Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 12:40 AM - Alternator cooling (Mick Muller)
2. 04:24 AM - Diodes vs. Bi-Directional Zeners for Contactors (mikeeasley)
3. 05:08 AM - Re: Diodes vs. Bi-Directional Zeners for Contactors (Ernest Christley)
4. 07:15 AM - Re: Diodes vs. Bi-Directional Zeners for Contactors ()
5. 07:17 AM - Re: Control Stick Switches (glen matejcek)
6. 07:32 AM - Re: Diodes vs. Bi-Directional Zeners for Contactors (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
7. 07:34 AM - Re: Alternator cooling (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
8. 08:16 AM - Re: Diodes vs. Bi-Directional Zeners for Contactors (mikeeasley)
9. 08:23 AM - Re: Re: Control Stick Switches ()
10. 09:27 AM - Re: Diodes vs. Bi-Directional Zeners for Contactors (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
11. 10:12 AM - Control Stick/Flap Switches (Bill Bradburry)
12. 10:28 AM - Filter Capacitor Wiring (messydeer)
13. 10:31 AM - Re: Control Stick/Flap Switches (Bruce Gray)
14. 11:02 AM - Re: Diodes vs. Bi-Directional Zeners for Contactors (Colyn Case)
15. 11:13 AM - Re: Control Stick/Flap Switches (Bill Bradburry)
16. 11:13 AM - Re: Control Stick/Flap Switches (peter laurence)
17. 02:44 PM - Re: B (Steve Leonard)
18. 03:10 PM - Re: B (Bob McCallum)
19. 03:12 PM - Re: B (Jeff Carpenter)
20. 03:15 PM - Re: B (Peter Pengilly)
21. 03:22 PM - Re: B (Richard Tasker)
22. 03:22 PM - Re: B (Matt Prather)
23. 03:37 PM - Re: B (Ron Quillin)
24. 04:26 PM - Re: B (Jim Wickert)
25. 04:53 PM - Re: Control Stick/Flap Switches (James Robinson)
26. 04:53 PM - Re: B (Franz Fux)
27. 05:00 PM - Re: Re: Diodes vs. Bi-Directional Zeners for Contactors (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
28. 05:10 PM - Re: B (Henador Titzoff)
29. 05:23 PM - Re: B (peter laurence)
30. 05:42 PM - Re: B (Ron Quillin)
31. 07:45 PM - Re: Filter Capacitor Wiring (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
32. 09:06 PM - Re: Filter Capacitor Wiring (messydeer)
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: | Alternator cooling |
Thanks Jim, its neither of those two - its the L60 belt driven alternator
that replaces the standard Auto alternator from the front of the engine..
I also have installed the SD-8 as a backup on the vacuum pad.
The documentation did not say anything about cooling for it either.
Mick
> ________________________________ Message 6
> _____________________________________
>
>
> Time: 05:55:19 PM PST US
> From: "J. Mcculley" <mcculleyja@starpower.net>
> Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: B & C Alternator cooling
>
>
> Which B&C unit are you installing----the SD-8 or SD-20? The SD-8 is
> driven off the vacuum pump pad at the top right rear of Lycomings
> accessory case and I think the SD-20 is also mounted there. They are
> both PM units with external regulators provided. The SD-8 is happy
> without any external cooling air provision. Don't "think" that is any
> different for the SD-20.
>
> Jim McCulley
> ==================================================================================
>
>
> Mick Muller wrote:
>> <mmul6471@bigpond.net.au>
>>
>> Howdy All,
>> I recently bought a B & C alternator for my RV and am installing it to
>> replace the ole internally regulated automotive one. The old Auto type
>> alternator
>> required some fancy cooling work to bring blast air into the face of the
>> unit. Of course no part of the existing set up will work with the B & C
>> unit.
>> To anyone who has fitted on or knows anything about them, do you also
>> have to cool the B & CF unit??
>> I was hoping that with its internal cooling fan going the right way, it
>> would not
>> need fancy cooling shrouds etc. I posted a question to B & C but have
>> had no response from them as yet.
>> Mick
>>
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: | Diodes vs. Bi-Directional Zeners for Contactors |
I'm building a new power grid for a customer and the research on contactors ended
up with some digging on the diodes that we use across the coils of the contactors,
and whether they're necessary. We're using a couple Tyco Kilovac EV200s
and since they have pigtail wires instead of terminals, it's tougher to install
the diodes. Tyco says we don't need "back EMF protection" with the EV200s.
But we are also using the LEV100 contactors, which do need the back EMF protection.
Tyco has a couple documents that explain the various methods to handle the back
EMF.
http://relays.tycoelectronics.com/appnotes/app_pdfs/13c3311.pdf
http://relays.tycoelectronics.com/appnotes/app_pdfs/13c3264.pdf
Eric at Perihelion Design sells SnapJacks, and claims that they are superior to
using diodes. Eric's claims match up with the information in the Tyco documents.
Both Eric and Tyco claim that bi-directional zeners have all the advantages
of protecting the switch without slowing down the contact separation speed,
which decreases contactor life.
http://www.mouser.com/ProductDetail/STMicroelectronics/P6KE36CA/?qs=E0mHVHmM7ubVknTkdnW39Q%3d%3d
http://www.periheliondesign.com/suppressors/SnapJack.pdf
One concern I have is the failure modes of diodes and bi-directional zeners. If
they fail open, no big deal, but if either has a failure mode that would create
a short, that could cause problems. I read somewhere that high voltage tends
to result in a short failure, but high amperage results in an open failure.
There's no circuit protection on these coils (except for the starter).
I'm interested in comments on the relative merits of using diodes vs. bi-directional
zeners. Also, the failure modes of both devices. And how to size the bi-directional
zeners to minimize the chance of a failure, especially a short failure.
Mike Easley
Lancair Super ES
Colorado Springs
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: Diodes vs. Bi-Directional Zeners for Contactors |
mikeeasley wrote:
>
> I'm interested in comments on the relative merits of using diodes vs.
> bi-directional zeners. Also, the failure modes of both devices. And
> how to size the bi-directional zeners to minimize the chance of a
> failure, especially a short failure.
What would happen if either were fail shorted due to high voltage?
You'll have a device with small gauge leads laying directly across the
terminals of a battery that should be capable of delivering upwards of
200A. In another context, we would call this a "fusible link". I
suspect that the failure mode due to high current will quickly follow
the short. If you're really worried, install the protection just like a
fusible link (inside a piece of fiberglass sleeve) and be done with it.
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: | Diodes vs. Bi-Directional Zeners for Contactors |
This topic has been back and forth for a long time. It's sort of like the ball
bearing analysis we did way back in calculus class. Imagine that, we had to use
calculus to sort out the life expectancy of ball bearings.
I would be interested to hear from anyone who has flown either system long enough
to distinguish either benefit or failure time between the two. If not, one
view of discrimination may simply be marketing.
I suppose I could fly my diode system for 60 hours /week until I'm dead and never
determine the supposed Zener benefit.
To keep it in perspective, it's a 12 volt battery, not a warhead. Go out and fly.
Glenn
Do Not Archive
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Ernest Christley
Sent: Monday, October 12, 2009 8:07 AM
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Diodes vs. Bi-Directional Zeners for Contactors
mikeeasley wrote:
>
> I'm interested in comments on the relative merits of using diodes vs.
> bi-directional zeners. Also, the failure modes of both devices. And
> how to size the bi-directional zeners to minimize the chance of a
> failure, especially a short failure.
What would happen if either were fail shorted due to high voltage?
You'll have a device with small gauge leads laying directly across the
terminals of a battery that should be capable of delivering upwards of
200A. In another context, we would call this a "fusible link". I
suspect that the failure mode due to high current will quickly follow
the short. If you're really worried, install the protection just like a
fusible link (inside a piece of fiberglass sleeve) and be done with it.
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: Control Stick Switches |
Hi Gordon-
> Is it proper to have a single ground conductor for all of the stick
switch functions?
> Should the PTT be given special consideration and a separate ground path
> with perhaps both (to-from) paths shielded.
I elected to run three grounds for my two control sticks. Two of those
grounds go through a progressive switch on the panel. The ON position has
all grounds connected and both sticks are fully functional. The
intermediate position disconnects the ground for all rear seat stick
functions, disabling the stick should there be tiny or otherwise
inappropriate fingers poking around. The OFF position also disables the
rear stick and additionally disables the front stick trim controls. This
provides protection from trim system runaway while leaving the PTT and
other front stick switches active. The progressive switch itself is
located near the throttle, along with the other switches I might like to
operate quickly with my non-flying hand.
I like this configuration, and just offer it up as food for thought. YMMV-
glen matejcek
aerobubba@earthlink.ne
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: Diodes vs. Bi-Directional Zeners for Contactors |
At 06:20 AM 10/12/2009, you wrote:
>I'm building a new power grid for a customer and the research on
>contactors ended up with some digging on the diodes that we use
>across the coils of the contactors, and whether they're
>necessary. We're using a couple Tyco Kilovac EV200s and since they
>have pigtail wires instead of terminals, it's tougher to install the
>diodes. Tyco says we don't need "back EMF protection" with the EV200s.
EV200's have internal electronics that take care
of the mag-field collapse spike from the contactor's
coil.
> But we are also using the LEV100 contactors, which do need the
> back EMF protection.
>
>Tyco has a couple documents that explain the various methods to
>handle the back EMF.
>
><http://relays.tycoelectronics.com/appnotes/app_pdfs/13c3311.pdf>http://relays.tycoelectronics.com/appnotes/app_pdfs/13c3311.pdf
>
>http://relays.tycoelectronics.com/appnotes/app_pdfs/13c3264.pdf
>
>Eric at Perihelion Design sells SnapJacks, and claims that they are
>superior to using diodes. Eric's claims match up with the
>information in the Tyco documents. Both Eric and Tyco claim that
>bi-directional zeners have all the advantages of protecting the
>switch without slowing down the contact separation speed, which
>decreases contactor life.
Which is all demonstrable BS. Even the authors of the
Tyco documents correctly observe that "tight" coil
suppression of a plain diode causes contactor OPENING
DELAY and then incorrectly extend that observation
into a reduction of CONTACT SPREADING VELOCITY which
would indeed increase the duration of arcing during
opening.
Plain diodes have been used by the hundreds of
thousands on TC aircraft for over 40 years and
they are still meeting the design goals of the
system designers today. Further, papers like
those on the Tyco site speak to relay life
on the order of hundreds of thousands of cycles.
Their research into contact life vs. coil suppression
techniques will be based on laboratory
cycle testing (Hey Joe! Lookit here! That evil coil
suppression technique kicked our service life
in the head . . . instead of 110,000 cycles we
only got 95,000 cycles.)
The contactors in the average light plane
won't get 5,000 cycles over the LIFETIME
of the airplane.
Use what ever coil suppression technique
gives you warm fuzzies but know too that the least
expensive and simplest technique is fine.
>One concern I have is the failure modes of diodes and bi-directional
>zeners. If they fail open, no big deal, but if either has a failure
>mode that would create a short, that could cause problems.
What problem? Suppose your contactor fails to
close for any one of many other reasons? Are any of
these contactors used in a manner where failure
puts outcome of flight at risk? If so, you need to craft
a Plan-B to deal comfortably with that failure. May I suggest
that your worries about forestalling failure by
judicious selection of coil suppression is a
distraction. You should ASSUME that the contactor
will be unavailable to you at some time in the
future . . . now, what alternatives are in place
to deal with that failure? See chapter 17 of the
'Connection.
> I read somewhere that high voltage tends to result in a short
> failure, but high amperage results in an open failure. There's no
> circuit protection on these coils (except for the starter).
The ENERGY dissipated in ALL coil suppression
is very short duration (milliseconds per flight
cycle) and perhaps 1,000th the rated capability
of the device. They don't fail except for reasons
of manufacturing defect or installation error . . .
and particularly NOT from having selected the wrong
rating for the device. When a coil suppression device
is working, the VOLTAGE and CURRENT impressed upon
it is trivial compared to its ratings.
>
>I'm interested in comments on the relative merits of using diodes
>vs. bi-directional zeners. Also, the failure modes of both
>devices. And how to size the bi-directional zeners to minimize the
>chance of a failure, especially a short failure.
You're worrying waaaayyyy too much about it.
This topic has been discussed and many platinum
plated coil suppression techniques have been offered
up as the path to Nirvana. But when it gets down
to the physics of contactor and power relay
control, it's easy to demonstrate.
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Curves/704-1OpeningTimeNoDiode.gif
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Curves/704-1OpeningTimeWithDiode.gif
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Curves/704-1DelayWithDiode.gif
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Curves/7041DelayWithDiode.gif
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Curves/CH_w_1n5400.gif
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Curves/CH_w_2x18v_Transorbs.gif
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Curves/CH_w_120_Ohm.gif
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Curves/S704-1_Drop-Out_Delay_with_Diode.jpg
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Curves/S704-1_Drop-Out_Delay_without_Diode.jpg
These are but a few of dozens of traces recorded by
myself where we looked at drop-out-delay, contact
transition velocity, and contact bounce vs. various coil
suppression techniques (including simple placement
of a 120 ohm resistor across the coil!).
Bottom line is that anything you want to do will
be fine . . . make it easy on yourself and be wary
of pronouncements and dire warnings from folk who
not been there nor done that. Do a failure mode
effects analysis and craft architectures that offer
a Plan-B for ALL uncomfortable failures. The road
to comfortable termination of flight is not paved with
prophylactics AGAINST failure . . . rather a PLAN for
dealing comfortably with any failure.
Bob . . .
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: Alternator cooling |
At 02:25 AM 10/12/2009, you wrote:
><mmul6471@bigpond.net.au>
>
>Thanks Jim, its neither of those two - its the L60 belt driven alternator
>that replaces the standard Auto alternator from the front of the engine..
>I also have installed the SD-8 as a backup on the vacuum pad.
>The documentation did not say anything about cooling for it either.
That's because there are no installations on the
front of a Lyc where cooling has been identified
as a critical or even questionable issue. Hence,
nothing in the instructions about cooling.
Bob . . .
---------------------------------------
( . . . a long habit of not thinking )
( a thing wrong, gives it a superficial )
( appearance of being right . . . )
( )
( -Thomas Paine 1776- )
---------------------------------------
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: Diodes vs. Bi-Directional Zeners for Contactors |
Bob,
So I believe there's a decent argument to do nothing. If the spike is small, and
the switches are robust enough to handle far more than the spike, and the current
through the contactors is far below the contactor rating, and the number
of cycles of the switch and the contactor are far below the advertised life...
...then leaving off the diodes is a viable alternative.
Mike Easley
In a message dated 10/12/09 08:33:46 Mountain Daylight Time, nuckolls.bob@aeroelectric.com
writes:
At 06:20 AM 10/12/2009, you wrote:
I'm building a new power grid for a customer and the research on contactors ended
up with some digging on the diodes that we use across the coils of the contactors,
and whether they're necessary. We're using a couple Tyco Kilovac EV200s
and since they have pigtail wires instead of terminals, it's tougher to install
the diodes. Tyco says we don't need "back EMF protection" with the EV200s.
EV200's have internal electronics that take care
of the mag-field collapse spike from the contactor's
coil.
But we are also using the LEV100 contactors, which do need the back EMF protection.
Tyco has a couple documents that explain the various methods to handle the back
EMF.
http://relays.tycoelectronics.com/appnotes/app_pdfs/13c3311.pdf
http://relays.tycoelectronics.com/appnotes/app_pdfs/13c3264.pdf
Eric at Perihelion Design sells SnapJacks, and claims that they are superior to
using diodes. Eric's claims match up with the information in the Tyco documents.
Both Eric and Tyco claim that bi-directional zeners have all the advantages
of protecting the switch without slowing down the contact separation speed,
which decreases contactor life.
Which is all demonstrable BS. Even the authors of the
Tyco documents correctly observe that "tight" coil
suppression of a plain diode causes contactor OPENING
DELAY and then incorrectly extend that observation
into a reduction of CONTACT SPREADING VELOCITY which
would indeed increase the duration of arcing during
opening.
Plain diodes have been used by the hundreds of
thousands on TC aircraft for over 40 years and
they are still meeting the design goals of the
system designers today. Further, papers like
those on the Tyco site speak to relay life
on the order of hundreds of thousands of cycles.
Their research into contact life vs. coil suppression
techniques will be based on laboratory
cycle testing (Hey Joe! Lookit here! That evil coil
suppression technique kicked our service life
in the head . . . instead of 110,000 cycles we
only got 95,000 cycles.)
The contactors in the average light plane
won't get 5,000 cycles over the LIFETIME
of the airplane.
Use what ever coil suppression technique
gives you warm fuzzies but know too that the least
expensive and simplest technique is fine.
One concern I have is the failure modes of diodes and bi-directional zeners. If
they fail open, no big deal, but if either has a failure mode that would create
a short, that could cause problems.
What problem? Suppose your contactor fails to
close for any one of many other reasons? Are any of
these contactors used in a manner where failure
puts outcome of flight at risk? If so, you need to craft
a Plan-B to deal comfortably with that failure. May I suggest
that your worries about forestalling failure by
judicious selection of coil suppression is a
distraction. You should ASSUME that the contactor
will be unavailable to you at some time in the
future . . . now, what alternatives are in place
to deal with that failure? See chapter 17 of the
'Connection.
I read somewhere that high voltage tends to result in a short failure, but high
amperage results in an open failure. There's no circuit protection on these
coils (except for the starter).
The ENERGY dissipated in ALL coil suppression
is very short duration (milliseconds per flight
cycle) and perhaps 1,000th the rated capability
of the device. They don't fail except for reasons
of manufacturing defect or installation error . . .
and particularly NOT from having selected the wrong
rating for the device. When a coil suppression device
is working, the VOLTAGE and CURRENT impressed upon
it is trivial compared to its ratings.
I'm interested in comments on the relative merits of using diodes vs. bi-directional
zeners. Also, the failure modes of both devices. And how to size the bi-directional
zeners to minimize the chance of a failure, especially a short failure.
You're worrying waaaayyyy too much about it.
This topic has been discussed and many platinum
plated coil suppression techniques have been offered
up as the path to Nirvana. But when it gets down
to the physics of contactor and power relay
control, it's easy to demonstrate.
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Curves/704-1OpeningTimeNoDiode.gif
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Curves/704-1OpeningTimeWithDiode.gif
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Curves/704-1DelayWithDiode.gif
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Curves/7041DelayWithDiode.gif
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Curves/CH_w_1n5400.gif
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Curves/CH_w_2x18v_Transorbs.gif
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Curves/CH_w_120_Ohm.gif
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Curves/S704-1_Drop-Out_Delay_with_Diode.jpg
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Curves/S704-1_Drop-Out_Delay_without_Diode.jpg
These are but a few of dozens of traces recorded by
myself where we looked at drop-out-delay, contact
transition velocity, and contact bounce vs. various coil
suppression techniques (including simple placement
of a 120 ohm resistor across the coil!).
Bottom line is that anything you want to do will
be fine . . . make it easy on yourself and be wary
of pronouncements and dire warnings from folk who
not been there nor done that. Do a failure mode
effects analysis and craft architectures that offer
a Plan-B for ALL uncomfortable failures. The road
to comfortable termination of flight is not paved with
prophylactics AGAINST failure . . . rather a PLAN for
dealing comfortably with any failure.
Bob . . .
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: Control Stick Switches |
Glenn,
I concur with the additional grounds save the space provided. In my Ray
Allen stick, they really only provide room for one solid ground to the
stick itself and little room for the remainder of the wires. My pet
peeve with RA is that lack of room. C'mon, just make that cap 1/4
thicker guys.
In defense of myself I made sure to add a circuit breaker to the panel
to drop the whole thing if it decides to try and kill me. I did the same
for the A/P which in my experience has also tried to kill me. If you can
kill it first, there's your safety margin. As grounds go, yes, I have
two separate grounds, one for pilot and co-pilot just to isolate good
grounds.
Glenn
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of glen
matejcek
Sent: Monday, October 12, 2009 10:07 AM
Subject: AeroElectric-List: RE: Control Stick Switches
<aerobubba@earthlink.net>
Hi Gordon-
> Is it proper to have a single ground conductor for all of the stick
switch functions?
> Should the PTT be given special consideration and a separate ground
path
> with perhaps both (to-from) paths shielded.
I elected to run three grounds for my two control sticks. Two of those
grounds go through a progressive switch on the panel. The ON position
has
all grounds connected and both sticks are fully functional. The
intermediate position disconnects the ground for all rear seat stick
functions, disabling the stick should there be tiny or otherwise
inappropriate fingers poking around. The OFF position also disables the
rear stick and additionally disables the front stick trim controls.
This
provides protection from trim system runaway while leaving the PTT and
other front stick switches active. The progressive switch itself is
located near the throttle, along with the other switches I might like to
operate quickly with my non-flying hand.
I like this configuration, and just offer it up as food for thought.
YMMV-
glen matejcek
aerobubba@earthlink.ne
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: Diodes vs. Bi-Directional Zeners for Contactors |
At 09:57 AM 10/12/2009, you wrote:
>Bob,
>
>So I believe there's a decent argument to do nothing. If the spike is small,
"small" isn't very descriptive. While total energy
is measured in a handful of millijoules, the voltage of
the unsuppressed spike is hundreds of volts and does
produce observable erosion of starter push-buttons,
battery master switches and landing gear control
switches (hydraulic pump control contactors).
For years, no suppression was used in any automotive
contactor control until the two-stage, high-inrush
solenoid/contactor was developed for starters. See:
http://aeroelectric.com/articles/strtctr.pdf
> and the switches are robust enough to handle far more than the spike,
don't know what you mean by "robust". They are
32 volt DC devices for full ratings. The unrestrained
pulse from a contactor coil is on the order of 10x
that amount. I.e., arcing does occur with energy
limits bounded by the [I(squared)L/2] energy stored
on the coil.
> and the current through the contactors is far below the contactor rating,
current being switched by the contactor isn't
the big driver. We decided this after learning
that suppression of all types has no appreciable
effect on contact spreading velocity.
> and the number of cycles of the switch and the contactor are far
> below the advertised life...
yes, VERY much lower . . .
>
>...then leaving off the diodes is a viable alternative.
. . . and indeed, until the mid 60's this was
how contactors were treated in light aircraft
although industrial and military users of DC
contactors had been "taming the little tigers"
for years. But many starter contactors are
now offered with built in diodes. LOTS of
mil-spec relays are offered with built-in
coil suppression. Yeah, we could leave them
off, but why not put them on if they're
cheap, easy to get, and choice of technology
is not a significant decision?
Bob . . .
---------------------------------------
( . . . a long habit of not thinking )
( a thing wrong, gives it a superficial )
( appearance of being right . . . )
( )
( -Thomas Paine 1776- )
---------------------------------------
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: | Control Stick/Flap Switches |
I have a flap switch wired thru a couple of relays to raise and lower the
flaps. The switch is a double pole double throw type.
I just installed an Infinity grip and there is a single throw single pole
switch on the grip that I would like to wire into the system to also control
the flap. I realize the in order to use either switch, the other switch
will have to be off.
The problem is that I am electron deficient and have no idea of how to wire
this up. Any help from the list would be greatly appreciated.
Bill B
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: | Filter Capacitor Wiring |
Hi!
I'm starting the actual wiring on my firewall for my Jab 3300. I have the B&C OVM
kit and there are a couple differences between the wiring diagram included
and the Z diagrams, namely Z20L, which is specific for the Jab regulator.
The B&C wiring diagram shipped to me is drawing no. 505-500. It shows the ground
lead from the regulator connected to the negative terminal on the capacitor.
A wire from the negative capacitor then goes to the ground block, being twisted
around the capacitor's positive output lead enroute.
The Z20L diagram shows the regulator ground going directly to ground and not to
the capacitor. There is a separate ground for the capacitor. No twisted wires.
I plan to mount my regulator FWF with the capacitor behind it on the cool side
of the firewall about a foot away, so wiring it either way would be easy for me.
I'm also curious about the twisted wires. The B&C diagram shows only the output
positive lead of the capacitor being twisted, and not the feed from the regulator.
Also, the B&C drawing version shipped to me has a note that mentions limiting the
distance between the capacitor and regulator to 6". This note is not found
in the pdf file of theirs I found on their site. I have already drilled the #40
pilot holes for the regulator that would put it about a foot away from the capacitor
before I read that note. I can without much problem shorten this distance
to about 6", but don't know if it's worth it.
Thanks!
--------
Dan
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=267597#267597
Attachments:
http://forums.matronics.com//files/z20l_196.pdf
http://forums.matronics.com//files/504_500_rev_f_bandc_ovm_wiring_678.pdf
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: | Control Stick/Flap Switches |
It's a bad idea to put control of any function on a control stick that
if inadvertently activated could jeopardize the safety of the aircraft.
Bruce
www.Glasair.org
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Bill
Bradburry
Sent: Monday, October 12, 2009 1:02 PM
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Control Stick/Flap Switches
<bbradburry@bellsouth.net>
I have a flap switch wired thru a couple of relays to raise and lower
the
flaps. The switch is a double pole double throw type.
I just installed an Infinity grip and there is a single throw single
pole
switch on the grip that I would like to wire into the system to also
control
the flap. I realize the in order to use either switch, the other switch
will have to be off.
The problem is that I am electron deficient and have no idea of how to
wire
this up. Any help from the list would be greatly appreciated.
Bill B
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: | Re: Diodes vs. Bi-Directional Zeners for Contactors |
Bob,
I agree with you about being prepared for any contactor to fail and not to be overly
concerned about that. A failure that results in not being able to operate
the contactor should not in itself be a hazard to flight.
However, a failure that results in smoke, although in other ways benign, is undesirable.
I would be interested in what happens to the coil circuit as a function
of the failure mode of the suppression device. If it fails open, so what,
you lost some suppression. If it fails closed I think you get a dead short
on the coil circuit, in other words the wire that goes to your starter key and
to ground.
On my airplane, I don't have that circuit fused, reasoning that the coil itself
is going to melt down before the wire does. but if you put a device in parallel
with the coil and it shorts, then depending on the characteristics of the
device you've got smoke in the cockpit.
So either you have to choose a device which you are pretty sure is going to fail
open, or you need to fuse that circuit, right? (I don't see a fuse shown in
the diagrams in the appendix).
Taking the devices:
resistor - likely fail open
diode - ?
zener diode - fail closed
snapjack - ?
thanks,
Colyn
--------
Colyn Case
colyncase@earthlink.net
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=267603#267603
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: | Control Stick/Flap Switches |
Hmmm.
It is a bad idea to put such a situation anywhere!
Bill
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Bruce
Gray
Sent: Monday, October 12, 2009 1:27 PM
Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Control Stick/Flap Switches
--> <Bruce@Glasair.org>
It's a bad idea to put control of any function on a control stick that if
inadvertently activated could jeopardize the safety of the aircraft.
Bruce
www.Glasair.org
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Bill
Bradburry
Sent: Monday, October 12, 2009 1:02 PM
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Control Stick/Flap Switches
<bbradburry@bellsouth.net>
I have a flap switch wired thru a couple of relays to raise and lower the
flaps. The switch is a double pole double throw type.
I just installed an Infinity grip and there is a single throw single pole
switch on the grip that I would like to wire into the system to also control
the flap. I realize the in order to use either switch, the other switch
will have to be off.
The problem is that I am electron deficient and have no idea of how to wire
this up. Any help from the list would be greatly appreciated.
Bill B
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: Control Stick/Flap Switches |
My 2 cents--
Keep the stick simple and place the flap switch on the panel.
Peter
On Mon, Oct 12, 2009 at 1:27 PM, Bruce Gray <Bruce@glasair.org> wrote:
>
> It's a bad idea to put control of any function on a control stick that
> if inadvertently activated could jeopardize the safety of the aircraft.
>
> Bruce
> www.Glasair.org
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Bill
> Bradburry
> Sent: Monday, October 12, 2009 1:02 PM
> To: aeroelectric-list@matronics.com
> Subject: AeroElectric-List: Control Stick/Flap Switches
>
> <bbradburry@bellsouth.net>
>
> I have a flap switch wired thru a couple of relays to raise and lower
> the
> flaps. The switch is a double pole double throw type.
> I just installed an Infinity grip and there is a single throw single
> pole
> switch on the grip that I would like to wire into the system to also
> control
> the flap. I realize the in order to use either switch, the other switch
> will have to be off.
> The problem is that I am electron deficient and have no idea of how to
> wire
> this up. Any help from the list would be greatly appreciated.
>
> Bill B
>
>
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 |
|
What does "SANS" stand for?
Running one on a Velocity for 4 plus years sans cooling fan. No problems.
Peter
SEL
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 |
|
"Without"
Bob McC
_____
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Steve
Leonard
Sent: Monday, October 12, 2009 5:40 PM
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: B
What does "SANS" stand for?
Running one on a Velocity for 4 plus years sans cooling fan. No problems.
Peter
SEL
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 |
|
French for "without"
On Oct 12, 2009, at 2:40 PM, Steve Leonard wrote:
> What does =93SANS=94 stand for?
>
> Running one on a Velocity for 4 plus years sans cooling fan. No
> problems.
> Peter
>
>
> SEL
>
>
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 |
|
Without - its French
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Steve
Leonard
Sent: 12 October 2009 22:40
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: B
What does "SANS" stand for?
Running one on a Velocity for 4 plus years sans cooling fan. No problems.
Peter
SEL
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 |
|
sans = without
Steve Leonard wrote:
>
> What does SANS stand for?
>
> *Running one on a Velocity for 4 plus years sans cooling fan. No
> problems.*
>
> * Peter*
>
> /SEL/
>
> *
>
> *
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 |
|
Latin or French: sans = without
Spanish: sin = without
Matt-
> What does "SANS" stand for?
>
>
> Running one on a Velocity for 4 plus years sans cooling fan. No problems.
>
> Peter
>
>
> SEL
>
>
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 |
|
At 14:40 10/12/2009, you wrote:
>What does "SANS" stand for?
>
>Running one on a Velocity for 4 plus years sans cooling fan. No problems.
>
> Peter
>
> SEL
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/sans
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/sans
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 |
|
NO COOLING FAN!!
Jim Wickert
Vision #159 Some will have some will not!
Tel 920-467-0219
Cell 920-912-1014
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Ron
Quillin
Sent: Monday, October 12, 2009 5:27 PM
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: B
At 14:40 10/12/2009, you wrote:
What does "SANS" stand for?
Running one on a Velocity for 4 plus years sans cooling fan. No problems.
Peter
SEL
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/sans
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/sans
Message 25
| 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: Control Stick/Flap Switches |
I have my flap switch on the throttle and trim on the stick. Works great for
me
Jim
James Robinson
Glasair lll N79R
Spanish Fork UT U77
________________________________
From: Bill Bradburry <bbradburry@bellsouth.net>
Sent: Mon, October 12, 2009 11:02:08 AM
Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Control Stick/Flap Switches
Hmmm.
It is a bad idea to put such a situation anywhere!
Bill
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Bruce
Gray
Sent: Monday, October 12, 2009 1:27 PM
Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Control Stick/Flap Switches
--> <Bruce@Glasair.org>
It's a bad idea to put control of any function on a control stick that if
inadvertently activated could jeopardize the safety of the aircraft.
Bruce
www.Glasair.org
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Bill
Bradburry
Sent: Monday, October 12, 2009 1:02 PM
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Control Stick/Flap Switches
<bbradburry@bellsouth.net>
I have a flap switch wired thru a couple of relays to raise and lower the
flaps. The switch is a double pole double throw type.
I just installed an Infinity grip and there is a single throw single pole
switch on the grip that I would like to wire into the system to also control
the flap. I realize the in order to use either switch, the other switch
will have to be off.
The problem is that I am electron deficient and have no idea of how to wire
this up. Any help from the list would be greatly appreciated.
Bill B
Message 26
| 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 |
|
Its french, mon ami
On 12/10/09 4:21 PM, "Jim Wickert" <jimw_btg@earthlink.net> wrote:
> NO COOLING FAN!!
>
>
> Jim Wickert
> Vision #159 Some will have some will not!
> Tel 920-467-0219
> Cell 920-912-1014
>
>
> From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Ron Qu
illin
> Sent: Monday, October 12, 2009 5:27 PM
> To: aeroelectric-list@matronics.com
> Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: B
>
> At 14:40 10/12/2009, you wrote:
>
>
>
> What does =B3SANS=B2 stand for?
>
> Running one on a Velocity for 4 plus years sans cooling fan. No problems.
>
> Peter
>
> SEL
> http://www.thefreedictionary.com/sans
> http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/sans
> <http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/sans>
>
>
> http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List
> <http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/sans>
> http://forums.matronics.com <http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/sa
ns>
> http://www.matronics.com/contribution
> <http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/sans>
>
>
>
>
>
Franz Fux
Director of Operations
Last Frontier Heliskiing Ltd.
Bell 2 Lodge
P.O. Box 1237
Vernon, BC, V1T 6N6
CANADA
Office Contact
T: (250) 558-7980
F: (250) 558-7981
http://www.lastfrontierheli.com
Lodge Contact
T: (250) 275-4770
F: (250) 275-4912
http://www.bell2lodge.com
Message 27
| 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: Diodes vs. Bi-Directional Zeners for Contactors |
At 01:00 PM 10/12/2009, you wrote:
><colyncase@earthlink.net>
>
>Bob,
>
>I agree with you about being prepared for any contactor to fail and
>not to be overly concerned about that. A failure that results in
>not being able to operate the contactor should not in itself be a
>hazard to flight.
>
>However, a failure that results in smoke, although in other ways
>benign, is undesirable.
The fact that you've identified a potential for smoke
suggests a point of concern in your failure mode
effects analysis . . .
> I would be interested in what happens to the coil circuit as a
> function of the failure mode of the suppression device. If it
> fails open, so what, you lost some suppression. If it fails closed
> I think you get a dead short on the coil circuit, in other words
> the wire that goes to your starter key and to ground.
Okay, now what?
>On my airplane, I don't have that circuit fused, reasoning that the
>coil itself is going to melt down before the wire does. but if you
>put a device in parallel with the coil and it shorts, then depending
>on the characteristics of the device you've got smoke in the cockpit.
We've never fused that circuit in a whole lot
of airplanes . . . generally, such prophylactics
are set aside when risks are perceived to be
insignificant . . . like 10 to the minus 6
failures per flight hour or better. Given a demonstrated
history that confirms that analysis then perhaps
we can benefit from lessons-learned shared our brethren
on the TC side of the house.
>So either you have to choose a device which you are pretty sure is
>going to fail open, or you need to fuse that circuit, right? (I
>don't see a fuse shown in the diagrams in the appendix).
Yup, you've read the schematics correctly. But if you
find that philosophy, suite of design goals and
demonstrated service histories uncomfortable,
please don't fly an airplane that offers you any
discomfort. Fuses are cheap.
Bob . . .
---------------------------------------
( . . . a long habit of not thinking )
( a thing wrong, gives it a superficial )
( appearance of being right . . . )
( )
( -Thomas Paine 1776- )
---------------------------------------
Message 28
| 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 |
|
Snowmobilers Association of Novia Scotia=0A Henador Titzoff=0A=0A=0A=0A=0A_
_______________________________=0AFrom: Steve Leonard <buzzleo@graceba.net>
=0ATo: aeroelectric-list@matronics.com=0ASent: Mon, October 12, 2009 5:40:0
9 PM=0ASubject: Re: AeroElectric-List: B =0A=0A=0AWhat does =9CSANS
=9D stand for?=0A =0ARunning one on a Velocity for 4 plus years san
==================0A=0A=0A
Message 29
| 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 |
|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 30
| 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 |
|
Now that is funny.....
At 16:21 10/12/2009, you wrote:
>NO COOLING FAN!!
>
>Jim Wickert
>Vision #159 Some will have some will not!
>Tel 920-467-0219
>Cell 920-912-1014
Message 31
| 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: Filter Capacitor Wiring |
>
>The Z20L diagram shows the regulator ground going directly to ground
>and not to the capacitor. There is a separate ground for the
>capacitor. No twisted wires.
You can spend a lot of no-value added time sifting
the differences between the various recipes for
success. The points of concern you've identified
are not ctitical.
>I plan to mount my regulator FWF with the capacitor behind it on the
>cool side of the firewall about a foot away, so wiring it either way
>would be easy for me.
take your pick
>I'm also curious about the twisted wires. The B&C diagram shows only
>the output positive lead of the capacitor being twisted, and not the
>feed from the regulator.
>
>Also, the B&C drawing version shipped to me has a note that mentions
>limiting the distance between the capacitor and regulator to 6".
>This note is not found in the pdf file of theirs I found on their
>site. I have already drilled the #40 pilot holes for the regulator
>that would put it about a foot away from the capacitor before I read
>that note. I can without much problem shorten this distance to about
>6", but don't know if it's worth it.
It will be fine the way you have it.
Bob . . .
---------------------------------------
( . . . a long habit of not thinking )
( a thing wrong, gives it a superficial )
( appearance of being right . . . )
( )
( -Thomas Paine 1776- )
---------------------------------------
Message 32
| 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: Filter Capacitor Wiring |
Thanks, Bob :-)
--------
Dan
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=267699#267699
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! --
|