Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 06:51 AM - Re: Converting to externally reg alternator (user9253)
2. 07:44 AM - Re: Re: Converting to externally reg alternator (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
3. 09:00 AM - Re: Re: Converting to externally reg alternator (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
4. 09:08 AM - Seems I killed one Odyssey PC625 battery (Allen Fulmer)
5. 09:34 AM - ELT Antenna Mount (Jeff Luckey)
6. 10:30 AM - Re: ELT Antenna Mount (Tim Andres)
7. 10:46 AM - Re: ELT Antenna Mount (BobsV35B@aol.com)
8. 10:47 AM - Re: Re: Converting to externally reg alternator (Paul Millner)
9. 10:55 AM - Re: ELT Antenna Mount (The Kuffels)
10. 10:56 AM - Re: Seems I killed one Odyssey PC625 battery (John Loram)
11. 11:00 AM - Re: ELT Antenna Mount (DeWitt (Dee) Whittington)
12. 11:07 AM - Re: Seems I killed one Odyssey PC625 battery (Jeff Luckey)
13. 11:22 AM - Re: Next generation wig-wag controller for LED lamps (gregmchugh)
14. 11:26 AM - Re: ELT Antenna Mount (BobsV35B@aol.com)
15. 11:29 AM - Re: ELT Antenna Mount (Jeff Luckey)
16. 12:02 PM - Re: ELT Antenna Mount (Jeff Luckey)
17. 12:36 PM - Re: ELT Antenna Mount (John Grosse)
18. 12:37 PM - Re: ELT Antenna Mount (rayj)
19. 01:06 PM - Re: Troubleshooting Field Breaker (Jim P)
20. 01:21 PM - Re: ELT Antenna Mount (rayj)
21. 01:27 PM - Re: Seems I killed one Odyssey PC625 battery (rayj)
22. 04:42 PM - Re: Seems I killed one Odyssey PC625 battery (David Lloyd)
23. 07:19 PM - Re: ELT Antenna Mount (The Kuffels)
24. 07:19 PM - Re: ELT Antenna Mount (Ralph Finch)
25. 08:41 PM - Re: Re: Next generation wig-wag controller for LED lamps (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
26. 08:45 PM - Re: Re: Troubleshooting Field Breaker (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
Message 1
INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Subject: | Re: Converting to externally reg alternator |
The Rotax dynamo does not have a field winding. Thus, the only way to shut it
off is by opening the B lead (or shutting off the engine). A 20 amp relay is
capable of opening the Rotax dynamo output. However, a 60 amp alternator would
require a much larger relay or contactor to open the B lead. It is much easier
to open the 3 amp alternator field circuit.
As for the Rotax capacitor, it can not conduct DC current. It is irrelevant
whether the relay contacts are open or closed. The purpose of the capacitor is
to smooth the pulsing DC output of the rectified single phase dynamo current.
Joe
> Bob, all, Forgive my lack of knowledge here, but I don't understand the problem
here. I use the Z-17 architecture that has the Rotax dynamo output connected
to the battery via relay. If the relay is powered down the dynamos output goes
to ground through a capacitor. At least that's my understanding. If that is
correct, why can't a single wire alternator be controlled in the same way. In
the event of a voltage regulator failure and a runaway alternator ensues would
not the overvoltage module do the same to a relay connecting the single wire
to the battery? Obviously this sounds simple for an electronic illiterate like
me. What am I missing that makes such a scenario unworkable.
> Rick Girard
--------
Joe Gores
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=370206#370206
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: Converting to externally reg alternator |
At 10:32 PM 4/6/2012, you wrote:
>Bob, all, Forgive my lack of knowledge here, but I don't understand
>the problem here. I use the Z-17 architecture that has the Rotax
>dynamo output connected to the battery via relay. If the relay is
>powered down the dynamos output goes to ground through a capacitor.
>At least that's my understanding. If that is correct, why can't a
>single wire alternator be controlled in the same way. In the event
>of a voltage regulator failure and a runaway alternator ensues would
>not the overvoltage module do the same to a relay connecting the
>single wire to the battery? Obviously this sounds simple for an
>electronic illiterate like me. What am I missing that makes such a
>scenario unworkable.
>
>Rick Girard
>
>On Fri, Apr 6, 2012 at 7:53 AM, Robert L. Nuckolls, III
><<mailto:nuckolls.bob@aeroelectric.com>nuckolls.bob@aeroelectric.com> wrote:
><<mailto:nuckolls.bob@aeroelectric.com>nuckolls.bob@aeroelectric.com>
>
>
>At 08:43 PM 4/4/2012, you wrote:
><<mailto:millner@me.com>millner@me.com>
>
>Ah! Since anecdotal evidence is apparently compelling, my Ford had
>a runaway alternator, which resulted in a battery explosion, which
>peppered the underside of the hood with acid burns. Bummer.
>
>Paul
>
>
> Good morning Paul, long time no hear!
>
> As I was talking to the chief engineer at
> MPA about this experiences with alternators,
> it would have been interesting to know how
> what percentage of alternators coming in
> the door had failed regulators . . . and what
> the failure modes were.
>
> The only alternators that they routinely examined
> for fault analysis were those returned on
> warranty. As I stated in the narrative of my visit
> the rate of returns had mostly to do with the
> skills of the installer. An exceedingly small
> number of warranty returns had any failures at
> all.
>
> Of course, ALL alternators coming through the
> rebuild stream had been replaced for reasons
> some mechanic thought were good. At the same
> time, I've encountered few mechanics that
> REALLY understand how the alternator works and
> how to accurately troubleshoot systems that
> exhibit less than gross failure.
>
> Virtually none of the normal work stream was
> evaluated for failure modes. It would have
> been VERY interesting to see how many had
> failed regulators in a runaway mode. But alas,
> 22,000 items passed through that facility
> every day. Any effort to glean such information
> from those carcasses would have been very
> difficult/expensive.
>
> The bottom line is that the best source of
> data we have comes from the aviation community
> . . . and that data will be anecdotal at best.
> The bright side is that the astute system
> designer needs only to know that risk for
> regulator failure in any system is not zero
> and happily, insurance against such failures
> is inexpensive.
>
> As the personable spokesperson for Allstate
> might suggest, "You're in good hands with
> OV protection."
>
>
> Bob . . .
>
>===================================
>-List" target="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List
>===================================
>http://forums.matronics.com
>===================================
>le, List Admin.
>="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/contribution
>===================================
>
>
>--
>Zulu Delta
>Mk IIIC
>Thanks, Homer GBYM
>
>It isn't necessary to have relatives in Kansas City in order to be unhappy.
> - Groucho Marx
>
>
Bob . . .
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: Converting to externally reg alternator |
At 10:32 PM 4/6/2012, you wrote:
>Bob, all, Forgive my lack of knowledge here, but I don't understand
>the problem here. I use the Z-17 architecture that has the Rotax
>dynamo output connected to the battery via relay. If the relay is
>powered down the dynamos output goes to ground through a capacitor.
>At least that's my understanding. If that is correct, why can't a
>single wire alternator be controlled in the same way. In the event
>of a voltage regulator failure and a runaway alternator ensues would
>not the overvoltage module do the same to a relay connecting the
>single wire to the battery? Obviously this sounds simple for an
>electronic illiterate like me. What am I missing that makes such a
>scenario unworkable.
Actually, it can. In fact, that is the control philosophy
originally depicted in Z-24 found at:
http://tinyurl.com/7z6yzv9
The reasoning behind this configuration was
simple. If you've got a runaway alternator for
which there are no external controls, the only
remedy left is to simply isolate the offending
machine from the rest of the aircraft's electrical
system.
Notice the similarity of the Z-24 architecture
with that of Z-17 found at:
http://tinyurl.com/7mh9k3c
Again, the engine driven power source (whether fielded
by a permanent magnet -OR- a fixed magnet) offers
no means by which one may apply external controls.
At some time (post Z-17) it was reasoned that the
root cause for any runaway condition on an alternator
was a regulator failure. In the case of PM alternators,
we had ready access to the AC output of the energy
source driving the rectifier/regulator. Given that
AC current is many times less abusive to relay contacts
in the disconnect mode, it seemed prudent to MOVE
the disconnect relay to the windings of the PM
alternator BEFORE the regulator. Hence Z-16 was
offered:
http://tinyurl.com/7vp9g4e
EITHER philosophy of OV management described above
meets design goals for isolation of the offending
alternator from the rest of the system. Z-16 might
be described as more elegant.
Now, let's take what we've discussed above and
see how it speaks to Z-24. Further, let's discuss
some special cases for the b-lead disconnect
philosophy as it relates to self excited, electrically
fielded alternators.
The PM alternator is fixed field . . . PERIOD. Maximum
output voltage is a function of RPM . . . PERIOD.
The electrically excited alternator with a field coil
connected internally to the B-lead is another breed
of animal entirely. As I discussed in the article
at:
http://tinyurl.com/7cormux
the automotive alternator is demonstrably capable of
very high output voltages when supplied with a fixed
field (like a PM alternator) and still higher voltages
when the field is supplied from the alternator's own
runaway output . . .
A stone-simple b-lead disconnect system was conceived
for the larger wound-field machines and published as
Z-24. In the article published at:
http://tinyurl.com/5n989y
we explore the special cases for using this control
philosophy. The new considerations for design arose
from two major differences between the PM alternator
control (z-17/z-16) and wound field alternator control
(z-24).
(ISSUE 1) As one attempts to open the b-lead on a runaway
alternator, the contactor is opening against a tightly
wound voltage 'spring' if you will. In the first few
milliseconds after onset of the ov condition, the
alternator is attempting to push the bus voltage up
but will be held at bay by the valiant efforts of the
battery. None the less, output current for the alternator
will be at the machine's magnetic limits, probably just
above rated design current.
As the contacts open, voltage rise across the spreading
contacts is very fast and will no doubt establish an
arc in the widening space that is not unlike that which
I described in the narrative about MPA's demonstrations
of b-lead disconnects in the latest revision to chapter
3 of the connection.
The flash of fire was so intense as to blinding to both
the human observer -AND- the lowly video camera. Deleterious
to the contactor? Probably. But even if the contactor is
toasted by the effective disconnection of a runaway
alternator, the original design goal is achieved. The
radios are not toasted too. Remedy? One could install
a contactor with better ratings for high voltage disconnect
like:
http://tinyurl.com/83kf237
(ISSUE 2) Early in the history of Z-24, it seems that
some OBAM aircraft builders used the control switch
to cycle their alternators ON/OFF while under load.
This lead to what the automotive industry calls a
"load dump" wherein the built in regulator is unable
to respond fast enough to bring a suddenly unloaded
alternator back under control. Hence, the alternator's
output launches for the moon. In a load-dump case, the
rise is expected to be transient. Assuming the alternator
is well designed, the short term ov condition is quickly
brought to heel and all is right with the universe.
Unfortunately, all alternators are not created equal.
The alternators installed on these airplanes were demonstrably
incapable of standing off the b-lead disconnect transients
demonstrated for me in MPA's laboratories. These alternators
suffered failures attributed to poor design of Z-24. I suspect
that individuals who experienced these failures abandoned use
of any form of automatic OV runaway management.
Over the years, we've learned that Z-24, when applied to
a realistically designed alternator and fitted with
a robust contactor is probably about as bullet-proof
as design goals dictate.
"But wait, call in the next ten minutes and we'll
. . . .", heard that one before.
In this case, the feature just out of reach is described
in the article cited above . . . don't click this link
again, you already have http://tinyurl.com/5n989y
Here I've proposed a next generation control philosophy.
A philosophy dependent on being able to run alternators
at their rated outputs in a test environment. To that end
I acquired an alternator test stand
http://tinyurl.com/79k9lm2
and set out to modify it for emulation of the architecture
of every architecture in the z-figures up to and including
Z-14. This offered some obstacles not the least of which
was a big honk'n 3-phase motor . . .
http://tinyurl.com/7qlhaqf
which demanded an adapter be added at the end of a 60 amp
feeder I ran out to my garage on Bainbridge. The modification
was well along when it was interrupted by a move to
Medicine Lodge with a host of new demands on my time.
However, it would be useful to describe the functionality
of the next generation controller.
The AEC9004 'black box' contains a micro-controller programmed
to do the following. (a) watch the b-lead terminal for signs
of overvoltage. (b) when and if an ov condition is detected,
power is removed from the b-lead contactor coil. (c) the
differential voltage across the contactor is monitored for
first signs of the alternator side being more positive than
the battery side by say 1 volt or so. (d) at that time a
power MOS-FET good for hundreds of amps is biased on hard
and throws a dead short across the b-lead terminals of the
alternator. A kind of "software crowbar" approach to ov
management.
This sounds brutal . . . but is in fact quite gentle.
An alternator is incapable of delivering much more output
current than it's nameplate rating. Hence, the FET need only
sink perhaps 60 or 70 amps to ground as soon as it is safe
to do so. I.e. the BATTERY must be disconnected before
the crowbar is triggered. Since the alternator's output
is folded back to the field winding, the act of pulling
the b-lead to ground deprives the field of voltage necessary
to feed and sustain the runaway. Hence, everything comes to
a benign state of rest in milliseconds after the FET is
turned on. I've not been able to test it yet but it is
my expectation that the 'current' flowing in the crowbar
FET during the OFF condition for an alternator will be
under 1 amp. That current being delivered by the residual
magnetism of the rotor.
The cool thing about this philosophy is that all the issues
for voltage rating of the contactor -AND- worries about
load-dump transients are mitigated. This control system could
be applied to an alternator of any pedigree with minimal
concerns for damage. Further, it installs a one-wire alternator
in an airplane while offering the legacy design goals for
(1) any-time/any-condition ON/OFF control of the alternator
and (2) timely response to mitigation of an OV condition.
I'm now considering the use of my truck engine driven
alternator test bed. Some years ago, a List member donated
a new one-wire alternator to the task and it has been
mounted on a frame to belt drive it from a 2 hp tread-mill
motor. Preliminary work at low power can be accomplished
with this fixture with high power work to be done on the
truck.
In the mean time, Z-24 as published is a valid philosophy
for getting a one-wire alternator installed today. Further,
Z-24 easily morphs to the next generation configuration
when that hardware achieves production reality.
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: | Seems I killed one Odyssey PC625 battery |
Subaru engine with dual electrical system including pair of Odyssey PC625's.
Left one battery master switch on all night!
6 yr. old PC625 on that master reading only 6.4 volts.
Optimizer battery charger gives error indicating "CHARGER/BATTERY FAULT.
Charging stopped".
Since I was going to replace the batteries anyway before first flight went
ahead and bought new PC625. Charger charges it and remaining 6 year old
battery just fine.
Would love to have a 12 volt battery sitting on the work bench.
So - - - is there any method to bring this battery back to life for bench
use only?
Odyssey PC625 AGM battery and Xenotronics Optimizer Model SX100-1.
Thanks,
Allen Fulmer
RV7 finishing up wiring details before closing top skin.
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: | ELT Antenna Mount |
Please see attached picture:
Please understand that my intention is not to be critical, but to learn.
Is this an effective way to mount an ELT antenna?
I understand why this builder chose to mount it this way. But I have
concerns that there is a great deal of signal-blocking structure very close
to the antenna.
What do you RF gurus think?
-RF neophyte
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: ELT Antenna Mount |
Well certainly the omni-directional characteristics of the 1/4 wave antenna a
re ruined, the vswr, is probably affected, it's horizontally polarized and n
icely shielded......It might still work but you'll never know until you need
it. If you want to hide ALL the antennas inside structure you probably need
a glass plane.... ;-)
Tim
Cozy Mk IV
Sent from my iPad
On Apr 7, 2012, at 10:32 AM, "Jeff Luckey" <JLuckey@pacbell.net> wrote:
> Please see attached picture:
>
> Please understand that my intention is not to be critical, but to learn
>
> Is this an effective way to mount an ELT antenna?
>
> I understand why this builder chose to mount it this way. But I have conc
erns that there is a great deal of signal-blocking structure very close to t
he antenna.
>
> What do you RF gurus think?
>
> -RF neophyte
>
>
> <2009.05.02 - RV-8 - ELT Ameri-King AK-451 With GPS Input Installation (12
).jpg>
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: ELT Antenna Mount |
Good Afternoon Tim,
Maybe the builder feels the same about an ELT as I do.
Possibly he/she is just trying to be legal but does not care a whit whether
or not it works!
My feeling is that the use of an ELT should be a decision for the
owner/operator, NOT a requirement of the law.
Airliners are not required to carry one. Why should we?
Too many rules driven by pure bureaucracy.
Do Not Archive.
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
AKA
Bob Siegfried
Brookeridge Air Park
N3977A
In a message dated 4/7/2012 12:31:03 P.M. Central Daylight Time,
tim2542@sbcglobal.net writes:
Well certainly the omni-directional characteristics of the 1/4 wave
antenna are ruined, the vswr, is probably affected, it's horizontally pola
rized
and nicely shielded......It might still work but you'll never know until y
ou
need it. If you want to hide ALL the antennas inside structure you
probably need a glass plane.... ;-)
Tim
Cozy Mk IV
Sent from my iPad
On Apr 7, 2012, at 10:32 AM, "Jeff Luckey" <_JLuckey@pacbell.net_
(mailto:JLuckey@pacbell.net) > wrote:
Please see attached picture:
Please understand that my intention is not to be critical, but to learn
Is this an effective way to mount an ELT antenna?
I understand why this builder chose to mount it this way. But I have
concerns that there is a great deal of signal-blocking structure very close
to
the antenna.
What do you RF gurus think?
-RF neophyte
<2009.05.02 - RV-8 - ELT Ameri-King AK-451 With GPS Input Installation
(12).jpg>
(http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List)
(http://www.matronics.com/contribution)
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: Converting to externally reg alternator |
>> As the personable spokesperson for Allstate might suggest, "You're
in good hands with OV protection."
Certainly we're better off with overvoltage protection than relying on
our friends at the major insurance companies... our house burned down in
a major wild fire 21 years ago, and Allstate and State Farm were guilty
of reprehensible conduct.
I'll stick with OV protection! :-)
Paul
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: ELT Antenna Mount |
Jeff,
<< Is this an effective way to mount an ELT antenna? >>
In terms of ideal electronic performance, it is a poor location. In
terns of intended mission it is excellent. The tail cone location makes
it very likely the antenna will survive a crash. There are enough gaps
to make it likely a satellite would be able to receive a signal.
It looks like you have an RV model. In that case a better place for an
ELT antenna would be under the rear portion of the canopy. But what you
have will certainly be more reliable than any external mount.
Tom Kuffel
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: | Seems I killed one Odyssey PC625 battery |
You may have well and truly damaged the battery, permanently. However, it
could be that your 'smart charger' is refusing to even try to charge the
battery under the assumption that it is unrecoverable (typically due to a
shorted cell). Try putting a 'dumb' charger of 1 to 3 amps on the battery
for a couple of hours, long enough to get the voltage of the batter up
above 10 volts) then replace the dumb charger with the 'smart' charger and
see if the smart charger will recover the battery.
It may be that that the dumb charger will not get the battery above 8 or 9
volts, confirming that one of the six cells is shorted out in which case,
consider using the battery as a door stop.
cheers, -john-
_____
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Allen
Fulmer
Sent: Saturday, April 07, 2012 9:12 AM
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Seems I killed one Odyssey PC625 battery
Subaru engine with dual electrical system including pair of Odyssey PC625's.
Left one battery master switch on all night!
6 yr. old PC625 on that master reading only 6.4 volts.
Optimizer battery charger gives error indicating "CHARGER/BATTERY FAULT.
Charging stopped".
Since I was going to replace the batteries anyway before first flight went
ahead and bought new PC625. Charger charges it and remaining 6 year old
battery just fine.
Would love to have a 12 volt battery sitting on the work bench.
So - - - is there any method to bring this battery back to life for bench
use only?
Odyssey PC625 AGM battery and Xenotronics Optimizer Model SX100-1.
Thanks,
Allen Fulmer
RV7 finishing up wiring details before closing top skin.
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: ELT Antenna Mount |
Bob,
As I understand it, the reason commercial airliners don't have ELTs is they
are always in contact with ATC and on IFR flight plans. If they crash,
there is no question of locating them unlike a GA airplane which can choose
to fly VFR with no flight plan and not in touch with ATC.
Dee
On Sat, Apr 7, 2012 at 1:45 PM, <BobsV35B@aol.com> wrote:
> **
> Good Afternoon Tim,
>
> Maybe the builder feels the same about an ELT as I do.
>
> Possibly he/she is just trying to be legal but does not care a whit
> whether or not it works!
>
> My feeling is that the use of an ELT should be a decision for the
> owner/operator, NOT a requirement of the law.
>
> Airliners are not required to carry one. Why should we?
>
> Too many rules driven by pure bureaucracy.
>
> Do Not Archive.
>
> Happy Skies,
>
> Old Bob
> AKA
> Bob Siegfried
> Brookeridge Air Park
> N3977A
>
> In a message dated 4/7/2012 12:31:03 P.M. Central Daylight Time,
> tim2542@sbcglobal.net writes:
>
> Well certainly the omni-directional characteristics of the 1/4 wave
> antenna are ruined, the vswr, is probably affected, it's horizontally
> polarized and nicely shielded......It might still work but you'll never
> know until you need it. If you want to hide ALL the antennas inside
> structure you probably need a glass plane.... ;-)
> Tim
> Cozy Mk IV
>
> Sent from my iPad
>
> On Apr 7, 2012, at 10:32 AM, "Jeff Luckey" <JLuckey@pacbell.net> wrote:
>
> Please see attached picture:****
>
> ** **
>
> Please understand that my intention is not to be critical, but to learn
=85**
> **
>
> ** **
>
> Is this an effective way to mount an ELT antenna?****
>
> ** **
>
> I understand why this builder chose to mount it this way. But I have
> concerns that there is a great deal of signal-blocking structure very clo
se
> to the antenna.****
>
> ** **
>
> What do you RF gurus think?****
>
> ** **
>
> -RF neophyte****
>
> ** **
>
> ** **
>
> <2009.05.02 - RV-8 - ELT Ameri-King AK-451 With GPS Input Installation
> (12).jpg>
>
> *
>
> ist href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List">http://
www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-Lists.matronics.com/">http://forum
s.matronics.com
> p://www.matronics.com/contribution">http://www.matronics.com/contribution
> *
>
> *
>
===========
===========
===========
===========
> *
>
>
--
DeWitt Whittington
www.VirginiaFlyIn.org
Building Glasair Sportsman with 3 partners
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: | Seems I killed one Odyssey PC625 battery |
You can probably bring it back with diminished capacity - it could be great
as a bench-test battery; but you will need an old-school, stupid charger.
And you may have to charge & discharge a few times.
Your smart charger has correctly detected that this battery is in trouble,
and has refused to charge it. (Imagine that - Attitude from a battery
charger! What's next? . Grouchy toasters ;)
I've been successful reviving a couple of batts with this technique. But I
would NEVER fly with it!
_____
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Allen
Fulmer
Sent: Saturday, April 07, 2012 08:12
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Seems I killed one Odyssey PC625 battery
Subaru engine with dual electrical system including pair of Odyssey PC625's.
Left one battery master switch on all night!
6 yr. old PC625 on that master reading only 6.4 volts.
Optimizer battery charger gives error indicating "CHARGER/BATTERY FAULT.
Charging stopped".
Since I was going to replace the batteries anyway before first flight went
ahead and bought new PC625. Charger charges it and remaining 6 year old
battery just fine.
Would love to have a 12 volt battery sitting on the work bench.
So - - - is there any method to bring this battery back to life for bench
use only?
Odyssey PC625 AGM battery and Xenotronics Optimizer Model SX100-1.
Thanks,
Allen Fulmer
RV7 finishing up wiring details before closing top skin.
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: Next generation wig-wag controller for LED lamps |
Bob,
Thanks for the info.
What is the limiting factor on power to the LED's?
I am planning to use the Teledyne LED lights that use 45 watts, so
about 4 amps at 12 volts for each light. What changes would be
needed to up the power capability by a factor of two. Different parts?
Different packaging? Different connector? Heatsinks?
What is the frequency of the wig-wag function and how is that set
by the components? I am a software engineer so I know enough
about hardware design to be dangerous, but I am in the process
of learning more.
Greg McHugh
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=370235#370235
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: ELT Antenna Mount |
Good Afternoon Dee,
It is obvious that I have not presented the point in a way that you can
understand my feelings. It should be a decision we make. NOT a forced
solution.
We as, individuals, should be able to choose what method we want to use to
maintain contact with the rest of the world.
I can do at least as good a job of providing guidance for recovery of my
aircraft as do the air carriers. I might elect to fly IFR at all times or I
may just decide that I do not want any help if I should fail to get where
I
am going.
More likely, I would carry a PLB in areas that would be difficult and
nothing at all in flat land Mid America.
Lots of possibilities.
Long before the rules were forced upon us, I made a practice of carrying a
portable VHF communication unit (Remember the Bayside?) and keeping a
current IFR chart on board that would let me know what frequency would be
monitored by aircraft in the area.
My recollection is that IFR flight was NOT mandatory for air carrier
aircraft at the time the ELT was foisted upon us. It was the decision of a
liberal congress critter that forced the issue. Not the FAA or the aviati
on
industry.
The idea is one of personal choice.
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
In a message dated 4/7/2012 1:01:40 P.M. Central Daylight Time,
dee.whittington@gmail.com writes:
Bob,
As I understand it, the reason commercial airliners don't have ELTs is
they are always in contact with ATC and on IFR flight plans. If they crash
,
there is no question of locating them unlike a GA airplane which can choos
e
to fly VFR with no flight plan and not in touch with ATC.
Dee
On Sat, Apr 7, 2012 at 1:45 PM, <_BobsV35B@aol.com_
(mailto:BobsV35B@aol.com) > wrote:
Good Afternoon Tim,
Maybe the builder feels the same about an ELT as I do.
Possibly he/she is just trying to be legal but does not care a whit
whether or not it works!
My feeling is that the use of an ELT should be a decision for the
owner/operator, NOT a requirement of the law.
Airliners are not required to carry one. Why should we?
Too many rules driven by pure bureaucracy.
Do Not Archive.
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
AKA
Bob Siegfried
Brookeridge Air Park
N3977A
In a message dated 4/7/2012 12:31:03 P.M. Central Daylight Time,
_tim2542@sbcglobal.net_ (mailto:tim2542@sbcglobal.net) writes:
Well certainly the omni-directional characteristics of the 1/4 wave
antenna are ruined, the vswr, is probably affected, it's horizontally pola
rized
and nicely shielded......It might still work but you'll never know until y
ou
need it. If you want to hide ALL the antennas inside structure you
probably need a glass plane.... ;-)
Tim
Cozy Mk IV
Sent from my iPad
On Apr 7, 2012, at 10:32 AM, "Jeff Luckey" <_JLuckey@pacbell.net_
(mailto:JLuckey@pacbell.net) > wrote:
Please see attached picture:
Please understand that my intention is not to be critical, but to learn
Is this an effective way to mount an ELT antenna?
I understand why this builder chose to mount it this way. But I have
concerns that there is a great deal of signal-blocking structure very clos
e to
the antenna.
What do you RF gurus think?
-RF neophyte
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: | ELT Antenna Mount |
Tom,
To be clear, that picture is not of my airplane.
I am building an RV-7 but have not started work on my fuselage. I'm trying
to gather information for decisions I will be making in the near future.
_____
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of The
Kuffels
Sent: Saturday, April 07, 2012 09:55
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: ELT Antenna Mount
Jeff,
<< Is this an effective way to mount an ELT antenna? >>
In terms of ideal electronic performance, it is a poor location. In terns
of intended mission it is excellent. The tail cone location makes it very
likely the antenna will survive a crash. There are enough gaps to make it
likely a satellite would be able to receive a signal.
It looks like you have an RV model. In that case a better place for an ELT
antenna would be under the rear portion of the canopy. But what you have
will certainly be more reliable than any external mount.
Tom Kuffel
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: | ELT Antenna Mount |
Bob,
Do you feel the same way about anti-lock brakes, airbags, catalytic
converters?
As the Original Poster for this topic, I deem that we are quickly vectoring
off-topic.
If it is necessary to continue this alternate topic, let's move it to the
appropriate forum.
_____
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of
BobsV35B@aol.com
Sent: Saturday, April 07, 2012 10:24
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: ELT Antenna Mount
Good Afternoon Dee,
It is obvious that I have not presented the point in a way that you can
understand my feelings. It should be a decision we make. NOT a forced
solution.
We as, individuals, should be able to choose what method we want to use to
maintain contact with the rest of the world.
I can do at least as good a job of providing guidance for recovery of my
aircraft as do the air carriers. I might elect to fly IFR at all times or I
may just decide that I do not want any help if I should fail to get where I
am going.
More likely, I would carry a PLB in areas that would be difficult and
nothing at all in flat land Mid America.
Lots of possibilities.
Long before the rules were forced upon us, I made a practice of carrying a
portable VHF communication unit (Remember the Bayside?) and keeping a
current IFR chart on board that would let me know what frequency would be
monitored by aircraft in the area.
My recollection is that IFR flight was NOT mandatory for air carrier
aircraft at the time the ELT was foisted upon us. It was the decision of a
liberal congress critter that forced the issue. Not the FAA or the aviation
industry.
The idea is one of personal choice.
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
In a message dated 4/7/2012 1:01:40 P.M. Central Daylight Time,
dee.whittington@gmail.com writes:
Bob,
As I understand it, the reason commercial airliners don't have ELTs is they
are always in contact with ATC and on IFR flight plans. If they crash, there
is no question of locating them unlike a GA airplane which can choose to fly
VFR with no flight plan and not in touch with ATC.
Dee
On Sat, Apr 7, 2012 at 1:45 PM, <BobsV35B@aol.com> wrote:
Good Afternoon Tim,
Maybe the builder feels the same about an ELT as I do.
Possibly he/she is just trying to be legal but does not care a whit whether
or not it works!
My feeling is that the use of an ELT should be a decision for the
owner/operator, NOT a requirement of the law.
Airliners are not required to carry one. Why should we?
Too many rules driven by pure bureaucracy.
Do Not Archive.
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
AKA
Bob Siegfried
Brookeridge Air Park
N3977A
In a message dated 4/7/2012 12:31:03 P.M. Central Daylight Time,
tim2542@sbcglobal.net writes:
Well certainly the omni-directional characteristics of the 1/4 wave antenna
are ruined, the vswr, is probably affected, it's horizontally polarized and
nicely shielded......It might still work but you'll never know until you
need it. If you want to hide ALL the antennas inside structure you probably
need a glass plane.... ;-)
Tim
Cozy Mk IV
Sent from my iPad
On Apr 7, 2012, at 10:32 AM, "Jeff Luckey" <JLuckey@pacbell.net> wrote:
Please see attached picture:
Please understand that my intention is not to be critical, but to learn.
Is this an effective way to mount an ELT antenna?
I understand why this builder chose to mount it this way. But I have
concerns that there is a great deal of signal-blocking structure very close
to the antenna.
What do you RF gurus think?
-RF neophyte
Message 17
INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Subject: | Re: ELT Antenna Mount |
I guess we could debate forever about what should or shouldn't be the
rule, but I don't believe that was the original question. As far as the
ELT in the picture goes: I don't believe it would comply with the
manufacturer's TSO, and would for that reason not be an acceptable
solution to me personally. Whether it would work as hoped in an
emergency or be acceptable to your DAR is a question none of us can know
for sure. It's your airplane, and you are free to decide based on your
own priorities and how lucky you feel at the moment.
John Grosse
Message 18
INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Subject: | Re: ELT Antenna Mount |
I can't say I follow your logic from charger to catalytic, but as Gilda
Radner said: Nevermind!
Back to your battery. I believe I saw on this list some time back a
possible "cheat" for this situation. Connect a good battery and the
dead battery in parallel with the charger. As I understand it the
charger is "tricked" into operating and will then charge both batteries.
I have brought dead batteries back with "dumb" chargers many times,
though as others have said, I wouldn't use it in a critical application.
Hope this helps.
Raymond Julian
Kettle River, MN
"And you know that I could have me a million more friends,
and all I'd have to lose is my point of view." - John Prine
On 04/07/2012 03:01 PM, Jeff Luckey wrote:
> Bob,
>
> Do you feel the same way about anti-lock brakes, airbags, catalytic
> converters?
>
> As the Original Poster for this topic, I deem that we are quickly
> vectoring off-topic.
>
> If it is necessary to continue this alternate topic, lets move it to
> the appropriate forum
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> *From:*owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] *On Behalf Of
> *BobsV35B@aol.com
> *Sent:* Saturday, April 07, 2012 10:24
> *To:* aeroelectric-list@matronics.com
> *Subject:* Re: AeroElectric-List: ELT Antenna Mount
>
> Good Afternoon Dee,
>
> It is obvious that I have not presented the point in a way that you can
> understand my feelings. It should be a decision we make. NOT a forced
> solution.
>
> We as, individuals, should be able to choose what method we want to use
> to maintain contact with the rest of the world.
>
> I can do at least as good a job of providing guidance for recovery of my
> aircraft as do the air carriers. I might elect to fly IFR at all times
> or I may just decide that I do not want any help if I should fail to get
> where I am going.
>
> More likely, I would carry a PLB in areas that would be difficult and
> nothing at all in flat land Mid America.
>
> Lots of possibilities.
>
> Long before the rules were forced upon us, I made a practice of carrying
> a portable VHF communication unit (Remember the Bayside?) and keeping a
> current IFR chart on board that would let me know what frequency would
> be monitored by aircraft in the area.
>
> My recollection is that IFR flight was NOT mandatory for air carrier
> aircraft at the time the ELT was foisted upon us. It was the decision of
> a liberal congress critter that forced the issue. Not the FAA or the
> aviation industry.
>
> The idea is one of personal choice.
>
> Happy Skies,
>
> Old Bob
>
> In a message dated 4/7/2012 1:01:40 P.M. Central Daylight Time,
> dee.whittington@gmail.com writes:
>
> Bob,
>
> As I understand it, the reason commercial airliners don't have ELTs
> is they are always in contact with ATC and on IFR flight plans. If
> they crash, there is no question of locating them unlike a GA
> airplane which can choose to fly VFR with no flight plan and not in
> touch with ATC.
>
> Dee
>
> On Sat, Apr 7, 2012 at 1:45 PM, <BobsV35B@aol.com
> <mailto:BobsV35B@aol.com>> wrote:
>
> Good Afternoon Tim,
>
> Maybe the builder feels the same about an ELT as I do.
>
> Possibly he/she is just trying to be legal but does not care a whit
> whether or not it works!
>
> My feeling is that the use of an ELT should be a decision for the
> owner/operator, NOT a requirement of the law.
>
> Airliners are not required to carry one. Why should we?
>
> Too many rules driven by pure bureaucracy.
>
> Do Not Archive.
>
> Happy Skies,
>
> Old Bob
>
> AKA
>
> Bob Siegfried
>
> BrookeridgeAir Park
>
> N3977A
>
> In a message dated 4/7/2012 12:31:03 P.M. Central Daylight Time,
> tim2542@sbcglobal.net <mailto:tim2542@sbcglobal.net> writes:
>
> Well certainly the omni-directional characteristics of the 1/4
> wave antenna are ruined, the vswr, is probably affected, it's
> horizontally polarized and nicely shielded......It might still
> work but you'll never know until you need it. If you want to
> hide ALL the antennas inside structure you probably need a glass
> plane.... ;-)
>
> Tim
>
> Cozy Mk IV
>
> Sent from my iPad
>
>
> On Apr 7, 2012, at 10:32 AM, "Jeff Luckey" <JLuckey@pacbell.net
> <mailto:JLuckey@pacbell.net>> wrote:
>
>> Please see attached picture:
>>
>> Please understand that my intention is not to be critical, but
>> to learn
>>
>> Is this an effective way to mount an ELT antenna?
>>
>> I understand why this builder chose to mount it this way. But
>> I have concerns that there is a great deal of signal-blocking
>> structure very close to the antenna.
>>
>> What do you RF gurus think?
>>
>> -RF neophyte
>>
> * *
>
> * *
>
> **
>
> **
>
> **
>
> *http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List*
>
> **
>
> **
>
> *http://forums.matronics.com*
>
> **
>
> **
>
> *http://www.matronics.com/contribution*
>
> * *
>
> *
>
>
> *
Message 19
INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Subject: | Re: Troubleshooting Field Breaker |
Continued trouble shooting today. Bill at B&C suggested a probable cause of bad
field connectors at the alternator. Swapped connectors and all seems fine. Field
pin at alternator to ground is 3.5 Ohms so that seems within limits. I ran
a jumper wire from the regulator to the field and still see the same issue. I
did note that I'm seeing about 15.9 - 16V just before the breaker opens so the
alternator seems to be putting out voltage.
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=370244#370244
Message 20
INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Subject: | Re: ELT Antenna Mount |
Please ignore this. I posted it under the wrong subject.
My apologies.
Raymond Julian
Kettle River, MN
"And you know that I could have me a million more friends,
and all I'd have to lose is my point of view." - John Prine
On 04/07/2012 02:35 PM, rayj wrote:
>
> I can't say I follow your logic from charger to catalytic, but as Gilda
> Radner said: Nevermind!
>
> Back to your battery. I believe I saw on this list some time back a
> possible "cheat" for this situation. Connect a good battery and the dead
> battery in parallel with the charger. As I understand it the charger is
> "tricked" into operating and will then charge both batteries. I have
> brought dead batteries back with "dumb" chargers many times, though as
> others have said, I wouldn't use it in a critical application.
>
> Hope this helps.
>
> Raymond Julian
> Kettle River, MN
>
> "And you know that I could have me a million more friends,
> and all I'd have to lose is my point of view." - John Prine
>
> On 04/07/2012 03:01 PM, Jeff Luckey wrote:
>> Bob,
>>
>> Do you feel the same way about anti-lock brakes, airbags, catalytic
>> converters?
>>
>> As the Original Poster for this topic, I deem that we are quickly
>> vectoring off-topic.
>>
>> If it is necessary to continue this alternate topic, lets move it to
>> the appropriate forum
>>
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>> *From:*owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
>> [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] *On Behalf Of
>> *BobsV35B@aol.com
>> *Sent:* Saturday, April 07, 2012 10:24
>> *To:* aeroelectric-list@matronics.com
>> *Subject:* Re: AeroElectric-List: ELT Antenna Mount
>>
>> Good Afternoon Dee,
>>
>> It is obvious that I have not presented the point in a way that you can
>> understand my feelings. It should be a decision we make. NOT a forced
>> solution.
>>
>> We as, individuals, should be able to choose what method we want to use
>> to maintain contact with the rest of the world.
>>
>> I can do at least as good a job of providing guidance for recovery of my
>> aircraft as do the air carriers. I might elect to fly IFR at all times
>> or I may just decide that I do not want any help if I should fail to get
>> where I am going.
>>
>> More likely, I would carry a PLB in areas that would be difficult and
>> nothing at all in flat land Mid America.
>>
>> Lots of possibilities.
>>
>> Long before the rules were forced upon us, I made a practice of carrying
>> a portable VHF communication unit (Remember the Bayside?) and keeping a
>> current IFR chart on board that would let me know what frequency would
>> be monitored by aircraft in the area.
>>
>> My recollection is that IFR flight was NOT mandatory for air carrier
>> aircraft at the time the ELT was foisted upon us. It was the decision of
>> a liberal congress critter that forced the issue. Not the FAA or the
>> aviation industry.
>>
>> The idea is one of personal choice.
>>
>> Happy Skies,
>>
>> Old Bob
>>
>> In a message dated 4/7/2012 1:01:40 P.M. Central Daylight Time,
>> dee.whittington@gmail.com writes:
>>
>> Bob,
>>
>> As I understand it, the reason commercial airliners don't have ELTs
>> is they are always in contact with ATC and on IFR flight plans. If
>> they crash, there is no question of locating them unlike a GA
>> airplane which can choose to fly VFR with no flight plan and not in
>> touch with ATC.
>>
>> Dee
>>
>> On Sat, Apr 7, 2012 at 1:45 PM, <BobsV35B@aol.com
>> <mailto:BobsV35B@aol.com>> wrote:
>>
>> Good Afternoon Tim,
>>
>> Maybe the builder feels the same about an ELT as I do.
>>
>> Possibly he/she is just trying to be legal but does not care a whit
>> whether or not it works!
>>
>> My feeling is that the use of an ELT should be a decision for the
>> owner/operator, NOT a requirement of the law.
>>
>> Airliners are not required to carry one. Why should we?
>>
>> Too many rules driven by pure bureaucracy.
>>
>> Do Not Archive.
>>
>> Happy Skies,
>>
>> Old Bob
>>
>> AKA
>>
>> Bob Siegfried
>>
>> BrookeridgeAir Park
>>
>> N3977A
>>
>> In a message dated 4/7/2012 12:31:03 P.M. Central Daylight Time,
>> tim2542@sbcglobal.net <mailto:tim2542@sbcglobal.net> writes:
>>
>> Well certainly the omni-directional characteristics of the 1/4
>> wave antenna are ruined, the vswr, is probably affected, it's
>> horizontally polarized and nicely shielded......It might still
>> work but you'll never know until you need it. If you want to
>> hide ALL the antennas inside structure you probably need a glass
>> plane.... ;-)
>>
>> Tim
>>
>> Cozy Mk IV
>>
>> Sent from my iPad
>>
>>
>> On Apr 7, 2012, at 10:32 AM, "Jeff Luckey" <JLuckey@pacbell.net
>> <mailto:JLuckey@pacbell.net>> wrote:
>>
>>> Please see attached picture:
>>>
>>> Please understand that my intention is not to be critical, but
>>> to learn
>>>
>>> Is this an effective way to mount an ELT antenna?
>>>
>>> I understand why this builder chose to mount it this way. But
>>> I have concerns that there is a great deal of signal-blocking
>>> structure very close to the antenna.
>>>
>>> What do you RF gurus think?
>>>
>>> -RF neophyte
>>>
>> * *
>>
>> * *
>>
>> **
>>
>> **
>>
>> **
>>
>> *http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List*
>>
>> **
>>
>> **
>>
>> *http://forums.matronics.com*
>>
>> **
>>
>> **
>>
>> *http://www.matronics.com/contribution*
>>
>> * *
>>
>> *
>>
>>
>> *
>
>
Message 21
INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Subject: | Re: Seems I killed one Odyssey PC625 battery |
I believe I saw on this list some time back a possible "cheat" for this
situation. Connect a good battery and the dead battery in parallel with
the charger. As I understand it the charger is "tricked" into operating
and will then charge both batteries. I have brought dead batteries back
with "dumb" chargers many times, though as others have said, I wouldn't
use them in a critical application.
Hope this helps.
Raymond Julian
Kettle River, MN
"And you know that I could have me a million more friends,
and all I'd have to lose is my point of view." - John Prine
On 04/07/2012 02:04 PM, Jeff Luckey wrote:
> You can probably bring it back with diminished capacity it could be
> great as a bench-test battery; but you will need an old-school,
> stupid charger. And you may have to charge & discharge a few times.
>
> Your smart charger has correctly detected that this battery is in
> trouble, and has refused to charge it. (Imagine that Attitude from
> a battery charger! Whats next? Grouchy toasters ;)
>
> Ive been successful reviving a couple of batts with this technique.
> But I would NEVER fly with it!
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
*From:*owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] *On Behalf Of
> *Allen Fulmer *Sent:* Saturday, April 07, 2012 08:12 *To:*
> Aeroelectric-List *Subject:* AeroElectric-List: Seems I killed one
> Odyssey PC625 battery
>
> Subaru engine with dual electrical system including pair of Odyssey
> PC625s.
>
> Left one battery master switch on all night!
>
> 6 yr. old PC625 on that master reading only 6.4 volts.
>
> Optimizer battery charger gives error indicating CHARGER/BATTERY
> FAULT. Charging stopped.
>
> Since I was going to replace the batteries anyway before first flight
> went ahead and bought new PC625. Charger charges it and remaining 6
> year old battery just fine.
>
> Would love to have a 12 volt battery sitting on the work bench.
>
> So - - - is there any method to bring this battery back to life for
> bench use only?
>
> Odyssey PC625 AGM battery and Xenotronics Optimizer Model SX100-1.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Allen Fulmer
>
> RV7 finishing up wiring details before closing top skin.
>
> * *
>
> * *
>
> **
>
> **
>
> **
>
> *http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List*
>
> **
>
> **
>
> *http://forums.matronics.com*
>
> **
>
> **
>
> *http://www.matronics.com/contribution*
>
> * *
>
> *
>
>
> *
Message 22
INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Subject: | Re: Seems I killed one Odyssey PC625 battery |
...That probably will fool the charger however, I am not so sure about the
amperage action between the 2 batteries when connected.
I think the fully charged batt. will flash charge the dead batt. with a lot
of current at least for the several seconds. Would that be enough to burn
up the connecting wire or cause the dead one to do something odd or
dangerous..?
If tried, I would put some type of resistance between the good and dead
battery so the initial inrush current is limited to some reasonable level,
maybe 20 amps or less.
Hopefully Bob will inject here and fine tune the idea......
Dave
______________________________________________
----- Original Message -----
From: "rayj" <raymondj@frontiernet.net>
Sent: Saturday, April 07, 2012 1:26 PM
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Seems I killed one Odyssey PC625 battery
>
> I believe I saw on this list some time back a possible "cheat" for this
> situation. Connect a good battery and the dead battery in parallel with
> the charger. As I understand it the charger is "tricked" into operating
> and will then charge both batteries. I have brought dead batteries back
> with "dumb" chargers many times, though as others have said, I wouldn't
> use them in a critical application.
>
> Hope this helps.
>
> Raymond Julian
> Kettle River, MN
>
> "And you know that I could have me a million more friends,
> and all I'd have to lose is my point of view." - John Prine
>
> On 04/07/2012 02:04 PM, Jeff Luckey wrote:
>> You can probably bring it back with diminished capacity it could be
>> great as a bench-test battery; but you will need an old-school,
>> stupid charger. And you may have to charge & discharge a few times.
>>
>> Your smart charger has correctly detected that this battery is in
>> trouble, and has refused to charge it. (Imagine that Attitude from
>> a battery charger! Whats next? Grouchy toasters ;)
>>
>> Ive been successful reviving a couple of batts with this technique.
>> But I would NEVER fly with it!
>>
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
> *From:*owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
>> [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] *On Behalf Of
>> *Allen Fulmer *Sent:* Saturday, April 07, 2012 08:12 *To:*
>> Aeroelectric-List *Subject:* AeroElectric-List: Seems I killed one
>> Odyssey PC625 battery
>>
>> Subaru engine with dual electrical system including pair of Odyssey
>> PC625s.
>>
>> Left one battery master switch on all night!
>>
>> 6 yr. old PC625 on that master reading only 6.4 volts.
>>
>> Optimizer battery charger gives error indicating CHARGER/BATTERY
>> FAULT. Charging stopped.
>>
>> Since I was going to replace the batteries anyway before first flight
>> went ahead and bought new PC625. Charger charges it and remaining 6
>> year old battery just fine.
>>
>> Would love to have a 12 volt battery sitting on the work bench.
>>
>> So - - - is there any method to bring this battery back to life for
>> bench use only?
>>
>> Odyssey PC625 AGM battery and Xenotronics Optimizer Model SX100-1.
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> Allen Fulmer
>>
>> RV7 finishing up wiring details before closing top skin.
>>
>> * *
>>
>> * *
>>
>> **
>>
>> **
>>
>> **
>>
>> *http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List*
>>
>> **
>>
>> **
>>
>> *http://forums.matronics.com*
>>
>> **
>>
>> **
>>
>> *http://www.matronics.com/contribution*
>>
>> * *
>>
>> *
>>
>>
>> *
>
>
>
Message 23
INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Subject: | Re: ELT Antenna Mount |
John & Jeff,
<< I don't believe it would comply with the manufacturer's TSO, >>
Usually the manufacturer's installation instructions address what must be
done to comply with the TSO. For example, the 406 MHz ACK E-04 and the
Airtex 406-4 say the unit must be mounted in a certain orientation to a
structure of a certain strength, have an antenna cable of a maximum loss,
use their supplied antenna mounted to a structure of a certain strength,
etc. It does not mandate where the antenna is located. There are some
recommendations but no TSO requirements. Thus I conclude, unless there is
some very unusual wording in a specific ELT manufacturer's instructions, the
far tailcone installation is legal. Note the multifrequency antennas for
the above ELTs would not mechanically fit in the shown location.
But as I said, a much better place would be under and near the rear edge of
the canopy. It would meet the dual needs of crash survivability and
reasonable satellite visibility.
Tom Kuffel
Message 24
INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Subject: | Re: ELT Antenna Mount |
>From Wikipedia<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hale_Boggs#Disappearance_in_Ala
ska>
:
Disappearance and searchAs Majority Leader, Boggs often campaigned for
> others. On October 16, 1972, he was aboard a twin engine Cessna 310 with
> Representative Nick Begich of Alaska, who was facing a possible tight rac
e
> in the November 1972 general election against the Republican candidate, D
on
> Young, when it disappeared during a flight from Anchorage to Juneau. The
> only others on board were Begich=92s aide Russell Brown and the pilot, Do
n
> Jonz;[5] the four were heading to a campaign fundraiser for Begich. (Begi
ch
> won the 1972 election posthumously with 56 percent to Young's 44 percent,
> though Young would win the special election to replace Begich and won eve
ry
> election through and including 2010.)
>
> Coast Guard, Navy, and Air Force planes searched for the party. On
> November 24, 1972, after thirty-nine days, the search was abandoned.
> Neither the wreckage of the plane nor the pilot's and passengers' remains
> were ever found. The accident prompted Congress to pass a law mandating
> Emergency Locator Transmitters in all U.S. civil aircraft.
But back to the OP's question. As others have pointed out, it's more likely
to physically survive a crash than an externally mounted ELT, but less
likely to radiate its signal usefully. Another question is whether the
antenna location is even legal. Assuming it is legal, then your choice as
to if the internal location gives you the better chance at being found, or
if not, if the improvement to an external location is worth the trouble of
changing it.
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: Next generation wig-wag controller for LED |
lamps
At 01:20 PM 4/7/2012, you wrote:
>
>Bob,
>
>Thanks for the info.
>
>What is the limiting factor on power to the LED's?
>
>I am planning to use the Teledyne LED lights that use 45 watts, so
>about 4 amps at 12 volts for each light. What changes would be
>needed to up the power capability by a factor of two. Different parts?
>Different packaging? Different connector? Heatsinks?
Heatsinks. Just because a device is RATED at xx
amps, doesn't mean that it will carry that current
waving around in breeze . . . unless it's a strong
breeze and maybe down around -40 or so. The parts
as shown are good for over 10A if the FETs are
thoughtfully accommodated with respect to getting
rid of their heat.
Actually, these fets might be okay at 5A with little
or no heatsinking . . . didn't bother to run the numbers.
But in any case, upsizing for the larger lamps is no big
deal.
>What is the frequency of the wig-wag function and how is that set
>by the components?
The 1M/1uF network sets flash rate. That combination
with the 4093's I had in the bin gave about 340 mS
in one state and 450 mS in the others. One of the
characteristics of the cmos-gate astable is that
the hysteresis band is not centered between Vcc/Vdd,
hence the peg-leg gait of the flash pattern.
Of course, this wouldn't hurt the serviceability of
the device . . . in fact, folks would know who was
inbound from many miles out by the pattern of your
wig-wag.
The 'fix' would be to add a resistor and diode in
parallel with the 1M and adjust for better symmetry
-OR- change the oscillator to a 555 timer -OR- add
a divide by two flip-flop and double the frequency
of the oscillator.
The design goal was minimum parts count but with some
additional 'silicon herbs and spices' . . . the flavor
of the dish can be improved.
> I am a software engineer so I know enough
>about hardware design to be dangerous, but I am in the process
>of learning more.
Good for you! We all gotta start somewhere. My career
got officially launched in the basement of an uncle who
was big wig engineer for local power company. He taught
me the early motions of soldering things together . . .
with an iron that was the size of a billy club and took
20 minutes to warm up!
Hmmm . . . if you can herd the bytes around in a
microcontroller, there are some $1 devices from PIC that
would take care of your flash timer and push-pull outputs
to logic level gates on power fets. Of course, other
inputs could be used to control OFF/WW/ON functionality.
If you're interested in getting your feet wet in
etched circuit board layout, check out the free
CAD package from expresspcb.com
It might even be that the end-product can be fitted
into this stock enclosure
Emacs!
There's a gazillion ways to do this. Let's pick one
that gets your juices going . . .
Bob . . .
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 |
|
Subject: | Re: Troubleshooting Field Breaker |
At 03:03 PM 4/7/2012, you wrote:
>
>Continued trouble shooting today. Bill at B&C suggested a probable
>cause of bad field connectors at the alternator. Swapped connectors
>and all seems fine. Field pin at alternator to ground is 3.5 Ohms so
>that seems within limits. I ran a jumper wire from the regulator to
>the field and still see the same issue. I did note that I'm seeing
>about 15.9 - 16V just before the breaker opens so the alternator
>seems to be putting out voltage.
If it is that high, then it seems likely that
the ov protection system is doing what it was
designed to do. If regulator portion of the
LR3 is functioning correctly, then it's being
mis-informed as to actual bus voltage or perhaps
it has been adjusted too high.
One way to sort through all the variables is
do some testing that is outside the current
constellation of potential problems.
I suggest you mail it to B&C. Priority mail
in a free padded envelope from the post office
would get it there in a day or two. Same for
the trip back.
If the regulator is okay, then this greatly
simplifies your task.
Bob . . .
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! --
|