AeroElectric-List Digest Archive

Tue 09/04/12


Total Messages Posted: 16



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
    Time: 07:51:06 AM PST US
    Subject: Re: Light pigtail
    From: "rvg8tor" <rvg8tor@comcast.net>
    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 &quot;Nemo&quot; 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
    Time: 08:25:31 AM PST US
    From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob@aeroelectric.com>
    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
    Time: 11:05:36 AM PST US
    From: mddickens@comcast.net
    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
    Time: 11:35:03 AM PST US
    From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob@aeroelectric.com>
    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
    Time: 11:56:50 AM PST US
    From: mddickens@comcast.net
    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
    Time: 12:48:18 PM PST US
    From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob@aeroelectric.com>
    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
    Time: 01:03:53 PM PST US
    From: mddickens@comcast.net
    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
    Time: 02:38:02 PM PST US
    From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob@aeroelectric.com>
    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
    Time: 02:51:44 PM PST US
    From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob@aeroelectric.com>
    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
    Time: 04:30:06 PM PST US
    From: rayj <raymondj@frontiernet.net>
    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
    Time: 04:31:24 PM PST US
    Subject: Re: Battery Tender performance
    From: rparigor@suffolk.lib.ny.us
    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
    Time: 06:21:56 PM PST US
    From: Bill Watson <Mauledriver@nc.rr.com>
    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
    Time: 07:00:47 PM PST US
    Subject: Re: Battery Tender performance
    From: Jared Yates <email@jaredyates.com>
    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
    Time: 08:19:49 PM PST US
    From: Bill Watson <Mauledriver@nc.rr.com>
    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
    Time: 08:39:16 PM PST US
    From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob@aeroelectric.com>
    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
    Time: 09:00:03 PM PST US
    From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob@aeroelectric.com>
    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

  • Post A New Message
  •   aeroelectric-list@matronics.com
  • UN/SUBSCRIBE
  •   http://www.matronics.com/subscription
  • List FAQ
  •   http://www.matronics.com/FAQ/AeroElectric-List.htm
  • Web Forum Interface To Lists
  •   http://forums.matronics.com
  • Matronics List Wiki
  •   http://wiki.matronics.com
  • 7-Day List Browse
  •   http://www.matronics.com/browse/aeroelectric-list
  • Browse AeroElectric-List Digests
  •   http://www.matronics.com/digest/aeroelectric-list
  • Browse Other Lists
  •   http://www.matronics.com/browse
  • Live Online Chat!
  •   http://www.matronics.com/chat
  • Archive Downloading
  •   http://www.matronics.com/archives
  • Photo Share
  •   http://www.matronics.com/photoshare
  • Other Email Lists
  •   http://www.matronics.com/emaillists
  • Contributions
  •   http://www.matronics.com/contribution

    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! --