080714) __________
The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.
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: Noise Problem |
It's pretty random. It's about the pitch of metal on metal. It almost
sounds like someone is working in a workshop, throwing bits of scrap
aluminum around. Completely random, but of the order of about one a
second - certainly not a regular vibration type noise. Bursts of two or
three and then silence for a couple of seconds. Apparently someone else
has the same exact noise with the same behaviour on the Flightcom 403 in
intercom mode. He described is as a bit like a snare drum which give
you a feel for the pitch. It reduces with the squelch too.
I've also emailed Flightcom for help.
Regards,
Ian Brown
On Tue, 2009-06-30 at 00:36 -0500, Robert L. Nuckolls, III wrote:
>
>
> >
> >It's all about the same pitch, but almost sounds almost like some form
> >of sparking or discharging.
> >
> >There is no whining or other noise, and this seems to only happen when
> >the engine in running (i.e. most of the time). The sound reduces when I
> >turn down the volume, and goes away when I "isolate" the pilot from the
> >passenger on the Flightcomm 403 with the "ICS/Isolate" switch.
> >
> >This is such a unique noise I just wondered if anyone else had heard it
> >or heard of it.
> >
> >Thanks in advance for any of your wisdom.
>
> What is the repetition rate for the noise. How many
> times per minute. Its it a regular rate or random?
>
>
> 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: | AEC 9005-101 Low Voltage Monitor module not found |
Bob,
I am trying to-build a Z-11 wiring scheme for now with eventual upgrade t
o dual batteries and alternators.
-
The AEC-Z-11 figure shows a generic Ford regulator and the AEC 9005-101 L
ow Voltage Monitor Module. However, the Appendix Z notes-for the Z-11 fig
ure-advises that-"it features the B&C alternator control sytem (regulat
or, OV protection and LV warning in a single product)".
-
I ran a search on the list and on the AEC website for the AEC 9005-101 LVMM
, but failed to find any reference for it.-Have the-AEC 9005-101 LVMM a
nd generic Ford regulator been phased out in favor-of the-comparatively
costly-LR-3 B&C alternator control system?
-
Thanks for your help,
Eric Schlanser=0A=0A=0A
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: Time to Battery Exhaustion |
=0AThank you Ed,=0A =0AI have learned a number of things due to your willin
gness to share your experience and system configuration.=0A =0AJon Finley
=0AN314JF - Q2 - Subaru EJ-22=0A[http://www.finleyweb.net/Q2Subaru.aspx] ht
tp://www.finleyweb.net/Q2Subaru.aspx=0A=0A=0A-----Original Message-----=0AF
rom: "Ed Anderson" <eanderson@carolina.rr.com>=0ASent: Tuesday, June 30, 20
09 9:02am=0ATo: aeroelectric-list@matronics.com=0ASubject: FW: AeroElectric
-List: Re: Time to Battery Exhaustion=0A=0A=0A=0A =0AOk, Bob, here is a c
rude sketch of the essential elements=0A =0A =0A ALT B Lead ------------
------- Aircraft Bus---------------------------------------------------- No
ne Essential Load=0A
| | =0A
| |=0A
| |=0A
Switch Diod
e (not installed at time of incident)=0A Essential Bus Load --
-------------------------- |---------- |=0A
| |=0A
Battery=0A =0AThe alt
ernator B lead feeds the aircraft main bus. The switch is designed to be c
losed during normal operation permitting the alternator to charge/ recharge
the battery =93 in this incident it became open =93 therefore
no alternator voltage to charge battery. The diode would have permitted th
e alternator to charge the battery (regardless of switch position) IF I had
installed it back 10 years ago. The idea back then was that if the altern
ator failed, I could remove the battery and essential load from that circui
t by opening the switch. The diode (if I had installed it) would have prev
ent the very problem I encountered =93 that of the battery being exha
usted because it could get no voltage from the alternator due to the inadve
rtently opened switch. Why a diode and a switch =93 well, diodes can
fail, switches can fail =93 unlikely both would at the same time.
=93 In reality, I have never moved the switch from the Alternator con
nection position in 10 years of flying =93 until, of course, this inc
ident.=0A =0AThe idea of having the low voltage warning LED tied to the alt
ernator circuit was that it would give first notice (before the battery st
arted to drain) if there was a problem with alternator. The volt meter has
a toggle switch so I can monitor either alternator or battery voltage. U
nfortunately, I had it set to alternator and therefore it didn=99t re
gister the deteriorating battery voltage. Of course, if the switch in quest
ion is ON then alternator and battery voltage will read the same =93
so to check the battery voltage solely, I would need to open the Switch rem
oving the alternator temporarily from feeding the battery. =0A =0AThis al
l seemed reasonable 10 years ago, less so since the incident - as you might
imagine. Providing this so others may avoid my mistakes =93 certain
ly not trying to defend what in hindsight are obvious {:>) deficiencies in
my design.=0A =0A =0AEd=0A=0AEd Anderson=0ARv-6A N494BW Rotary Powered=0AMa
tthews, NC=0Aeanderson@carolina.rr.com=0A[http://www.andersonee.com/] http:
//www.andersonee.com=0A[http://www.dmack.net/mazda/index.html] http://www.d
mack.net/mazda/index.html=0A[http://www.flyrotary.com/] http://www.flyrotar
y.com/=0A[http://members.cox.net/rogersda/rotary/configs.htm] http://member
s.cox.net/rogersda/rotary/configs.htm#N494BW=0A[http://www.rotaryaviation.c
om/Rotorhead%20Truth.htm] http://www.rotaryaviation.com/Rotorhead%20Truth.h
tm[http://www.dmack.net/mazda/index.html] =0A=0A=0AFrom: owner-aeroelectric
-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics
.com] On Behalf Of Robert L. Nuckolls, III=0ASent: Tuesday, June 30, 2009 1
0:12 AM=0ATo: aeroelectric-list@matronics.com=0ASubject: RE: AeroElectric-L
ist: Re: Time to Battery Exhaustion=0A =0AAt 07:09 AM 6/30/2009, you wrote:
na.rr.com>=0A=0AHi Bob,=0A=0AThe "isolation diode" was a poor choice of wor
ds for the schokkty battery=0Afeed diode between alternator power and the e
ssential bus battery circuit.=0AIf I had installed that diode 10 years ago
(per your design) then having the=0Aswitch in the wrong position wouldn't h
ave affected the ability of the=0Abattery to get alternator voltage.=0A=0A
I'm still not getting a mental image of=0A how you had it wired. How d
oes the=0A existence or lack of the diode affect=0A connection between
battery and alternator?=0A=0A=0A=0AThe problem with my "low voltage warning
" indicator (both LED and Voltmeter)=0Awas they were on the alternator circ
uit and NOT the battery. Since the=0Aalternator was working fine and conti
nued to produce power (until the=0Adropping battery voltage opened the mast
er relay), these two devices never=0Aindicated low voltage. IF I had though
t to switch the voltmeter to the=0Abattery then I would likely have noticed
the decreasing battery voltage.=0A=0A=0A So have (or are you planning) y
ou movee the low=0A voltage sensing point in your system?=0A=0A Could y
ou sketch and scan the distribution=0A system and share with us? Normally
, alternator=0A has no way NOT to charge the battery if the=0A engine i
s running -AND- both the alternator=0A and battery control circuits are c
losed. I'm=0A having trouble visualizing how "both were =0A functioning
" but the alternator was still not=0A connected to the battery.=0A=0A=0A
=0AThanks for the battery drain curve, appears my system does not have as m
uch=0Acurrent drain as I had estimated. Also looks like the powered requir
ed for=0Astarting did not much affect the duration.=0A=0A While starters
take a lot of POWER it is for=0A just a few seconds. The total ENERGY is
quite=0A low. Even in large aircraft, the percentage of=0A battery ener
gy used to start is a small fraction=0A of the total. In this start curre
nt curve we=0A took off a Beechjet . . .=0A=0A[http://www.aeroelectric.co
m/Pictures/Curves/turbine_start_a.jpg] http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures
/Curves/turbine_start_a.jpg=0A=0A . . . it takes about 20 seconds for cra
nking=0A current to taper from 800A to 300A and another=0A 7 seconds to
go to zero. Yet this 44 a.h. battery=0A is tapped for only 5 to 6 percen
t of total=0A stored energy. In piston singles where the engine=0A star
ts readily, it's about half that total.=0A=0A You mentioned in the earlie
r post that you thought=0A you might have seriously whacked the battery's
=0A ability to store energy when you allowed it to be=0A so severely de
pleted. This is generally no big=0A deal. =0A=0A Brand new batteries s
ubjected to a series of 90%=0A depletion cycles will slowly drop in capac
ity with=0A each cycle. Most RG batteries are good for several=0A hundr
ed deep-cycles before they lose 20% of their=0A capacity.=0A=0A=0A=0A
Here's an exemplar cycle-life performance curve for a=0A lithium bat
tery . . . lead-acid curves are similar=0A they just don't go out to t
hose really big numbers.=0A But a single deep discharge of your batter
y followed=0A by a recharging activity does not seriously affect=0A
future performance.=0A=0A Now, leaving the master switch on and lea
ving the=0A battery discharged for a couple of weeks is another=0A
matter . . .=0A=0A=0A Bob . . .=0A=0A=0A__________ Information from E
SET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature database 3267 (20080714) __
________=0A=0AThe message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.=0A=0A=0A=0A
=0A__________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signa
ture database 3267 (20080714) __________=0A=0AThe message was checked by ES
ET NOD32 Antivirus.=0A=0A=0A=0A=0A__________ Information from ESET NOD32 An
tivirus, version of virus signature database 3267 (20080714) __________=0A
=0AThe message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.=0A=0A
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: AEC 9005-101 Low Voltage Monitor module not found |
At 11:09 AM 6/30/2009, you wrote:
>Bob,
>I am trying to build a Z-11 wiring scheme for now with eventual
>upgrade to dual batteries and alternators.
>
>The AEC Z-11 figure shows a generic Ford regulator and the AEC
>9005-101 Low Voltage Monitor Module. However, the Appendix Z notes
>for the Z-11 figure advises that "it features the B&C alternator
>control sytem (regulator, OV protection and LV warning in a single product)".
>
>I ran a search on the list and on the AEC website for the AEC
>9005-101 LVMM, but failed to find any reference for it. Have the AEC
>9005-101 LVMM and generic Ford regulator been phased out in favor of
>the comparatively costly LR-3 B&C alternator control system?
That particular product has been discontinued at
the 'Connection and will be replaced with the
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Catalog/AEC/9011/9011-700-1C.pdf
This is a multi-tasking product that can be used
for any combination of following monitoring/control:
Low volts annunciation on Bus
Low volts annunciation on Aux
Overvolts shutdown and annunciation on Bus
If you need something sooner you can consider
the LVWarn/ABMM module from
http://periheliondesign.com/lvwaabm.htm
or you can craft your own from the original
AEC design as described at:
http://www.aeroelectric.com/DIY/LV_Warn_Fab_and_Install.pdf
and built on ExpressPCB artwork supplied at:
http://www.aeroelectric.com/DIY/9005-301-1C_Fab.pcb
The AEC9011 will be available later this year.
I'm teaching my kids how to assemble and program
these critters. They'll be in production as soon
as I can get moved out of this house and the
kids get moved in.
Bob . . .
---------------------------------------
( . . . a long habit of not thinking )
( a thing wrong, gives it a superficial )
( appearance of being right . . . )
( )
( -Thomas Paine 1776- )
---------------------------------------
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: Noise Problem |
At 10:37 AM 6/30/2009, you wrote:
>
>It's pretty random. It's about the pitch of metal on metal. It almost
>sounds like someone is working in a workshop, throwing bits of scrap
>aluminum around. Completely random, but of the order of about one a
>second - certainly not a regular vibration type noise. Bursts of two or
>three and then silence for a couple of seconds. Apparently someone else
>has the same exact noise with the same behaviour on the Flightcom 403 in
>intercom mode. He described is as a bit like a snare drum which give
>you a feel for the pitch. It reduces with the squelch too.
Hmmm . . . beats me. Were the problem in my shop, I'd
have to break out the 'scope and signal tracer and start
poking around the innards of things.
Bob . . .
Message 10
INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Subject: | Re: Time to Battery Exhaustion |
At 10:02 AM 6/30/2009, you wrote:
>
>Ok, Bob, here is a crude sketch of the essential elements
>
>
> ALT B Lead ------------------- Aircraft
> Bus---------------------------------------------------- None Essential
Load
>
>| |
>
>| |
>
>| |
>
>Switch Diode (not installed at time of incident)
> Essential Bus Load ---------------------------- |----------
|
>
>| |
>
>Battery
>
>The alternator B lead feeds the aircraft main
>bus. The switch is designed to be closed during
>normal operation permitting the alternator to
>charge/ recharge the battery ' in this incident
>it became open ' therefore no alternator voltage
>to charge battery. The diode would have
>permitted the alternator to charge the battery
>(regardless of switch position) IF I had
>installed it back 10 years ago. The idea back
>then was that if the alternator failed, I could
>remove the battery and essential load from that
>circuit by opening the switch. The diode (if I
>had installed it) would have prevent the very
>problem I encountered ' that of the battery
>being exhausted because it could get no voltage
>from the alternator due to the inadvertently
>opened switch. Why a diode and a switch ' well,
>diodes can fail, switches can fail ' unlikely
>both would at the same time. ' In reality, I
>have never moved the switch from the Alternator
>connection position in 10 years of flying ' until, of course, this
incident.
Understand. Know that there are a host of reasons why
Z-11 is crafted the way it's illustrated in the
'Connection. This is a step-up from the legacy power
distribution common to 99.9% of all single-engine aircraft
ever flown.
The design goals call for main bus, battery and alternator
to be firmly in connection with each other. The purpose
of the endurance bus isolation diode is to prevent back-feeding
power from the e-bus while the e-bus alternate feed switch
is supplying power directly from the battery. The diode
has no function with respect to the relationship between
alternator and battery.
>
>The idea of having the low voltage warning LED
>tied to the alternator circuit was that it
>would give first notice (before the battery
>started to drain) if there was a problem with
>alternator. The volt meter has a toggle switch
>so I can monitor either alternator or battery
>voltage. Unfortunately, I had it set to
>alternator and therefore it didn=92t register the
>deteriorating battery voltage. Of course, if the
>switch in question is ON then alternator and
>battery voltage will read the same ' so to check
>the battery voltage solely, I would need to open
>the Switch removing the alternator temporarily from feeding the battery.
>
>This all seemed reasonable 10 years ago, less so
>since the incident - as you might
>imagine. Providing this so others may avoid my
>mistakes ' certainly not trying to defend what
>in hindsight are obvious {:>) deficiencies in my design.
Understand. Suggest you re-configure to Z-11 as soon
as practical if you you haven't already . . .
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: | Battery facts and myths redux . . . |
Since this topic seems to be simmering again on the list,
I thought it would be useful to share an excerpt from another
conversation concerning battery characteristics and performance:
>It is my understanding that a battery can fail in only one of three
>ways (modes):
> 1. An internal short circuit that results in a direct closed
> path from the (+) to the (-) terminals.
Never happens. Single cells might short thus
reducing a 12v battery to a 10v battery. This
causes the system to respond by overcharging
what it perceives is a seriously discharged
12v battery. Failure of other cells due to
overcharging is the secondary effect.
> 2. An internal open circuit that results in no path between the
> (+) and (-) terminals.
Yes . . . but very rare. Usually due to manufacturing
defect.
> 3. An internal resistence (I beleive this is correct) that
> results in the inability of the battery to provide power/accept a
> charge, but not 1 and 2.
All power sources have internal resistance. This
is inherent in any "non-perfect" device. The
resistance may be quite low (typically 10 milliohms
for a small 12v RG battery) but rises with time
as cell-stes in the battery begin to die off.
A battery that is ready to be replaced due to
loss of capacity might expect to see a 30-40%% increase
or so in internal resistance. Still capable of
cranking an engine but not capable of meeting
endurance mode requirements. This would not be
classed as a failure but an end of life event.
>Open Circuit (#2):
>A. For two batteries: It would not affect the second parallel
>battery. The only effect on the system would be to reduce capacity
>by the failed battery's contribution.
Yes.
>B. For a single battery: The effect on the system would be the
>same as no battery. If the alternator were running, power would
>continue to be provided subject to the conditions that would take
>the alternator off line, at which time no power would be
>provided. Otherwise no power would be provided.
Yes.
>Internal Resistance (#3):
>A. For two batteries: It would not effect the second parallel
>battery. The effect on the system would be to reduce capacity by
>the failed battery's contribution, in some proportion to the
>increase in resistance. In other words, the failed battery would
>not drain energy from the second battery.
Yes.
>B. For a single battery: The effect on the system would be to
>reduce capacity in some proportion to the increase in
>resistence. At some point the capacity would be reduced to below
>that necessary to keep the alternator on line, at which time no
>power would be provided.
Demonstrated internal resistance would/should
never be allowed to degrade to a "no power"
condition. This is a service life issue that
should be addressed as a preventative maintenance
program on the airplane.
>Short Circuit (#3):
> A. For two batteries: It would cause an immediate drain on the
> second parallel battery.
Yes.
>With no means to isolate the failed battery it would cause a failure
>of the two battery system.
The OK battery would not be at risk but its
stored energy would combine with alternator output
to overcharge the 10v battery.
>If the alternator were running, and the failed battery system were
>not isolated, the drain on the whole system would excede the
>alternator capacity and the whole system would fail.
No, the alternator MIGHT go into current limited
operation at the 10V level but in a matter of
minutes, overcharged cells in the failed battery
would outgas, their internal resistance would rise
and the failure would essentially isolate itself
over time. This presumes of course that the battery
has a demonstrated ability to go into passive failure
under severe overcharge conditions. Batteries qualified
for military and aircraft use are subjected to such
tests in the lab. It's likely that even a commercial
off the shelf product would be similarly disposed to
go quietly off into the sunset.
>If the failed battery system were isolated, it would have the same
>effect as no battery except that it is probable that the alternator
>would be off line due to reduced system voltage at the time of
>isolation and the whole system would be failed.
No. As long as the bus voltage stays above one volt
or so, the alternator never "quits". In the shorted
cell case, there's no reason to expect bus voltage to
drop below 10-11 volts while being feed by the
alternator. If the battery is well behaved in the
shorted cell scenario, then I would expect the low
voltage condition to last perhaps 30 minutes before
the failed battery unhooks itself.
>B. For a single battery: It would have the same effect as A. for
>the failure of the two battery system.
For a single battery, single shorted cell, the system
voltage would depress to 11 or so volts and the combined
output of alternator and battery would go to work boiling
of the liquid in the remaining good cells. Passive
disconnect followed by return to normal bus voltage
would be expected.
>III. Detection (assuming a system volt meter and alternator load meter)
>
>Opern Circuit (#2) and Internal Resistance (#3):
>A. For two batteries: At start up, it might be detectable as
>reduced or insufficinet cranking capactiy. In flight, it would not
>be detectable as long as the alternator was functioning and loads
>were below the alternator capacity. If loads exceeded alternator
>capacity, it might be detectable by a greater than expected drop in
>system voltage in relation to load. If the alternator failed, it
>would be detectable by a greater than expected drop in system
>voltage in relation to load.
If the alternator is on line, bus is supported at
the setpoint votlage and low voltage warning would
be dark. If the alternator goes off line, then
the bus would still fall to the expected 12.5 or so
volts and decay from there depending on load. The
low voltage warning light would be ON but you would
obviously not have access to the expected capacity
of both batteries. This would take some time to
discover when expected endurance performance falls
short by about 1/2.
>B. For a single battery: At start up it would be detecable as zero
>or insufficient cranking capacity. In flight, basically the same as
>A except that the drop in system voltage would be more severe and
>detectable, and with the alternator failed, the there woul be no
>power under #2.
>
>It that understanding correct??
Essentially
>Short Circuit (#1):
>A. For one and two batteries: It would be detectable as an immediate
>drop in system voltage and if not isolated immediately, failure of
>the whole system. Even if isolated immediately, it is probable
>that the whole system would be failed due to the initial
>drop in system voltage taking the alternator off line.
No, a shorted cell doesn't take the
whole system down. There would be a
momentary drop in voltage probably
annunciated by low voltage warning
and paired with alternator loadmeter
showing a maxed out machine. But as
the still functioning cells are cooked
off, voltage would rise and the alternator
output would drop back to the value
demanded by system loads.
Probability of cell shorting is exceedingly
low because the typical RG battery has
physical barriers of porous plastic and/or
glass mat fiber between plates . . .
Emacs!
Emacs!
Emacs!
As you can see in these views on a Concorde RG
battery, alternate plates are completely bagged
in fiberglas and plastic. No shorted cells in
this product.
All of these hypothetical failures presume that
an alternator is sufficiently cooled to tolerate
current limited operation for a period of time.
They also presume benign response to overcharging
that is demanded of batteries qualified to
aviation and military service.
Bob . . .
Message 12
INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Subject: | Re: Time to Battery Exhaustion |
You're welcome, Jon
That's the entire intention - to share my screw-ups, so that other's won't
make the same ones - advance the state of the art - make a new one {:>).
Ed
Ed Anderson
Rv-6A N494BW Rotary Powered
Matthews, NC
eanderson@carolina.rr.com
<http://www.andersonee.com> http://www.andersonee.com
<http://www.dmack.net/mazda/index.html>
http://www.dmack.net/mazda/index.html
http://www.flyrotary.com/
<http://members.cox.net/rogersda/rotary/configs.htm>
http://members.cox.net/rogersda/rotary/configs.htm#N494BW
http://www.rotaryaviation.com/Rotorhead%20Truth.htm
<http://www.dmack.net/mazda/index.html>
_____
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of
jon@finleyweb.net
Sent: Tuesday, June 30, 2009 1:00 PM
Subject: RE: FW: AeroElectric-List: Re: Time to Battery Exhaustion
Thank you Ed,
I have learned a number of things due to your willingness to share your
experience and system configuration.
Jon Finley
N314JF - Q2 - Subaru EJ-22
http://www.finleyweb.net/Q2Subaru.aspx
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: Noise Problem |
Maybe it would only serve novelty purposes, but it would be interesting to
me to be able to hear these various sounds. Has anyone tried to record
anything like this? Share it on the web?
Regards,
Matt-
> <nuckolls.bob@aeroelectric.com>
>
> At 10:37 AM 6/30/2009, you wrote:
>>
>>It's pretty random. It's about the pitch of metal on metal. It almost
>>sounds like someone is working in a workshop, throwing bits of scrap
>>aluminum around. Completely random, but of the order of about one a
>>second - certainly not a regular vibration type noise. Bursts of two or
>>three and then silence for a couple of seconds. Apparently someone else
>>has the same exact noise with the same behaviour on the Flightcom 403 in
>>intercom mode. He described is as a bit like a snare drum which give
>>you a feel for the pitch. It reduces with the squelch too.
>
> Hmmm . . . beats me. Were the problem in my shop, I'd
> have to break out the 'scope and signal tracer and start
> poking around the innards of things.
>
> Bob . . .
>
>
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: | Race timing help |
I just participated in a type club speed event (without lawyers we'd call it
a race) and the time keeping got unbelievably screwed up for such a small
group (18 planes). Even though there are classes and staggered starts we got
folks crossing the finish tip to tip at pattern altitude. Suffice to say
that human errors on both the pilots and timers parts caused a lot of grief.
Sooo... what kind of technology is out there to assist? All we really need
is start and finish times for each plane. It could be plane based, ground
based or a combo but it needs to be affordable for 20-30 planes to use and
able to deliver the results quickly, e.g. a download and analysis of
everyone's 396/496 bread crumb trail probably won't do. I was kinda thinking
of giant barcodes under the wing and a 10 KW scanner at the finish point;-)
Hopefully someone knows of something simpler, cheaper and more elegant.
What's available?
Thanks,
Greg Young
Message 15
INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Subject: | Re: Race timing help |
Many of us in the SARL (www.sportairrace.org) purchased low cost GPS
data loggers to analyze our own performance. It records at 1sec
(programmable) resolution, Lat, Long, Speed, and Alt for about 5hrs,
more at lower res. The data can then be uploaded into Google Earth and
viewed. It is very easy to mark the crossing of start/finish lines,
turn points, etc. From that, you can derive your TRUE course timing -
much more accurately than a human centric process. Eventually, the
races will be timed off of these units instead of human timers and turn
point observers.
http://www.globalsat.com.tw/eng/product_detail_00000090.htm
This is the one I use, many others are out there. Be sure the one you
choose has the ability to output or export to .GPX format. This is the
"standard" GPS data format that is expected by most data formatting
sites and programs. I also use http://www.gpsvisualizer.com/ to
colorize my track by speed, add a semi-transparent wall connected to the
ground, and other things. Very neat stuff. It sure lets you know if
you blow a turn or wander in altitude/heading. My closest competitor
and I share our data and superimpose our tracks on GoogleEarth to see
how each others performance compared.
At less than $100...this things are golden in my book!
James Redmon
Berkut #013/Race 13
www.berkut13.com
2007 SARL Silver National Champion
----- Original Message -----
From: Greg Young
To: aeroelectric-list@matronics.com
Sent: Tuesday, June 30, 2009 9:54 PM
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Race timing help
I just participated in a type club speed event (without lawyers we'd
call it a race) and the time keeping got unbelievably screwed up for
such a small group (18 planes). Even though there are classes and
staggered starts we got folks crossing the finish tip to tip at pattern
altitude. Suffice to say that human errors on both the pilots and timers
parts caused a lot of grief. Sooo... what kind of technology is out
there to assist? All we really need is start and finish times for each
plane. It could be plane based, ground based or a combo but it needs to
be affordable for 20-30 planes to use and able to deliver the results
quickly, e.g. a download and analysis of everyone's 396/496 bread crumb
trail probably won't do. I was kinda thinking of giant barcodes under
the wing and a 10 KW scanner at the finish point;-) Hopefully someone
knows of something simpler, cheaper and more elegant. What's available?
Thanks,
Greg Young
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! --
|