Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 07:22 AM - Re: Re: Load Monitoring (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
2. 08:03 AM - Re: Z-31A question (Ian)
3. 08:37 AM - Re: Load Monitoring (al38kit)
4. 09:20 AM - Re: Z-31A question (Roger)
5. 09:26 AM - Alternator charging battery (Charles Brame)
6. 09:28 AM - Re: Z-31A question (Dj Merrill)
7. 09:44 AM - Re: Re: Load Monitoring (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
8. 10:05 AM - Re: Re: Load Monitoring (Ken)
9. 10:05 AM - Re: Z-31A question (Terry Watson)
10. 10:54 AM - Re: Load Monitoring (al38kit)
11. 12:17 PM - Re: Re: Load Monitoring (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
12. 04:15 PM - Re: Alternator charging battery (Bob McCallum)
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: Load Monitoring |
At 09:03 PM 8/1/2009, you wrote:
>
>Sorry to not word the question better regarding the shunts.
>
>I was generally thinking of a design along the lines of Z-14...my
>thought was to run with the crossfeed tie closed in normal operation
>and use both alternators to feed the tied busses...
>
>If that is a bad idea, then I'll run split busses.
The cross-tie is used only when one alternator has
failed and there's a useful mode of operation where
one alternator can feed equipment on both sides.
The cross-tie contactor is closed only for engine
cranking and single-alternator operations.
>My monitor should function the same way, regardless of whether the
>buss tie is open or closed...that is where the question regarding
>the shunts enters the picture.
If you've done your homework (load analysis) then
the amount of power required of either alternator is
known before-hand for all flight conditions. In
other words, your plan-A, plan-B . . . plan-x execution
should not depend on reading an ammeter. But if your
electrical system monitoring device(s) come with
hall effect sensors, then they can go on the alternator
b-leads. For the most part, current displays are most
useful on the ground as trouble shooting assists.
Run each alternator with its own, stand alone regulator
and ov protection . . . and if your glass panels do not
include active notification of low voltage, then that
feature should be part of your instrumentation planing
for both sides.
What airplane are you building where you think you
can get a good return on investment for Z-14?
Bob . . .
---------------------------------------
( . . . a long habit of not thinking )
( a thing wrong, gives it a superficial )
( appearance of being right . . . )
( )
( -Thomas Paine 1776- )
---------------------------------------
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: Z-31A question |
All,
I've reluctantly unsubscribed to this excellent list due the
over-the-top amount of emails. Here are some tips on how to reduce the
quantity of traffic (had 64 emails on returning from Oshkosh):
1. Don't create an email just to say something like "thanks" or "I
agree" or just to be "chatty".
2. Don't reply to the list when you're addressing an individual
request, like "yeah, I'd be interested in buying that from you".
3. Think twice about EVERY email you send, because it's going to a LOT
of people, unless you decide to send it only to one other person.
If you don't know how to address an individual rather than the list,
just look at the "to" line. If it says
"aeroelectric-list@matronics.com" we all get it. You can overwrite this
with the specific sender's email address.
There are many other great suggestions that could be made on how to get
the best out of bulletin boards.
OK, bye for now.
Ian Brown
On Fri, 2009-07-31 at 09:50 -0500, Robert L. Nuckolls, III wrote:
>
> At 09:59 AM 7/30/2009, you wrote:
> ><johngoodman@earthlink.net>
> >
> >Bob,
> >Z-31A is for a Military Style Ground Power Jack. I understand the
> >diode and OVM-14 on the Ground Power Contactor, but is the
> >diode/jumper necessary on the Existing Battery Contactor?
>
> Yes. The jumper turns the 4-terminal contactor into
> a 3-terminal contactor. The diode or other transient
> trapper across the coil is always a good idea too.
>
> >Also, when do you think you will be filling existing orders for OVM-14s?
>
> Our shops look like a train-wreck right now. I cleared
> some space on a table yesterday and put a bunch of OVM-14s
> together and filled all existing orders. Also put a few
> on the shelf.
>
> If you had one on order, you should have received the
> e-mail notices from the credit card company and a packing
> list from the 'Connection.
>
>
> 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: Load Monitoring |
Bob,
I think we have a numbers of things that have come up regarding my original question...which
was inquiring about the 50mv shunts and their price, which was the
question du jour.
But to answer your question, I'm working on a rebuild of an Express (four place,
low wing composite...family mobile, X-C plane)...It has an IO-520, three blade
prop. I already have the 60-70 amp alternator belt driven alternator and the
B&C gear driven unit.
As I don't plan to put in a vacuum system, the Z-14 design appears to be a good
choice.
Is there something about the Plane Power regulator that you don't like?
I'm open to ideas, but using a regulator that was designed to load share seems
like a good idea, but if it isn't, it's easy to go with the open tie buss design.
I've flown a lot of big airplanes where tying the busses together is ops normal.
I've had some thought of trying this too. If it is, or turns out to be a bad
idea, all I need to do is open the tie buss relay.
I'll do all the normal buss load analysis and thought that an easy way to monitor
loads would be to use your shunt, along with the JPI monitor. This monitor
has user settable alarms for current and voltage.
What are your thoughts on the shunts in this application? I don't have any hall
effect ammeters right now and as the JPI has two shunt type ammeters available,
I thought it would be a good idea to use them...
What about the Plane Power regulators? From talking to the owner of the company,
they work in tandem by turning each alternator "ON" for the same period of
time. He claims that dissimilar sized alternators can easily be used in this
type of setup. It's normally used in twin engine aircraft, with one buss.
I'm not attempting to be a heretic, just exploring other options...I have almost
all the parts that I have scrounged second hand (Including the JPI monitor)...
How about "them shunts"...?
Cheers,
Al
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=255643#255643
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: Z-31A question |
Ian,
If the quantity of e-mails bothers you, then why not just opt for the
"Digest" only! This will insure you get all the info in a format you can
scan through quickly, all with only ONE e-mail.
Roger
----- Original Message -----
From: "Ian" <ixb@videotron.ca>
Sent: Sunday, August 02, 2009 10:59 AM
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Z-31A question
>
> All,
> I've reluctantly unsubscribed to this excellent list due the
> over-the-top amount of emails. Here are some tips on how to reduce the
> quantity of traffic (had 64 emails on returning from Oshkosh):
>
> 1. Don't create an email just to say something like "thanks" or "I
> agree" or just to be "chatty".
>
> 2. Don't reply to the list when you're addressing an individual
> request, like "yeah, I'd be interested in buying that from you".
>
> 3. Think twice about EVERY email you send, because it's going to a LOT
> of people, unless you decide to send it only to one other person.
>
> If you don't know how to address an individual rather than the list,
> just look at the "to" line. If it says
> "aeroelectric-list@matronics.com" we all get it. You can overwrite this
> with the specific sender's email address.
>
> There are many other great suggestions that could be made on how to get
> the best out of bulletin boards.
>
> OK, bye for now.
>
> Ian Brown
>
> On Fri, 2009-07-31 at 09:50 -0500, Robert L. Nuckolls, III wrote:
>> <nuckolls.bob@aeroelectric.com>
>>
>> At 09:59 AM 7/30/2009, you wrote:
>> ><johngoodman@earthlink.net>
>> >
>> >Bob,
>> >Z-31A is for a Military Style Ground Power Jack. I understand the
>> >diode and OVM-14 on the Ground Power Contactor, but is the
>> >diode/jumper necessary on the Existing Battery Contactor?
>>
>> Yes. The jumper turns the 4-terminal contactor into
>> a 3-terminal contactor. The diode or other transient
>> trapper across the coil is always a good idea too.
>>
>> >Also, when do you think you will be filling existing orders for OVM-14s?
>>
>> Our shops look like a train-wreck right now. I cleared
>> some space on a table yesterday and put a bunch of OVM-14s
>> together and filled all existing orders. Also put a few
>> on the shelf.
>>
>> If you had one on order, you should have received the
>> e-mail notices from the credit card company and a packing
>> list from the 'Connection.
>>
>>
>> Bob . . .
>>
>> ---------------------------------------
>> ( . . . a long habit of not thinking )
>> ( a thing wrong, gives it a superficial )
>> ( appearance of being right . . . )
>> ( )
>> ( -Thomas Paine 1776- )
>> ---------------------------------------
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
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: | Alternator charging battery |
Bob, et. al.,
I am aware that the wrong battery charger will overcharge and
ultimately ruin a PC-680 type battery. My 60 amp B&C alternator puts
out a lot of amps right after engine start, and has that capability
indefinitely. Of course, the regulator maintains the voltage at a
reasonable level. But what determines the alternator amperage output
during battery charging and after the battery is fully charged. It
would seem to me that during a several hour flight, the battery could
be over charged and damaged by the alternator output. That apparently
does not happen, but I don't understand why not.
Charlie Brame
RV-6A N11CB
San Antonio
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: Z-31A question |
On 8/2/2009 12:18 PM, Roger wrote:
> If the quantity of e-mails bothers you, then why not just opt for the
> "Digest" only!
It also helps if people do not include the ENTIRE copy of the previous
message to which they are replying. Snipping everything but the
relevant parts help to make the digest version much easier to read.
-Dj
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: Load Monitoring |
At 10:35 AM 8/2/2009, you wrote:
>
>Bob,
>
>I think we have a numbers of things that have come up regarding my
>original question...which was inquiring about the 50mv shunts and
>their price, which was the question du jour.
oops . . . yeah. If your system uses 50mv shunts both
I and B&C have them in stock in various sizes. I can
cut larger shunts down to smaller applications as
well. I think we both get $25.00/ea for them.
>But to answer your question, I'm working on a rebuild of an Express
>(four place, low wing composite...family mobile, X-C plane)...It has
>an IO-520, three blade prop. I already have the 60-70 amp
>alternator belt driven alternator and the B&C gear driven unit.
Oh yeah, I recall that now.
>As I don't plan to put in a vacuum system, the Z-14 design appears
>to be a good choice.
Agreed
>Is there something about the Plane Power regulator that you don't like?
Not a thing. I'm sure their product performs as advertised. But
it's not clear that they are true load sharing devices driven
by DIRECT MEASUREMENT of output from all power generating
devices. For example, the Hawkers have two engine driven
generators and one APU driven generator. ALL three can be
tied to the one bus at the same time. Each generator will
be loaded to it's proportionate share of the load based on
individual capability (the APU generator is smaller than
the other two). This isn't rocket science but it's not
trivial either.
>I'm open to ideas, but using a regulator that was designed to load
>share seems like a good idea, but if it isn't, it's easy to go with
>the open tie buss design.
That's the original design goal for Z-14 for a variety
of reasons . . . not the least of which is the hassle/
expense of true load-sharing regulators. I've designed
and proposed two different load sharing regulators over
the years. All worked as advertised but were markedly
more expensive than the stand-alone, single alternator
regulators. We never went to production with them in
spite of the fact that the Cessna and Beech light
twins really needed them. Today, I could do a uP based
regulator for a small fraction of the cost and much
better performance . . . neat stuff that software!
The really cool thing about the old carbon pile
regulator for generators is their ease of paralleling
using the relatively high voltage drop in generator's
compensation windings as a crude shunt. See:
http://aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Schematics/Parallel_Aircraft_Generators.jpg
a simple addition of a few turns of wire in the
regulator wired to cross-tied compensation windings
did a pretty good job of paralleling the generators
with a minimum parts count. Alternators are a whole
other problem . . .
>I've flown a lot of big airplanes where tying the busses together is
>ops normal. I've had some thought of trying this too. If it is, or
>turns out to be a bad idea, all I need to do is open the tie buss relay.
Yup, wiring the 2-50 switch as illustrated gives you
auto-tie for cranking and leaves the bus-tie contactor
open unless selected by moving to the opposite position.
>I'll do all the normal buss load analysis and thought that an easy
>way to monitor loads would be to use your shunt, along with the JPI
>monitor. This monitor has user settable alarms for current and voltage.
Very well. We can get the proper shunts into your
possession through several venues.
>What are your thoughts on the shunts in this application? I don't
>have any hall effect ammeters right now and as the JPI has two shunt
>type ammeters available, I thought it would be a good idea to use them...
If they're already in place, then putting them
to useful service is not a bad idea. The shunts
don't weigh much either.
>What about the Plane Power regulators? From talking to the owner of
>the company, they work in tandem by turning each alternator "ON" for
>the same period of time. He claims that dissimilar sized
>alternators can easily be used in this type of setup. It's normally
>used in twin engine aircraft, with one buss.
In that situation you MUST do something to
distribute the loads. Making two IDENTICAL
alternators, turning THE SAME SPEED approximately
share loads by what I BELIEVE Plane Power does is
indeed practical. But I that control philosophy
wouldn't work with a 60/20 or 40/20 combination
like Z-14 where the alternators are different from
each other and turn different speeds.
>I'm not attempting to be a heretic, just exploring other options...I
>have almost all the parts that I have scrounged second hand
>(Including the JPI monitor)...
Understand and no fault perceived. Sounds
like you've got a workable plan that needs
at most a bit of tweaking.
>How about "them shunts"...?
Can fix you up. You can place an order by ordering
a dual ammeter kit from the website and enter quantity
of "0" but put values in for the shunts you need.
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: Load Monitoring |
With Z-14 normally running with isolated alternators, I have instant
notification of either alternator failing due low voltage. With
paralleled alternators I presume you would add something like low
current warnings (independent of the regulator) to warn of a bad alternator.
Ken
>> Is there something about the Plane Power regulator that you don't like?
>
> Not a thing. I'm sure their product performs as advertised. But
> it's not clear that they are true load sharing devices driven
> by DIRECT MEASUREMENT of output from all power generating
> devices. For example, the Hawkers have two engine driven
> generators and one APU driven generator. ALL three can be
> tied to the one bus at the same time. Each generator will
> be loaded to it's proportionate share of the load based on
> individual capability (the APU generator is smaller than
> the other two). This isn't rocket science but it's not
> trivial either.
>
>> I'm open to ideas, but using a regulator that was designed to load
>> share seems like a good idea, but if it isn't, it's easy to go with
>> the open tie buss design.
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 |
|
I think Matt's rules and guidelines work just fine.
Terry
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Ian
Sent: Sunday, August 02, 2009 8:00 AM
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Z-31A question
All,
I've reluctantly unsubscribed to this excellent list due the
over-the-top amount of emails. Here are some tips on how to reduce the
quantity of traffic (had 64 emails on returning from Oshkosh):
1. Don't create an email just to say something like "thanks" or "I
agree" or just to be "chatty".
2. Don't reply to the list when you're addressing an individual
request, like "yeah, I'd be interested in buying that from you".
3. Think twice about EVERY email you send, because it's going to a LOT
of people, unless you decide to send it only to one other person.
If you don't know how to address an individual rather than the list,
just look at the "to" line. If it says
"aeroelectric-list@matronics.com" we all get it. You can overwrite this
with the specific sender's email address.
There are many other great suggestions that could be made on how to get
the best out of bulletin boards.
OK, bye for now.
Ian Brown
On Fri, 2009-07-31 at 09:50 -0500, Robert L. Nuckolls, III wrote:
<nuckolls.bob@aeroelectric.com>
>
> At 09:59 AM 7/30/2009, you wrote:
> ><johngoodman@earthlink.net>
> >
> >Bob,
> >Z-31A is for a Military Style Ground Power Jack. I understand the
> >diode and OVM-14 on the Ground Power Contactor, but is the
> >diode/jumper necessary on the Existing Battery Contactor?
>
> Yes. The jumper turns the 4-terminal contactor into
> a 3-terminal contactor. The diode or other transient
> trapper across the coil is always a good idea too.
>
> >Also, when do you think you will be filling existing orders for OVM-14s?
>
> Our shops look like a train-wreck right now. I cleared
> some space on a table yesterday and put a bunch of OVM-14s
> together and filled all existing orders. Also put a few
> on the shelf.
>
> If you had one on order, you should have received the
> e-mail notices from the credit card company and a packing
> list from the 'Connection.
>
>
> Bob . . .
>
> ---------------------------------------
> ( . . . a long habit of not thinking )
> ( a thing wrong, gives it a superficial )
> ( appearance of being right . . . )
> ( )
> ( -Thomas Paine 1776- )
> ---------------------------------------
>
>
>
>
>
>
Message 10
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Load Monitoring |
Bob,
I really appreciate your insight into this stuff. I'm not just "kicking the tires"
but really plane some installation in the near future and I'm just getting
stuff lined up...
Regarding the PP regulators, I'm sure Les said that alternators of dissimilar outputs
would load share based upon their respective max values...If, for example,
you used the 20/60 amp combo and required 40 amps, each alternator would be
tasked with 50% of the load...but I'll check into it...I believe he said that
it could be done by each regulator being fired up for the same amount of time...does
that make sense to you?
I'm not sure why that would work, but I'm pretty sure that's what he said was the
basis for the idea. I believe both regulators are connected by a single wire
that gives the feedback of them "knowing" how long to stay on.
Probably my final question on this topic: If more current is needed from an alternator
than it is able to make, what happens?
I expect that most of these alternators will produce more than the rated current.
At PP they told me that the 60 amp will easily put out more than 70. I'm
not advocating that anyone try it, and I expect there are a lot of bad things
that would happen if one tried to do it for a long time. Excess heat and premature
failure are two things I can think of, or even catastrophic failure of the
unit...what I'm wondering is...what would occur if, say, the 60 amp unit failed
and only the 20 amp unit stayed on line when the overall requirement was
50 amps.
Would the 20 amp unit continue to do it's job to the best of it's ability, with
the battery(s) picking up the slack for as long as they could, or would something
worse happen?
I'm wondering as this could be the situation IF the 60 amp unit failed and one
continued with the 20. I expect I could get by indefinitely on the 20 as long
it's pitot heat and/or lights were needed...just wondering if when that occurred,
what would happen.
I suspect that the alternator would do what it could and that the battery(s) would
pick up the slack with the buss voltage going down from 13.8-14 to whatever
voltage the batteries could supplement...like 12.2 something...
What do you think?
Sorry if this is an old question, but I'm new to the forum and didn't find anything
with a search.
Thanks again,
Al
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=255670#255670
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: Load Monitoring |
At 12:04 PM 8/2/2009, you wrote:
>
>With Z-14 normally running with isolated alternators, I have instant
>notification of either alternator failing due low voltage. With
>paralleled alternators I presume you would add something like low
>current warnings (independent of the regulator) to warn of a bad alternator.
>Ken
The B&C alternator controllers were designed such that
LV warning is powered independently of the lead that
powers the alternator. The idea was to maintain as much
separation as possible between jelly-bean parts that
"regulate" as those which "warn".
Newer designs with micro-controllers often tempt the
designer to roll it all up in one piece of silicon.
The legacy design goals for separation suggest this
is not a good idea. So even if we were to develop
a processor based regulator, the OV/LV protection
and warning would still be electrically independent
even if they shared the same enclosure.
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: | Alternator charging battery |
Charlie;
The wrong battery charger will eventually overcharge and ruin any
battery.
Your 60 amp B&C alternator puts out whatever current is required (up to
approximately 60 amps or so) to recharge your battery and support system
loads whether right after starting or any other time it=92s turning
quickly
enough to do so. (Always assuming everything is operating correctly of
course) Yes it has the ability to do that indefinitely. The voltage
regulator regulates the output of the alternator to maintain the system
voltage at the required level, approximately 14 volts. If the battery is
charged, then no more current will flow into it and the alternator will
just
be supplying system loads. Should the loads exceed the alternators
ability
to supply current then the battery will take up the slack. When system
loads
are again reduced below the 60+ amps able to be supplied by the
alternator
alone, then the excess current will recharge the battery once again
until it
is fully charged at which point the alternator output will reduce to
match
the system requirements. The only way to overcharge the battery is for
the
regulator to fail and cause the system voltage to rise too high. Hence
the
desirability of over voltage protection. The alternator only generates
whatever current is required not its full rated output. Just like your
battery might be capable of supplying 1000 amps, but if all you have
connected is a single 6 watt light bulb, it will only supply the =BD amp
or so
required by that light bulb, not the full 1000 amps it=92s capable of.
Bob McC
> -----Original Message----
> -
> From: owner-
> aeroelectric-list-
> server@matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-
> aeroelectric-list-
> server@matronics.com]
> On Behalf Of Charles
> Brame
> Sent: Sunday, August
> 02, 2009 12:24 PM
> To: AeroElectric List
> Subject: AeroElectric-
> List: Alternator charging
> battery
>
> --> AeroElectric-List
> message posted by:
> Charles Brame
> <chasb@satx.rr.com>
>
> Bob, et. al.,
>
> I am aware that the
> wrong battery charger
> will overcharge and
> ultimately ruin a PC-680
> type battery. My 60 amp
> B&C alternator puts
> out a lot of amps right
> after engine start, and
> has that capability
> indefinitely. Of course,
> the regulator maintains
> the voltage at a
> reasonable level. But
> what determines the
> alternator amperage
> output
> during battery charging
> and after the battery is
> fully charged. It
> would seem to me that
> during a several hour
> flight, the battery could
> be over charged and
> damaged by the
> alternator output. That
> apparently
> does not happen, but I
> don't understand why
> not.
>
> Charlie Brame
> RV-6A N11CB
> San Antonio
>
>
>
>
> _-
> ==============
> ==============
> ==============
> ==============
> AeroElectric-List Email
> Forum -
> List Features Navigator
> to browse
> utilities such as List
> Un/Subscription,
> Download, 7-Day
> Browse, Chat, FAQ,
> much much more:
> http://www.matronics.c
> om/Navigator?AeroElect
> ric-List
> _-
> ==============
> ==============
> ==============
> ==============
> MATRONICS WEB
> FORUMS -
> also available via the
> Web Forums!
> http://forums.matronics
> .com
> _-
> ==============
> ==============
> ==============
> ==============
> Contribution Web Site -
> generous support!
> Matt Dralle, List Admin.
> http://www.matronics.c
> om/contribution
> _-
> ==============
> ==============
> ==============
> ==============
>
>
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! --
|