Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 07:51 AM - Re: Light pigtail (rvg8tor)
2. 08:25 AM - Re: Re: Light pigtail (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
3. 11:05 AM - Backup Alternator Wiring (mddickens@comcast.net)
4. 11:35 AM - Re: Backup Alternator Wiring (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
5. 11:56 AM - Re: Backup Alternator Wiring (mddickens@comcast.net)
6. 12:48 PM - Re: Backup Alternator Wiring (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
7. 01:03 PM - Re: Backup Alternator Wiring (mddickens@comcast.net)
8. 02:38 PM - Battery Tender performance (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
9. 02:51 PM - Re: Backup Alternator Wiring (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
10. 04:30 PM - Re: Battery Tender performance (rayj)
11. 04:31 PM - Re: Battery Tender performance (rparigor@suffolk.lib.ny.us)
12. 06:21 PM - Re: Battery Tender performance (Bill Watson)
13. 07:00 PM - Re: Battery Tender performance (Jared Yates)
14. 08:19 PM - Re: Battery Tender performance (Bill Watson)
15. 08:39 PM - Re: Battery Tender performance (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
16. 09:00 PM - Re: Battery Tender performance (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: Light pigtail |
mrspudandcompany(at)veriz wrote:
> Attached are the instructions, I used for the install. They include
> a wire diagram.
>
> Hmmmm . . . the wiring is, shall we say, unconventional.
> Circuit protection is usually installed at the bus
> UPSTREAM of control switches. Assuming the stated
> current draw numbers are for EACH of TWO fixtures, then
> system demands for Landing lights is 4.4A and Taxi lights
> is 5.8A. Position lights would be something less than 1A
> average.
>
> The nominal wire sizing is a bit heavy, the whole system
> could be wired with 20AWG and breakered at 7A, or
> fused at 10A (Don't want to operate past the 1/4th derating
> for fuses in the Taxi light slot. Position lights could
> run from a 5A branch. While the control wires are probably
> properly sized for loads, it's a good practice not to wire
> airframe accessories with less that 22AWG just for general
> robustness and workability issues.
>
> I am currently not going to hook up the Wig Wag feature, this was
> not planned when I wired the plane a couple years ago, I will add
> this feature after I am flying this year with any luck!
>
> If your wires are in place, then the notion of
> downsizing breakers or fuses consistent with new
> system requirements is a reasonable thing to do.
>
>
> Bob . . .
>
>
> Question: If I understand correctly the plan is to use the
> existing wiring, which was sized originally to the existing
> breakers. I understand that the breakers are oversize for the new
> lights, but why would it be suggested to lower the current
> rating size of the breaker, since it is there only to protect the
> wire?
>
>
> Roger
This is ultimately my question as well, to change the breaker is a bit of a pain
at this point and since it does protect the wire I was hoping to leave the installation
as is. I know the wire is way bigger than needed. My risk is the
pigtail out of the light, the power wires are 18 AWG but they are very short.
In a dead short, do you think the breaker would still pop before the 18AWG wires
burned up?
--------
Mike "Nemo" Elliott
RV-8A QB (Engine)
www.mykitlog.com/rvg8tor
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=382379#382379
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: Light pigtail |
> Question: If I understand correctly the plan is to use the
> existing wiring, which was sized originally to the existing
> breakers. I understand that the breakers are oversize for the
> new lights, but why would it be suggested to lower the current
> rating size of the breaker, since it is there only to protect
> the wire?
>
>
> Roger
This is ultimately my question as well, to change the breaker is a
bit of a pain at this point and since it does protect the wire I was
hoping to leave the installation as is. I know the wire is way
bigger than needed. My risk is the pigtail out of the light, the
power wires are 18 AWG but they are very short. In a dead short, do
you think the breaker would still pop before the 18AWG wires burned up?
Absolutely. Breakers actually don't even protect the
wire but the wire's insulation. See:
http://tinyurl.com/6qr72fr
Leaving the breakers in place represents no risk
to comfortable termination of flight under the
worst case failures. Even if those wires DID burn up,
what's the additional risk to an assembly that's already
in trouble?
Wire sizing and associated protection calls for
considering a huge combination of factors for
load dynamics, environment, and effects of any
given failure.
The philosophy for wire and protection sizing is
VERY conservative consistent with not wasting a
lot of time doing an FMEA for EACH protected
branch. AC43-13 is technically correct but
philosophically pedantic . . . but consider
the authorship . . .
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: | Backup Alternator Wiring |
I am starting off with drawing Z-12 as a basis for my architecture and am w
ondering if there would be an issue with connecting the backup alternator B
lead to the battery side of the battery contactor instead of the starter c
ontactor side. The field would also be powered and switched off of the E-Bu
ss. The reason I am interested in doing this is to address the possibility
of a battery contactor or master switch failure, so that the battery could
be charged as I ran on the E-Buss. I=99ve never seen it wired this wa
y, so I assume there=99s a problem with it, but I am not seeing 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: | Re: Backup Alternator Wiring |
At 01:04 PM 9/4/2012, you wrote:
I am starting off with drawing Z-12 as a basis for my architecture
and am wondering if there would be an issue with connecting the
backup alternator B lead to the battery side of the battery contactor
instead of the starter contactor side. The field would also be
powered and switched off of the E-Buss. The reason I am interested in
doing this is to address the possibility of a battery contactor or
master switch failure, so that the battery could be charged as I ran
on the E-Buss. I've never seen it wired this way, so I assume there's
a problem with it, but I am not seeing it.
No 'problem' I perceive. It does violate the
legacy design goal for "max cold" wiring when
the battery contactor is open . . . your b-lead
is always hot. But this is a minor if not insignificant
worry. You'd need to be aware of it when working
around the rear of your standby alternator . . .
in cars it's recommended that one disconnect
the (-) battery cable during maintenance ops.
Bob . . .
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: Backup Alternator Wiring |
Thanks. Looking at it harder, I see that doing this really isn't necessary since
the current would get back to the battery through the "back door", traveling
through the main power buss across the e-buss diode and back upstream to the
battery. Sound right?
----- Original Message -----
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob@aeroelectric.com>
Sent: Tuesday, September 4, 2012 1:34:27 PM
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Backup Alternator Wiring
At 01:04 PM 9/4/2012, you wrote:
I am starting off with drawing Z-12 as a basis for my architecture
and am wondering if there would be an issue with connecting the
backup alternator B lead to the battery side of the battery contactor
instead of the starter contactor side. The field would also be
powered and switched off of the E-Buss. The reason I am interested in
doing this is to address the possibility of a battery contactor or
master switch failure, so that the battery could be charged as I ran
on the E-Buss. I've never seen it wired this way, so I assume there's
a problem with it, but I am not seeing it.
No 'problem' I perceive. It does violate the
legacy design goal for "max cold" wiring when
the battery contactor is open . . . your b-lead
is always hot. But this is a minor if not insignificant
worry. You'd need to be aware of it when working
around the rear of your standby alternator . . .
in cars it's recommended that one disconnect
the (-) battery cable during maintenance ops.
Bob . . .
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: Backup Alternator Wiring |
At 01:56 PM 9/4/2012, you wrote:
Thanks. Looking at it harder, I see that doing this really isn't
necessary since the current would get back to the battery through the
"back door", traveling through the main power buss across the e-buss
diode and back upstream to the battery. Sound right?
No, the e-bus diode is not intended to be a
charge-path to the battery. The e-bus is intended
to be an ENDURANCE bus that powers only those
devices need to get you to airport in sight
at intended destination. In other words, better
endurance battery only than that of fuel aboard.
If you have an alternator operating, then
plan-b loads can include a combination of
e-bus -AND- main bus loads that do not exceed
alternator capability. But if that alternator
is not available, then the E-BUS PLAN-C takes
effect.
The e-bus is probably the least understood feature
of the z-figures. The design goal is to prevent
any single failure of an electrical system component
from becoming a 'wet-armpits' situation. This
means NOT having to operate on your flight-bag
hand-helds for continued flight to airport of
intended destination.
You ARE planning flight-bag backups . . . right?
http://tinyurl.com/4xjhgly
This means that the e-bus is not intended to
keep everything except the kitchen sink
running. It's intended to keep the flight-bag
backups in comfortable reserve. Hence the small
normal feed diode and relatively small feeder
to the e-bus.
Figure Z-13/8 supports an 8A e-bus while
holding the battery in complete reserve for
descent and approach to landing. Wiring your
20A pad driven alternator as you described
suggests that the e-bus loads can go up to
20 amps . . . with appropriately upsized
feeders.
http://tinyurl.com/756ydec
But in no case should design goals include
charging the battery through the e-bus normal
feed path diode.
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: Backup Alternator Wiring |
Yes, of course, as I have for over 30 years, but I am asking if my reading of the
diagram is correct that the current would travel back up the e-buss to provide
any charging to the battery, or is the forward rating of the diode not sufficient
for this. One is a philosophical discussion (and I agree with you) and
the other is an electrical discussion, which is where my question came from.
If I'm wrong that the battery gets no charging through this path, I'll simply
plan on putting the standby alternator B lead on the battery side of the battery
contactor, with the understanding that the B lead will be hot all the time.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob@aeroelectric.com>
Sent: Tuesday, September 4, 2012 2:47:06 PM
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Backup Alternator Wiring
At 01:56 PM 9/4/2012, you wrote:
Thanks. Looking at it harder, I see that doing this really isn't
necessary since the current would get back to the battery through the
"back door", traveling through the main power buss across the e-buss
diode and back upstream to the battery. Sound right?
No, the e-bus diode is not intended to be a
charge-path to the battery. The e-bus is intended
to be an ENDURANCE bus that powers only those
devices need to get you to airport in sight
at intended destination. In other words, better
endurance battery only than that of fuel aboard.
If you have an alternator operating, then
plan-b loads can include a combination of
e-bus -AND- main bus loads that do not exceed
alternator capability. But if that alternator
is not available, then the E-BUS PLAN-C takes
effect.
The e-bus is probably the least understood feature
of the z-figures. The design goal is to prevent
any single failure of an electrical system component
from becoming a 'wet-armpits' situation. This
means NOT having to operate on your flight-bag
hand-helds for continued flight to airport of
intended destination.
You ARE planning flight-bag backups . . . right?
http://tinyurl.com/4xjhgly
This means that the e-bus is not intended to
keep everything except the kitchen sink
running. It's intended to keep the flight-bag
backups in comfortable reserve. Hence the small
normal feed diode and relatively small feeder
to the e-bus.
Figure Z-13/8 supports an 8A e-bus while
holding the battery in complete reserve for
descent and approach to landing. Wiring your
20A pad driven alternator as you described
suggests that the e-bus loads can go up to
20 amps . . . with appropriately upsized
feeders.
http://tinyurl.com/756ydec
But in no case should design goals include
charging the battery through the e-bus normal
feed path diode.
Bob . . .
Message 8
INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Subject: | Battery Tender performance |
I have known this for some time (since the time I gathered
the plots at: http://tinyurl.com/8o65jha and http://tinyurl.com/9paguuy
A more recent plot I published a few days ago for my Battery Tender
Jr. had a recharge curve for 12 a.h. battery that looked like this:
Emacs!
Not much of a top-off cycle. No absorption dwell . . .
So I ran some new plots on Ron's 12 a.h. batteries and my
10 year-old Battery Tender. Here's what I got.
Emacs!
These plots confirm the question as to whether batteries 'charged' with
the Battery Tender really get topped off. Two cycles of Battery Tender
only recharge produced the red and green plots. A third cycle was
augmented with a 3 hour top-off which was still drawing about 150 mA
at 14.5 volts.
The third, topped off cycle stored about 60 minutes more service
at a 1.2A rate than for the un-augmented cycles.
I've given away all my SEC1562 chargers to family members.
Got a new one ordered yesterday. I'll run some charge/discharge
cycles on the same battery. I think we'll find that the Minders
and Tenders are not designed to top off SVLA batteries of any
size.
Does that mean they're 'bad' chargers? No, in instance under
study the Battery Tender still put ~90% of the battery's total
capacity back in storage.
I've used the Battery Tender to charge and maintain a family
of instrumentation batteries for years. I retired a couple
of test batteries last year that were over 10 years old
and tested to better than 75% of new. So it MIGHT be said
that cycling a battery less aggressively is good for
service life . . . but for sure, the battery maintainer
products are best used to store batteries that are fully
charged when put away.
The next chapter will be written when the new 1562 gets
here. Given the very reasonable price ($20) it may well
be that the SEC1562A is about the best value out there
for a top-off charger-maintainer.
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: Backup Alternator Wiring |
At 03:03 PM 9/4/2012, you wrote:
>Yes, of course, as I have for over 30 years, but I am asking if my
>reading of the diagram is correct that the current would travel back
>up the e-buss to provide any charging to the battery, or is the
>forward rating of the diode not sufficient for this. One is a
>philosophical discussion (and I agree with you) and the other is an
>electrical discussion, which is where my question came from. If I'm
>wrong that the battery gets no charging through this path, I'll
>simply plan on putting the standby alternator B lead on the battery
>side of the battery contactor, with the understanding that the B
>lead will be hot all the time.
The diode adds a voltage drop that hampers
full charge of the battery . . . but probabilities
suggest that battery was fully charged when the
main alternator failed. So if the diode and
associated wiring are beefy enough to carry
output of both alternators as potential
recharge current + e-bus loads . . . then yeah
. . . it plays as a low risk mode-D for system
operation.
We're really thrashing a will-o-the-wisp
in the constellation of hazards to flight.
Electrical system failures figure in a very
small percentage of incidents that bend
airplanes or people. Figure Z-12 is installed
in thousands of TC aircraft and Z-11 is installed
in tens of thousands of TC aircraft . . . admittedly,
the FEMA studies on these aircraft were blessed
more than 50 years ago . . . but over the history
of batteries and alternators on flying machines,
main contactor failure rates are so low as to
be statistically insignificant for cost of ownership
and risks.
Charging the battery though the e-bus normal feed
path are requires that all the components be sized
for worst case current flows. In this case it
would be at least full output of the main
alternator combined with an autoswitched SB
alternator output feeding e-bus loads + battery
recharge loads. If this is a design goal, it can
be done.
Which begs the question. How will you know when
a contactor has faiied?
Bob . . .
Message 10
INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Subject: | Re: Battery Tender performance |
Bob,
Sorry if I missed it, but could you define tender vs maintainer vs smart
charger vs old style charger in terms of expected charge profiles for
typical batteries used in OBAM aircraft.
do not archive
Thanks,
Raymond Julian
On 09/04/2012 04:36 PM, Robert L. Nuckolls, III wrote:
snip
>
> I've given away all my SEC1562 chargers to family members.
> Got a new one ordered yesterday. I'll run some charge/discharge
> cycles on the same battery. I think we'll find that the Minders
> and Tenders are not designed to top off SVLA batteries of any
> size.
>
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: Battery Tender performance |
Hi Bob
Thx. for taking the time and effort to share your findings.
Again the batteries I was referring to were abused and discharged
repeatedly below 12.4 volts.
It would be interesting to see the results you achieve if you use the
chargers I sent you. They are 500mA constant current chargers that do
nothing more than turn off ~ 15.4 volts, but that allows a reasonable
dwell above the 13.7 float voltage.
Ron Parigoris
Message 12
INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Subject: | Re: Battery Tender performance |
Bob, your previous posts on this topic of using a "Battery Tender" as a
"charger" was the key to helping me unravel a set of problems I was
having with my Odyssey 680s. Just wanted to say thanks and to share my
experience if others may find it useful.
I have a Z-14 with 2 680s. Very early in my build I bought 2 680s
(which really weren't needed at the time) to ease design of the battery
box but they were actually used very little. They were charged a few
times and occasionally maintained (hooked up overnight even though they
had not been discharged) with the brand name "Battery Tender". A few
years later when I was 90% done with 90% to go, I decided to get fresh
batteries (not quite at the same time and these weren't needed at the
time either). These batteries were used quite a bit in panel testing and
such. These were also charged and maintained with the battery tender
(many cycles).
When I finally got to first flight, I found that neither of the new
batteries would turn over the IO540 on my RV10. When both batteries
were cross fed, no problem but alone, neither battery could quite turn
the cold engine over. Per Bob's posts, I suspected that use of the
"Tender" was my problem. A trip to Walmart turned up a suitable
charger with settings for Gel vs Lead vs (glass mat?). One charge and
now one of the new batteries was a tiger and the other got a lot better.
The way I intended to use my 2 batteries was to normally use one to
power the EFISs and most of the rest of the avionics. The other was for
starting. After start, the batteries would be cross fed. This now
worked but my avionics panel would start to go dim after 5 minutes or so
unless the engine was started and the alternators were online. I was
hoping for more.
After much data collection, a carbon pile tester, and some additional
field experience it turned out that the batteries I bought some 4 or 5
years ago were still in great shape once charged with the new charger.
Furthermore, 1 of the new batteries seemed ruined in the sense that the
other 3 batteries consistently outperformed it and I found it unsuitable
for either position in the aircraft.
It appeared that repeated discharge and charge with only the Battery
Tender permanently reduced the capacity of 1 of my new batteries. It
also appeared that 4 or 5 years of aging on the shelf in a more or less
fully charged state was not as bad as repeated use and undercharging
with a Battery Tender/maintainer.
Further reinforcing these observations, at my first condition inspection
I decided to swap in the better of my 2 newer batteries. for the first
year, I had been flying with my 2 older batteries. Thought my carbon
pile tester had bellied up, I found that my 2 older batteries and one of
my new batteries all had the same voltage when fully charged with no
load. When I swapped out my oldest battery for my best new battery it
turns out it didn't perform quite as well (the engine would not always
turn over on it). I went back to the 2 older batteries and everything
works as intended.
I've since set aside the battery tender knowing that if I have a charged
battery on the shelf, I could probably use it to maintain the full
charge. But the Walmart charger is my main charging tool. Now that I'm
flying regularly there is little need for charging and my Z-14 is
performing exactly as desired (though I haven't had any kind of
electrical component failure to test its failure tolerance). I'm quite
confident behind my 100% electrical panel in IFR operations.
(I do have 2 mags which are refreshingly retro in this microprocessor
world - they are electromagnetic mechanical wonders!)
Thanks again Bob,
Bill Watson
N215TG
On 9/4/2012 5:36 PM, Robert L. Nuckolls, III wrote:
> I have known this for some time (since the time I gathered
> the plots at: http://tinyurl.com/8o65jha <http://tinyurl.com/8o65jha>
> and http://tinyurl.com/9paguuy <http://tinyurl.com/9paguuy>
>
> These plots confirm the question as to whether batteries 'charged' with
> the Battery Tender really get topped off. Two cycles of Battery Tender
> only recharge produced the red and green plots. A third cycle was
> augmented with a 3 hour top-off which was still drawing about 150 mA
> at 14.5 volts.
>
> The third, topped off cycle stored about 60 minutes more service
> at a 1.2A rate than for the un-augmented cycles.
>
> I've given away all my SEC1562 chargers to family members.
> Got a new one ordered yesterday. I'll run some charge/discharge
> cycles on the same battery. I think we'll find that the Minders
> and Tenders are not designed to top off SVLA batteries of any
> size.
>
> Does that mean they're 'bad' chargers? No, in instance under
> study the Battery Tender still put ~90% of the battery's total
> capacity back in storage.
>
> I've used the Battery Tender to charge and maintain a family
> of instrumentation batteries for years. I retired a couple
> of test batteries last year that were over 10 years old
> and tested to better than 75% of new. So it MIGHT be said
> that cycling a battery less aggressively is good for
> service life . . . but for sure, the battery maintainer
> products are best used to store batteries that are fully
> charged when put away.
>
> The next chapter will be written when the new 1562 gets
> here. Given the very reasonable price ($20) it may well
> be that the SEC1562A is about the best value out there
> for a top-off charger-maintainer.
>
> Bob . . .
>
> No virus found in this message.
> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com <http://www.avg.com>
>
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: Battery Tender performance |
Bill, next time you are out at the hangar and think about it, could
you see what the manufacturer and model are of your successful Walmart
charger?
On Tue, Sep 4, 2012 at 9:20 PM, Bill Watson <Mauledriver@nc.rr.com> wrote:
> Bob, your previous posts on this topic of using a "Battery Tender" as a
> "charger" was the key to helping me unravel a set of problems I was having
> with my Odyssey 680s. Just wanted to say thanks and to share my experience
> if others may find it useful.
>
> I have a Z-14 with 2 680s. Very early in my build I bought 2 680s (which
> really weren't needed at the time) to ease design of the battery box but
> they were actually used very little. They were charged a few times and
> occasionally maintained (hooked up overnight even though they had not been
> discharged) with the brand name "Battery Tender". A few years later when I
> was 90% done with 90% to go, I decided to get fresh batteries (not quite at
> the same time and these weren't needed at the time either). These batteries
> were used quite a bit in panel testing and such. These were also charged
> and maintained with the battery tender (many cycles).
>
> When I finally got to first flight, I found that neither of the new
> batteries would turn over the IO540 on my RV10. When both batteries were
> cross fed, no problem but alone, neither battery could quite turn the cold
> engine over. Per Bob's posts, I suspected that use of the "Tender" was my
> problem. A trip to Walmart turned up a suitable charger with settings for
> Gel vs Lead vs (glass mat?). One charge and now one of the new batteries
> was a tiger and the other got a lot better.
>
> The way I intended to use my 2 batteries was to normally use one to power
> the EFISs and most of the rest of the avionics. The other was for starting.
> After start, the batteries would be cross fed. This now worked but my
> avionics panel would start to go dim after 5 minutes or so unless the engine
> was started and the alternators were online. I was hoping for more.
>
> After much data collection, a carbon pile tester, and some additional field
> experience it turned out that the batteries I bought some 4 or 5 years ago
> were still in great shape once charged with the new charger. Furthermore, 1
> of the new batteries seemed ruined in the sense that the other 3 batteries
> consistently outperformed it and I found it unsuitable for either position
> in the aircraft.
>
> It appeared that repeated discharge and charge with only the Battery Tender
> permanently reduced the capacity of 1 of my new batteries. It also
> appeared that 4 or 5 years of aging on the shelf in a more or less fully
> charged state was not as bad as repeated use and undercharging with a
> Battery Tender/maintainer.
>
> Further reinforcing these observations, at my first condition inspection I
> decided to swap in the better of my 2 newer batteries. for the first year,
> I had been flying with my 2 older batteries. Thought my carbon pile tester
> had bellied up, I found that my 2 older batteries and one of my new
> batteries all had the same voltage when fully charged with no load. When
> I swapped out my oldest battery for my best new battery it turns out it
> didn't perform quite as well (the engine would not always turn over on it).
> I went back to the 2 older batteries and everything works as intended.
>
> I've since set aside the battery tender knowing that if I have a charged
> battery on the shelf, I could probably use it to maintain the full charge.
> But the Walmart charger is my main charging tool. Now that I'm flying
> regularly there is little need for charging and my Z-14 is performing
> exactly as desired (though I haven't had any kind of electrical component
> failure to test its failure tolerance). I'm quite confident behind my 100%
> electrical panel in IFR operations.
>
> (I do have 2 mags which are refreshingly retro in this microprocessor world
> - they are electromagnetic mechanical wonders!)
>
> Thanks again Bob,
> Bill Watson
> N215TG
>
> On 9/4/2012 5:36 PM, Robert L. Nuckolls, III wrote:
>
> I have known this for some time (since the time I gathered
> the plots at: http://tinyurl.com/8o65jha and http://tinyurl.com/9paguuy
>
> These plots confirm the question as to whether batteries 'charged' with
> the Battery Tender really get topped off. Two cycles of Battery Tender
> only recharge produced the red and green plots. A third cycle was
> augmented with a 3 hour top-off which was still drawing about 150 mA
> at 14.5 volts.
>
> The third, topped off cycle stored about 60 minutes more service
> at a 1.2A rate than for the un-augmented cycles.
>
> I've given away all my SEC1562 chargers to family members.
> Got a new one ordered yesterday. I'll run some charge/discharge
> cycles on the same battery. I think we'll find that the Minders
> and Tenders are not designed to top off SVLA batteries of any
> size.
>
> Does that mean they're 'bad' chargers? No, in instance under
> study the Battery Tender still put ~90% of the battery's total
> capacity back in storage.
>
> I've used the Battery Tender to charge and maintain a family
> of instrumentation batteries for years. I retired a couple
> of test batteries last year that were over 10 years old
> and tested to better than 75% of new. So it MIGHT be said
> that cycling a battery less aggressively is good for
> service life . . . but for sure, the battery maintainer
> products are best used to store batteries that are fully
> charged when put away.
>
> The next chapter will be written when the new 1562 gets
> here. Given the very reasonable price ($20) it may well
> be that the SEC1562A is about the best value out there
> for a top-off charger-maintainer.
>
> Bob . . .
>
> No virus found in this message.
> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
> Date: 09/04/12
>
>
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: Battery Tender performance |
Yep, will do tomorrow.
Bill
On 9/4/2012 10:00 PM, Jared Yates wrote:
>
> Bill, next time you are out at the hangar and think about it, could
> you see what the manufacturer and model are of your successful Walmart
> charger?
>
> On Tue, Sep 4, 2012 at 9:20 PM, Bill Watson <Mauledriver@nc.rr.com> wrote:
>> Bob, your previous posts on this topic of using a "Battery Tender" as a
>> "charger" was the key to helping me unravel a set of problems I was having
>> with my Odyssey 680s. Just wanted to say thanks and to share my experience
>> if others may find it useful.
>>
>> I have a Z-14 with 2 680s. Very early in my build I bought 2 680s (which
>> really weren't needed at the time) to ease design of the battery box but
>> they were actually used very little. They were charged a few times and
>> occasionally maintained (hooked up overnight even though they had not been
>> discharged) with the brand name "Battery Tender". A few years later when I
>> was 90% done with 90% to go, I decided to get fresh batteries (not quite at
>> the same time and these weren't needed at the time either). These batteries
>> were used quite a bit in panel testing and such. These were also charged
>> and maintained with the battery tender (many cycles).
>>
>> When I finally got to first flight, I found that neither of the new
>> batteries would turn over the IO540 on my RV10. When both batteries were
>> cross fed, no problem but alone, neither battery could quite turn the cold
>> engine over. Per Bob's posts, I suspected that use of the "Tender" was my
>> problem. A trip to Walmart turned up a suitable charger with settings for
>> Gel vs Lead vs (glass mat?). One charge and now one of the new batteries
>> was a tiger and the other got a lot better.
>>
>> The way I intended to use my 2 batteries was to normally use one to power
>> the EFISs and most of the rest of the avionics. The other was for starting.
>> After start, the batteries would be cross fed. This now worked but my
>> avionics panel would start to go dim after 5 minutes or so unless the engine
>> was started and the alternators were online. I was hoping for more.
>>
>> After much data collection, a carbon pile tester, and some additional field
>> experience it turned out that the batteries I bought some 4 or 5 years ago
>> were still in great shape once charged with the new charger. Furthermore, 1
>> of the new batteries seemed ruined in the sense that the other 3 batteries
>> consistently outperformed it and I found it unsuitable for either position
>> in the aircraft.
>>
>> It appeared that repeated discharge and charge with only the Battery Tender
>> permanently reduced the capacity of 1 of my new batteries. It also
>> appeared that 4 or 5 years of aging on the shelf in a more or less fully
>> charged state was not as bad as repeated use and undercharging with a
>> Battery Tender/maintainer.
>>
>> Further reinforcing these observations, at my first condition inspection I
>> decided to swap in the better of my 2 newer batteries. for the first year,
>> I had been flying with my 2 older batteries. Thought my carbon pile tester
>> had bellied up, I found that my 2 older batteries and one of my new
>> batteries all had the same voltage when fully charged with no load. When
>> I swapped out my oldest battery for my best new battery it turns out it
>> didn't perform quite as well (the engine would not always turn over on it).
>> I went back to the 2 older batteries and everything works as intended.
>>
>> I've since set aside the battery tender knowing that if I have a charged
>> battery on the shelf, I could probably use it to maintain the full charge.
>> But the Walmart charger is my main charging tool. Now that I'm flying
>> regularly there is little need for charging and my Z-14 is performing
>> exactly as desired (though I haven't had any kind of electrical component
>> failure to test its failure tolerance). I'm quite confident behind my 100%
>> electrical panel in IFR operations.
>>
>> (I do have 2 mags which are refreshingly retro in this microprocessor world
>> - they are electromagnetic mechanical wonders!)
>>
>> Thanks again Bob,
>> Bill Watson
>> N215TG
>>
>> On 9/4/2012 5:36 PM, Robert L. Nuckolls, III wrote:
>>
>> I have known this for some time (since the time I gathered
>> the plots at: http://tinyurl.com/8o65jha and http://tinyurl.com/9paguuy
>>
>> These plots confirm the question as to whether batteries 'charged' with
>> the Battery Tender really get topped off. Two cycles of Battery Tender
>> only recharge produced the red and green plots. A third cycle was
>> augmented with a 3 hour top-off which was still drawing about 150 mA
>> at 14.5 volts.
>>
>> The third, topped off cycle stored about 60 minutes more service
>> at a 1.2A rate than for the un-augmented cycles.
>>
>> I've given away all my SEC1562 chargers to family members.
>> Got a new one ordered yesterday. I'll run some charge/discharge
>> cycles on the same battery. I think we'll find that the Minders
>> and Tenders are not designed to top off SVLA batteries of any
>> size.
>>
>> Does that mean they're 'bad' chargers? No, in instance under
>> study the Battery Tender still put ~90% of the battery's total
>> capacity back in storage.
>>
>> I've used the Battery Tender to charge and maintain a family
>> of instrumentation batteries for years. I retired a couple
>> of test batteries last year that were over 10 years old
>> and tested to better than 75% of new. So it MIGHT be said
>> that cycling a battery less aggressively is good for
>> service life . . . but for sure, the battery maintainer
>> products are best used to store batteries that are fully
>> charged when put away.
>>
>> The next chapter will be written when the new 1562 gets
>> here. Given the very reasonable price ($20) it may well
>> be that the SEC1562A is about the best value out there
>> for a top-off charger-maintainer.
>>
>> Bob . . .
>>
>> No virus found in this message.
>> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
>> Date: 09/04/12
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
> -----
> No virus found in this message.
> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
>
>
Message 15
INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Subject: | Re: Battery Tender performance |
At 06:30 PM 9/4/2012, you wrote:
>Hi Bob
>
>Thx. for taking the time and effort to share your findings.
>
>Again the batteries I was referring to were abused and discharged
>repeatedly below 12.4 volts.
Will they accept a charge at all? If so, the only thing
I'm aware of that might recover them to some degree is
a couple of deep discharge/charge cycles. Concord suggests
you can put a LOT of volts on a battery that won't accept
any charge until it's recharge current rises above some
nominal value . . . I think it was a couple amps.
Then proceed with two or three deep cycles and measure
capacity on last cycle. If not 'recovered' to flight-worthy
levels, then the battery is 'trash'. That's about 80% of
new. Of course, you can settle for less.
>It would be interesting to see the results you achieve if you use
>the chargers I sent you. They are 500mA constant current chargers
>that do nothing more than turn off ~ 15.4 volts, but that allows a
>reasonable dwell above the 13.7 float voltage.
The battery maintenance devices did too but they
turned off sooner. I don't know if I've still got
them around. I had no interest in using them.
I'll see what I can find.
Bob . . .
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: Battery Tender performance |
At 06:28 PM 9/4/2012, you wrote:
>
>Bob,
>
>Sorry if I missed it, but could you define tender vs maintainer vs
>smart charger vs old style charger in terms of expected charge
>profiles for typical batteries used in OBAM aircraft.
Legacy chargers did not change much in terms of
utility beginning with devices like this:
[]
I owned one of these things about 1955. It was stronger
than a 'trickle charger' . . . about 3A as I recall
and would recharge a dead battery overnight. But it had
ZERO controls. It was a constant current charger that
would boil a battery dry if left on after the battery
achieved full charge.
Modern incarnations of this philosophy are much
more robust. Will crank an engine and certainly
charged a battery much faster. They might even include
a clock-works timer to shut the thing off after some
period of time to prevent severe overcharging. Here's
some examples of robust 'manually controlled' chargers . . .
http://tinyurl.com/cljbyur
http://tinyurl.com/cd437g2
The advent of microelectronics prompted more sophisticated
charger designs that fall into two classes. Charger/maintainers
like this series of microprocessor controlled devices.
Where operator intervention was not needed to prevent
overcharging. These generally include microprocessor controls
programmed to conduct a good approximation of the ideal
recharge protocol
http://tinyurl.com/9s7kpww
for constant current bulk charge, constant voltage
dwell for absorption cycle, followed by a drop to
some value just above open circuit voltage to
offset the battery's internal losses . . .i.e.
'maintain' it forever. These are the current
crop of smart chargers.
Then we come to "maintainers" . . . constant
current charge to some endpoint generally above
14.0 volts followed by a drop to maintenance
level of just over 13.0 volts. Products like
Battery Tender
Item image
Battery Minder are typical "wall warts" that will
charge a battery to just short of full before
they drop to the maintenance mode.
The two products I'm comparing for performance are
the Battery Tender and an SEM1562A Schumacher
charger/maintainer (as soon as it gets here).
Bottom line is that all three classes of charger
are readily available today. The manual devices
can be quite robust but will cook a battery if
used improperly. The charger/maintainers are automatic
and represent a relatively goof-proof way to charge
a battery and store it. The maintainers will also
charge albeit to less than 100% of battery's rated
capacity but they too will maintain the battery
nicely while being stored.
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! --
|