AeroElectric-List Digest Archive

Tue 01/07/14


Total Messages Posted: 5



Today's Message Index:
----------------------
 
     1. 06:49 AM - Re: Proposed new Z diagram? (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
     2. 10:51 AM - Re: Illuminated Rocker switches - revisited (Bill Watson)
     3. 11:45 AM - Re: Proposed new Z diagram? (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
     4. 01:06 PM - Re: Proposed new Z diagram? (Jeff Page)
     5. 01:54 PM - Re: Illuminated Rocker switches - revisited (Carlos Trigo)
 
 
 


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: 06:49:38 AM PST US
    From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob@aeroelectric.com>
    Subject: Re: Proposed new Z diagram?
    At 09:01 PM 1/6/2014, you wrote: ><nuckolls.bob@aeroelectric.com> While considering the size and utilization of batteries, add the following into your deliberations: If the batteries are of different size, will the smaller be capable of cranking the engine? I.e. 17 a.h. or larger? If so, then you can alternate between batteries for starting the engine. This philosophy offers a pre-flight test of battery health and integrity of associated wiring (contactors etc.) If it's never used to crank the engine, then consider the philosophy for assurance of continued airworthiness. If the batteries are the same size, then one has the option of simply rotating a new battery into the more strenuous/critical slot (probably supporting the motive power bus) and moving the original battery into the other slot. This alleviates any need to accomplish more introspective testing. All you need is to craft a change-out philosophy tailored for the most economical outcome. Perhaps a yearly rotation of a low cost battery as opposed to a premium device. I noticed a suggestion in the Viking drawings for using lithium batteries. Obviously NOT low cost and probably not candidates for periodic rotation . . . now you'll need a more introspective protocol for assuring continued air worthiness. If rotation is not a viable option, then periodic inspection for quantifying capacity is indicated. System reliability and failure tolerance is built on KNOWING limits . . . Something to factor into crafting and implementing the grand-plan . . . Bob . . . Bob . . .


    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: 10:51:23 AM PST US
    From: Bill Watson <Mauledriver@nc.rr.com>
    Subject: Re: Illuminated Rocker switches - revisited
    I agree Bob McC. Carlos, one might think that the AML24G series with two lamps would provide a path forward from what Bob described, that is, using 2 dimmers on 2 two different lamps on a single switch. At least I know I would think that the 24G would be a solution. However, I used a couple of 2 lamp indicators in this product family to try and indicate closure of the left and right doors and ran into a slight problem. A problem that I'm thinking you might run into with the 2 lamp switches as well. I used the AML41 series of indicators that match up nicely with the AML24 series of switches. Just like in the switches, there are 1 lamp (AML41C) and 2 lamp (AML41D) versions. The 2 lamps are side by side and I figured they could be used with the proper indicator top label, to signify whether the Left and/or Right doors are closed properly on my RV10. (I also used such an indicator for dual 'low voltage' indications on my Z-14 dual battery/dual bus electrical system). What I found is that the 2 lamp version easily facilitates such wiring, but one cannot visually distinguish between the left and right lights easily. When both are on, the indicator is just brighter. With either 1 lamp on, it's 'normal' brightness without any clear indication of which lamp is on. This was only a minor problem however. I was able to modify the cap top with a plastic insert to block the lamp light from leaking over light up the entire indicator so that one could easily tell which lamp was lit; uncertainty changed to certainty. My sense is that the 2 lamp AML24G series will work the same way. That is, it's not designed so that the 2 lamps are easily distinguishable from one another. Rather the design relies on the rocker position and the labeling on the switch top to make such distinctions. Furthermore, the fix I did on the indicator will not work on the switch. So in the end, I think you will be exactly in the uncertain situation Bob McC describes below. Bill "really missing the electrical and panel development tasks from the build" Watson (I would add that Honeywell does have switch series where the lamp is designed to indicate function rather than just back lighting. From what I recall however, those switches are not backlit. There may be other lines that do both.) On 1/6/2014 9:21 PM, Bob McCallum wrote: > > *Carlos;* > > ** > > *The simplest way to achieve what you're asking would be to use > version "C" _with_ the diode in the lead coming from the panel light > dimmer then add _another_ dimmer between your B+ supply at the bottom > of the switch and the switch _also through a diode_ to prevent back > feed between the two dimmers. This way your panel light dimmer will > control the intensity of the identification illumination and the > dimmer in the B+ supply will control the intensity of the "on" > indication. These two uses of the lamp will however lead to > uncertainty as to what the lamp indicates because there will no way to > differentiate between background illumination and "on" indication. > Depending on the relative dimmer settings the brightness might change > between the two functions but either function could override the other > in terms of brightness. This will function as you've asked, but not > too useful in my humble opinion because of the uncertainty in what is > being indicated.* > > ** > > *Bob McC* > > ** > >


    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: 11:45:27 AM PST US
    From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob@aeroelectric.com>
    Subject: Re: Proposed new Z diagram?
    At 09:01 PM 1/6/2014, you wrote: ><nuckolls.bob@aeroelectric.com> Discussions about the Viking installation have raised heretofore unconsidered questions. Since the earliest days of the change-over from generators to alternators, the GENERAL consensus and design philosophies have held that alternators should be only operated with a battery on line. There have been the odd exception . . . Bonanzas and Barons have always offered alternator operation independently of batteries . . . there may be others about which I have no knowledge. If Viking has officially asserted that their product will function alternator-only, then there are interesting questions to be explored for crafting a new design philosophy. Obviously, the engine driven power source is at the foundation of energy pyramid. IF the current generation of alternators and system loads are amenable to alternator-only operations, then the legacy design goal for taking an alternator off line before the battery (split rocker philosophy) forces a waste of a potentially valuable resource. I'm going to noodle out some experiments to be conducted, probably at B&C on their test stand, to gather data on the quality and integrity of energy available from an alternator running barefoot. No doubt inquiring minds would like to KNOW . . . In the mean time, you Viking customers have solid justification for asking the supplier, "Are alternator-only operations 'approved' under your design goals? Are there risks to alternator- only operations. If I hit the system with a hydraulic pump motor or 250 watt landing light, can the alternator be stalled? What tests have been conducted to support your assertions?" 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
    Time: 01:06:04 PM PST US
    From: Jeff Page <jpx@qenesis.com>
    Subject: Re: Proposed new Z diagram?
    I did have a car-sized battery in my boat explode once. It was happy with the current draw to tilt the motor, but the starter current draw did something to it. It had responded normally to the battery charger and had normal voltage before I put it in the boat in the spring. It was a heck of a mess to clean up. A fully enclosed battery box is recommended ! I agree the switches will be complex to operate in the air when a failure occurs. For my design, I had to write out the checklist sequence for various scenarios before I greatly simplified my design (not electrically dependent engine). For this proposed Z diagram, I suggest considering using a progressive switch to combine the main battery and alternator into a single switch. In the event of a fire, shutting off the two battery switches will take away all power from the main bus. The engine switches are not symmetrical in operation. That is, the Normal switch works without the main battery switch on. The Aux switch does not provide power to the engine unless the Aux Battery switch is also on. This could be confusing while handling a failure in flight. Although a diode could be connected to the Endurance bus, my preference would be to have the Aux engine independent of the Endurance bus switch as well, which means adding another relay. Jeff Page Dream Aircraft Tundra #10 > Time: 07:01:58 PM PST US > From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob@aeroelectric.com> > Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Proposed new Z diagram? > > >> the alternator will always be turned off first >> before the main battery contactor is turned off (ie, no alternator-only >> mode). With either the aux or main contactors on, both power buses will >> be enabled and there is no independent control to turn each bus off >> individually. > > Assuming that the Viking engine with the as- > proposed alternator does run gracefully in > an alternator only mode, then the whole inter-linked > switch philsosopy for battery and alternator is > moot. This figure illustrates the opptions for > being relieved of that constraint . . . > > http://tinyurl.com/mhblorq > > >> Dual-Bat Z-7 requires two switches to shut down all power, and mine >> requires three, as you indicate. I could replace the alternator and >> main switches with a combined switch similar to Z-7, removing the >> alternator-only mode, which may be a good thing to do and simplifies the >> user experience, as well as allowing for each power bus to be separated >> and powered independently. I think the chances of both batteries >> failing and requiring an alternator-only mode are so remote that it is >> not worth worrying about. > > How does a battery fail? If such a failure occurs > in flight, how do you know it has happened? What > light comes on to say, "Battery X Fail"? > > You have articulated some goals for addressing > a constellation of failures as yet not clearly > defined. > > When conducting an FMEA on a system or product > the following questions are posed and answers > sought: > > How might this part fail? > > How will I know that it failed? Can the effects > of the failure be immediately known and > dealt with in a simple, prescribed manner? > > Is the failure pre-flight detectable? If not can > it be made detectable. I that's not possible/ > practical . . . what sort of testing is called > for and at what intervals? > > How does any particular failure impact probability > of comfortable termination of a flight? > > (a) Will any identified failure produce an immediate > risk to ship's systems? > > (b) Will any identified failure over-tax my abilities > to manage the event while maintaining competent > control of the airplane? > > I have split the DC POWER MASTER into two switches > which increases the number of power management controls > to a total of 6. That gives you 36 possible combinations > of switch positions some small number of which will > result in the engine stopping . . . so those are > easy to eliminate. Of the remaining combinations, > what are the criteria for selecting/rejecting any > combination that keeps the engine running and at least > some stuff lit on the panel? > > At some point, after all the colors are laid down > with the favorite brush strokes, you need to craft > the pilot's operating handbook for how the switches > are used. Do all those options serve a predictable, > useful purpose? > > It's one thing to have so many options and control > over those options . . . consider that each option > should be deduced and prescribed in advance. Lots > of options can work against you should one become reduced > to a game of "flipping switches until things work better" > while distracting concentration from your duties as a > pilot. > > > 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: 01:54:27 PM PST US
    From: "Carlos Trigo" <trigo@mail.telepac.pt>
    Subject: Illuminated Rocker switches - revisited
    Thank you again Bob McC I understand your critique, and I even agree with it, referring to night operations. However, on day operations, the light indication feature would be usefull, since the background illumination will be Off. Well, your recommendation and Bill Watson=92s experience and descriptions will surely contribute for my final decision. Thanks Carlos From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Bob McCallum Sent: ter=E7a-feira, 7 de Janeiro de 2014 02:22 Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Illuminated Rocker switches - revisited Carlos; The simplest way to achieve what you=92re asking would be to use version "C" with the diode in the lead coming from the panel light dimmer then add another dimmer between your B+ supply at the bottom of the switch and the switch also through a diode to prevent back feed between the two dimmers. This way your panel light dimmer will control the intensity of the identification illumination and the dimmer in the B+ supply will control the intensity of the =93on=94 indication. These two uses of the lamp will however lead to uncertainty as to what the lamp indicates because there will no way to differentiate between background illumination and =93on=94 indication. Depending on the relative dimmer settings the brightness might change between the two functions but either function could override the other in terms of brightness. This will function as you=92ve asked, but not too useful in my humble opinion because of the uncertainty in what is being indicated. Bob McC _____ From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Carlos Trigo Sent: Monday, January 06, 2014 3:48 AM Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Illuminated Rocker switches - revisited Bob I am probably asking for too much, but my idea is: - To have the switch lamp as a =93normal=94 illumination feature, which lits together with the Panel lights, and is dimmed by the Panel lights dimmer - To have the switch lamp as a warning feature, which lits whenever I turn On that particular circuit, and - be able to dim the lamp, in both ocasions. Independently of this being or not a good operation choice, how can this be achieved? What changes should I make in circuit B or C to achieve the features above? Thanks Carlos From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Bob McCallum Sent: domingo, 5 de Janeiro de 2014 16:48 Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Illuminated Rocker switches - revisited Not quite sure what it is you=92re trying to achieve. Circuit =93A=94 gives night time illumination of the switch controlled by the dimmer but no indication if the switch is on or off. Circuit =93B=94 gives full brightness indication of whether the switch is on or off but no night time illumination to identify the switch if it=92s off. Circuit =93C=94 (with the addition of the diode) gives night time identification of the switch controlled by the dimmer and also full brightness indication of the on/off state day or night. (basically the functionality of both =93A=94 & =93B=94 combined) Are you asking for =93C=94 to give night time illumination of the switch controlled by the dimmer, day time ONLY indication of the on/off state at full brightness and no indication of the on/off state at night???? This seems a bit odd as the illumination of the switch would indicate different things at different times depending upon the position of other switches. Could be confusing??? OR Are you asking that the =93ON=94 condition of the switch is indicated by illumination of the lamp but also dimmed by the dimmer???? If this is the case then use circuit =93B=94 but supply the lamp power from the dimmer circuit rather than B+ as you=92ve shown. Bob McC _____ From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Carlos Trigo Sent: Sunday, January 05, 2014 9:54 AM Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Illuminated Rocker switches - revisited Thanks Bob McC So, in version =93C=94, what changes should I make in the circuits, if I want the panel lights dimmer to dim the switch lamp whenever the switch is =93On=94? Carlos From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Bob McCallum Sent: domingo, 5 de Janeiro de 2014 14:13 Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Illuminated Rocker switches - revisited Simply place a diode in the lead from the dimmer to avoid back feeding the rest of the dimmed lamps. (This circuit =93C=94 will illuminate the switch at full brightness whenever the switch is =93on=94 regardless of dimmer position.) Bob McC _____ From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Carlos Trigo Sent: Sunday, January 05, 2014 7:00 AM Subject: AeroElectric-List: Illuminated Rocker switches - revisited Guys You remember my before-Christmas query about those Honeywell illuminated rocker switches. They are DPST switches, and with your help I came to the conclusion that the 2 upper vertical tabs are the 2 (independent) lamp contacts. So, I just have to use one pair of the lower horizontal tabs (one pole) to control the circuits I need, and the 2 upper vertical tabs to illuminate the lamp. Right! Now, the reason why I am now posting again about these switches is the way I am going to use them. Apologizing for the quality of the drawing, I designed the circuits in 3 versions: I have no doubt that version A and version B above are going to do what they are supposed to (explained below each version). My problem is version C, if I want the switch lamp to lit in both situations : - In night operation, the switch lamp will illuminate when I turn On the Panel Lights (through the Dimmer), and/or - Whenever I turn On the switch itself (for example, when I turn On the Landing Light in day operation, and want the switch lamp to be lit to warn me the LND Light is On when taxiing) I suppose that the version C above will give a nice short-circuit =85. L So I need you electron experts to help me design the correct circuits for version C. Thanks Carlos




    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! --