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 |
|
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 |
|
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 |
|
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 |
|
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 |
|
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
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! --
|