Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 07:46 AM - Re: Z-19 Function (Ed meyer)
2. 08:29 AM - Re: Z-19 Function (Ken Ryan)
3. 08:34 AM - Re: Z-19 Function (Justin Jones)
4. 09:25 AM - Re: Z13/8 Main Alternator. (Bill Allen)
5. 09:37 AM - Re: Z-19 Function (Ken)
6. 09:38 AM - Re: Z-19 Function (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
7. 09:52 AM - Re: Z-19 Function (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
8. 10:09 AM - Re: Z13/8 Main Alternator. (Charlie England)
9. 10:41 AM - Re: Z13/8 Main Alternator. (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
10. 10:59 AM - Re: Z13/8 Main Alternator. (Rob Housman)
11. 11:27 AM - Re: Z13/8 Main Alternator. (Bill Allen)
12. 12:04 PM - Re: Z13/8 Main Alternator. (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
13. 01:08 PM - Carling switch resistance for micro currents? (B Tomm)
14. 01:35 PM - Re: Carling switch resistance for micro currents? (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
15. 01:45 PM - Re: Carling switch resistance for micro currents? (Bob McCallum)
16. 01:54 PM - Re: Carling switch resistance for micro currents? (Jeff Luckey)
17. 02:26 PM - Re: Z13/8 Main Alternator. (Charlie England)
18. 02:28 PM - Re: Carling switch resistance for micro currents? (B Tomm)
19. 03:21 PM - Re: Z13/8 Main Alternator. (Michael Orth)
20. 04:25 PM - Re: Z-19 Function (user9253)
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: Z-19 Function |
>I had to conclude that it just seemed cool. So, with that, laziness
>kicked in and I found a sense of relief that I didn't have to >figure
out another sub-system for my one-off Glasair/Franklin CDI >ignition,
EFI, installation.
Thanks for the insight John but I am still not quite getting the
downside of the automation other than a bit more complexity. My
emergency situation was different than yours in that it was not just
after departure but rather after a power off let down and the power
would not come back up with the throttle. And, for me
=98cool=99 has nothing to do with it. In my emergency
experience I know my thinking was not clear at the time therefore my
performance was not up to par (I would like to think I would do better
but I know from experience I didn=99t). I am just thinking that
the automation could help to eliminate a step that I would need to do
manually IF I remember to do it while my mind is somewhat jumbled with
stuff like best glide speed, where to land if I can=99t get it
running again, etc. I found that I liked the automation idea and would
not have thought of it myself had I not read that it is a function built
into the Bus Manager that EFII offers. Having said that, I also like a
lot about Bob=99s Z13/8 system.
Ed
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: Z-19 Function |
I think the auto switching is a great idea in theory. I also understand Bob
Nuckoll's comment that it needs to be evaluated to determine whether what
is gained is offset by what is lost. My problem is that I lack the
expertise to do that evaluation.
Bob Nuckoll's and Robert Paisley are both clearly well qualified
individuals. Each has accomplished a great deal in the field of aviation.
If I understand Bob Nuckoll's correctly, he feels that added failure modes
outweigh any benefits. On the other hand, Robert Paisley is confident
enough that he included it in the very component that he designed to insure
that the prop keeps turning in an electrically dependent engine.
Tis a puzzlement.
Ken
On Mon, Aug 25, 2014 at 6:45 AM, Ed meyer <ed.meyer@outlook.com> wrote:
> >I had to conclude that it just seemed cool. So, with that, laziness
> >kicked in and I found a sense of relief that I didn't have to >figure ou
t
> another sub-system for my one-off Glasair/Franklin CDI >ignition, EFI,
> installation.
>
>
> Thanks for the insight John but I am still not quite getting the downside
> of the automation other than a bit more complexity. My emergency situati
on
> was different than yours in that it was not just after departure but rath
er
> after a power off let down and the power would not come back up with the
> throttle. And, for me =98cool=99 has nothing to do with it. I
n my emergency
> experience I know my thinking was not clear at the time therefore my
> performance was not up to par (I would like to think I would do better bu
t
> I know from experience I didn=99t). I am just thinking that the aut
omation
> could help to eliminate a step that I would need to do manually IF I
> remember to do it while my mind is somewhat jumbled with stuff like best
> glide speed, where to land if I can=99t get it running again, etc.
I found
> that I liked the automation idea and would not have thought of it myself
> had I not read that it is a function built into the Bus Manager that EFII
> offers. Having said that, I also like a lot about Bob=99s Z13/8 sys
tem.
>
> Ed
>
>
> *
>
===========
www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List>
===========
===========
om/contribution>
===========
>
> *
>
>
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: Z-19 Function |
The redundancy for the fuel pump can easily be built using a simple circuit w
ith the use of a fuel pressure safety switch used by the automotive racing c
ommunity. The one below is set to 30 psi and would work well for the efii sy
stem. With the use of a relay and this switch, you can have the standby pump
automatically turn on if the primary pump pressure drops below 30 psi.
JEGS Performance Products#555-11206
Fuel Pressure Safety Switch
Preset to 30 psi
On Aug 25, 2014, at 6:45, "Ed meyer" <ed.meyer@outlook.com> wrote:
> >I had to conclude that it just seemed cool. So, with that, laziness >kick
ed in and I found a sense of relief that I didn't have to >figure out anothe
r sub-system for my one-off Glasair/Franklin CDI >ignition, EFI, installatio
n.
>
> Thanks for the insight John but I am still not quite getting the downside o
f the automation other than a bit more complexity. My emergency situation w
as different than yours in that it was not just after departure but rather a
fter a power off let down and the power would not come back up with the thro
ttle. And, for me =98cool=99 has nothing to do with it. In my em
ergency experience I know my thinking was not clear at the time therefore my
performance was not up to par (I would like to think I would do better but I
know from experience I didn=99t). I am just thinking that the automat
ion could help to eliminate a step that I would need to do manually IF I rem
ember to do it while my mind is somewhat jumbled with stuff like best glide s
peed, where to land if I can=99t get it running again, etc. I found th
at I liked the automation idea and would not have thought of it myself had I
not read that it is a function built into the Bus Manager that EFII offers.
Having said that, I also like a lot about Bob=99s Z13/8 system.
>
> Ed
>
>
>
>
==========================
=========
==========================
=========
==========================
=========
==========================
=========
>
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: Z13/8 Main Alternator. |
Hi Mike,
Haven't heard from you in a while - are you going to be at the LAA Rally
this weekend?
How's the Ez coming along?
best,
Bill
On 9 April 2014 16:44, MikeDunlop <mdunlop001@aol.com> wrote:
>
> I'm finishing off my electrical system in a Long-EZ that includes the
> SD-8, exactly as per the Z13/8 and have to make a final choice of the main
> alternator.
>
> For cost and availability locally I've decided to go with either a Lucas
> 60amp or 70amp. The advice I'm seeking is regarding the regulator, these
> units have an internal regulator, so do I keep the internal regulator?
> (remember the Z13/8 has the OV protection between the regulator and the
> bus) or do I do a conversion to use a B&C external regulator (I have a
> spare one I could use).
>
> I've read many, many threads on OV and runaway alternators etc. and am not
> too sure if using the internal regulator in the Z13/8 architecture will
> give me complete protection.
>
> Regards
>
> Mike Dunlop (UK)
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=421821#421821
>
>
--
Bill Allen
LongEz160 N99BA FD51
CZ4 G-BYLZ EGBJ
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: Z-19 Function |
Providing you are notified when the system activates, and providing the
system can not fail in any manner such that it blows the fuse or
prevents manual pump activation (difficult to achieve), then a remaining
risk is that the auto system increases the chance of the pump activating
during a crash. Auto pump shutdown when the engine stops is considered a
safety issue and all cars have that feature.
I don't have strong feelings either way and could fairly easily add a
comparator to my existing pressure sensor but I have no plans to do so.
For EFI pumps I believe that a larger safety increase is achieved just
by using oem automotive filter socks in the fuel tank (or in the header
tank in my case) to significantly reduce pump failures.
Ken
On 25/08/2014 11:32 AM, Justin Jones wrote:
> The redundancy for the fuel pump can easily be built using a simple
> circuit with the use of a fuel pressure safety switch used by the
> automotive racing community. The one below is set to 30 psi and would
> work well for the efii system. With the use of a relay and this switch,
> you can have the standby pump automatically turn on if the primary pump
> pressure drops below 30 psi.
>
> JEGS Performance Products#555-11206
> # Fuel Pressure Safety SwitchPreset to 30 psi
>
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: Z-19 Function |
At 10:28 AM 8/25/2014, you wrote:
>I think the auto switching is a great idea in theory. I also
>understand Bob Nuckoll's comment that it needs to be evaluated to
>determine whether what is gained is offset by what is lost. My
>problem is that I lack the expertise to do that evaluation.
At 10:28 AM 8/25/2014, you wrote:
I think the auto switching is a great idea in theory. I also
understand Bob Nuckoll's comment that it needs to be evaluated to
determine whether what is gained is offset by what is lost. My
problem is that I lack the expertise to do that evaluation.
I suggest that you DO have that expertise . . .
Consider the loss of engine at low altitude due to
failure of main fuel pump. Question:
Does checklist call for running both main and aux
pumps during low altitude ops? If not, should it?
Upgrading the level of technology in your airplane
is driven by a reason. Obviously, a single-pilot
IFR operation is less risky if the airplane is
fitted with an autopilot. Risk also goes down when
primary flight instruments (gyros) were backed up
with secondary instruments (needle-ball-airspeed).
This is part of the failure modes effects analysis
that drives the setting requirements, training, practice
and maintenance that go to reduction of risk.
What was root cause in the case of the 'missing fuel
pump'? Adding an autopilot to offset pilot work-load
for managing a constellation of tasks is a no-brainer.
But hundreds of thousands of airplanes have been
fitted with multiple fuel pumps for nearly a century
. . . none of which were operated by anything more
than some switch on the panel that was managed (along
with lots of other things) by pilot inputs cited in
the POH and/or checklist.
Okay, what are the work-load circumstances when
the pumps are to be switched on or off?
ON before takeoff and OFF after reaching comfortable
altitude . . .
-AND-
ON before landing and OFF after leaving the active
runway.
The thrust of my reasoning goes to abrogation of
duties that pilots have been expected to perform
for decades. What new taxation of a pilot's time,
attention and resources drives first a decision
to automate the fuel pump management in the first
place . . . and then recommend it to others as
a good and useful thing to do?
"Aw shucks Nuckolls . . . it's JUST the fuel pumps
. . ."
Agreed . . . but if JUST the fuel pumps
can be mis-managed contrary to POH or checklist,
are there OTHER features of legacy pilot duties
at similar risk?
It isn't JUST the fuel pumps. It's about systems
integration and operation that goes to the simplest,
lightest, lowest cost method for meeting requirements
while reducing unrealistic taxation of pilot time
and attention. It would be unrealistic to recommend
that pilots carry scientific calculators and perform
the spherical trigonometry to navigate . . .
but entirely rational to push those tasks off onto
a $200 hand-held GPS. At the other end of the spectrum,
consider the data points from a century of lessons
learned for operating that second pump switch with
electro-smarts. That new, "time saving, safety enhancement"
now needs to be fitted with failure alarms and/or a
methodology for pre-flight testing. Whoops! There's that
pesky checklist again. Seems that a two-pump system
should be checked for integrity during start up with
the aux pump left ON until comfortable altitude is
achieved.
What are the hazards for leaving an AUX pump ON?
Back in the day, many aux pumps were the Bendix
'thumpers' that featured a coil operated through
hard contacts that arced and wore out. Today,
those pumps have been replace with all solid state
devices having essentially ZERO wear.
http://tinyurl.com/knsz7y9
If the aux pump is operated in parallel with a main pump for
some phases of operation, then risk for having
the AUX pump on all the time are probably zero.
But you STILL need to independently confirm operation
of each pump during pre-flight which is a check-list
driven activity.
This goes beyond 'keeping the engine running'. It goes
to reduction of risk with an optimal marriage
of pilot and machine. A machine that generally performs as
advertised every time when operated per the instruction
manual.
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: Z-19 Function |
At 10:32 AM 8/25/2014, you wrote:
>The redundancy for the fuel pump can easily be built using a simple
>circuit with the use of a fuel pressure safety switch used by the
>automotive racing community. The one below is set to 30 psi and
>would work well for the efii system. With the use of a relay and
>this switch, you can have the standby pump automatically turn on if
>the primary pump pressure drops below 30 psi.
I've never experienced a main pump failure but I've
run many a tank dry. The time that it took to move a valve
didn't cost a couple hundred feet of altitude.
In other words, if your check list already calls for
operation of both pumps at low altitude, what hazard is
being mitigated with auto-switching at higher altitudes?
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: | Re: Z13/8 Main Alternator. |
Hi Mike,
You do know that on this side of the pond, Lucas is known as 'The Prince
of Darkness', right? ;-)
Internally regulated alternators and their OV protection scheme have
been deleted from the current version of 'the book'. But, if you
eliminate the separate 'aircraft style' separate switching of the
alternator, then you can use Bob's OV module to control a separate
contactor, in series with the B lead.
Bob & I had a recent discussion about this very issue, titled something
like, 'the question that won't die'.
Charlie
>
> On 9 April 2014 16:44, MikeDunlop <mdunlop001@aol.com
> <mailto:mdunlop001@aol.com>> wrote:
>
> <mdunlop001@aol.com <mailto:mdunlop001@aol.com>>
>
> I'm finishing off my electrical system in a Long-EZ that includes
> the SD-8, exactly as per the Z13/8 and have to make a final choice
> of the main alternator.
>
> For cost and availability locally I've decided to go with either a
> Lucas 60amp or 70amp. The advice I'm seeking is regarding the
> regulator, these units have an internal regulator, so do I keep
> the internal regulator? (remember the Z13/8 has the OV protection
> between the regulator and the bus) or do I do a conversion to use
> a B&C external regulator (I have a spare one I could use).
>
> I've read many, many threads on OV and runaway alternators etc.
> and am not too sure if using the internal regulator in the Z13/8
> architecture will give me complete protection.
>
> Regards
>
> Mike Dunlop (UK)
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=421821#421821
>
>
> ==========
> -
> Electric-List"
> target="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List
> ==========
> FORUMS -
> _blank">http://forums.matronics.com
> ==========
> b Site -
> -Matt Dralle, List Admin.
> target="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/contribution
> ==========
>
>
> --
> Bill Allen
> LongEz160 N99BA FD51
> CZ4 G-BYLZ EGBJ
>
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: Z13/8 Main Alternator. |
At 11:24 AM 8/25/2014, you wrote:
>Hi Mike,
>
>Haven't heard from you in a while - are you going to be at the LAA
>Rally this weekend?
>
>How's the Ez coming along?
>
>best,
>
>Bill
>
>
>On 9 April 2014 16:44, MikeDunlop
><<mailto:mdunlop001@aol.com>mdunlop001@aol.com> wrote:
><<mailto:mdunlop001@aol.com>mdunlop001@aol.com>
>
>I'm finishing off my electrical system in a Long-EZ that includes
>the SD-8, exactly as per the Z13/8 and have to make a final choice
>of the main alternator.
>
>For cost and availability locally I've decided to go with either a
>Lucas 60amp or 70amp. The advice I'm seeking is regarding the
>regulator, these units have an internal regulator, so do I keep the
>internal regulator? (remember the Z13/8 has the OV protection
>between the regulator and the bus) or do I do a conversion to use a
>B&C external regulator (I have a spare one I could use).
>
>I've read many, many threads on OV and runaway alternators etc. and
>am not too sure if using the internal regulator in the Z13/8
>architecture will give me complete protection.
First, why so large an alternator? Can tolerate or do you NEED that
weight aft? I've seen a lot of EZs with oversized batteries up
front . . . not for energy contained but for ballast. If you NEED
ballast then it might as well be useful ballast.
Can you put your hands on an Nipon-Denso alternator
in the 40A class? This is probably MUCH more power than
you'll ever need and among the lightest of options. What
ARE your energy requirements? Have you accomplished a load
analysis? Keep in mind that the SD-8 series alternators are
products that BIRTHED B&C Specialty Products when Bill
delivered to a request from Burt Rutan for a lightweight
MAIN alternator.
There ARE ways to live with a built in regulator in ANY
of the Z-figures . . . let us first thrash through
the ideas and facts that drive real requirements.
Give us a list of electro-whizzies you've installed
and what their CONTINUOUS current drains are . . .
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: | Z13/8 Main Alternator. |
and we have bumper stickers that say
Why do the English drink warm beer?
Because they have Lucas refrigerators!
(Yes, I know. Lucas does not make refrigerators.)
Do not archive.
Best regards,
Rob Housman
Irvine, California
Europa XS
Rotax 914
S/N A070
Airframe complete
Avionics in progress
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of
Charlie England
Sent: Monday, August 25, 2014 10:10 AM
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Z13/8 Main Alternator.
Hi Mike,
You do know that on this side of the pond, Lucas is known as 'The Prince
of Darkness', right? ;-)
Internally regulated alternators and their OV protection scheme have
been deleted from the current version of 'the book'. But, if you
eliminate the separate 'aircraft style' separate switching of the
alternator, then you can use Bob's OV module to control a separate
contactor, in series with the B lead.
Bob & I had a recent discussion about this very issue, titled something
like, 'the question that won't die'.
Charlie
On 9 April 2014 16:44, MikeDunlop <mdunlop001@aol.com> wrote:
<mdunlop001@aol.com>
I'm finishing off my electrical system in a Long-EZ that includes the
SD-8, exactly as per the Z13/8 and have to make a final choice of the
main alternator.
For cost and availability locally I've decided to go with either a Lucas
60amp or 70amp. The advice I'm seeking is regarding the regulator, these
units have an internal regulator, so do I keep the internal regulator?
(remember the Z13/8 has the OV protection between the regulator and the
bus) or do I do a conversion to use a B&C external regulator (I have a
spare one I could use).
I've read many, many threads on OV and runaway alternators etc. and am
not too sure if using the internal regulator in the Z13/8 architecture
will give me complete protection.
Regards
Mike Dunlop (UK)
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=421821#421821
-
Electric-List"
target="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List
FORUMS -
_blank">http://forums.matronics.com
b Site -
-Matt Dralle, List Admin.
target="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/contribution
--
Bill Allen
LongEz160 N99BA FD51
CZ4 G-BYLZ EGBJ
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: Z13/8 Main Alternator. |
And
"Why did the British fail in the personal PC market?"
"Because they couldn't stop them leaking oil....."
Bill Allen
LongEz N99BA FD51
Cozy4 G-BYLZ. EGBJ
Sent from my iPad
> On 25 Aug 2014, at 19:56, "Rob Housman" <rob@hyperion-ef.com> wrote:
>
> =C3=A2=82=AC=C2and we have bumper stickers that say=C3=A2=82=AC=C2
>
> Why do the English drink warm beer?
> Because they have Lucas refrigerators!
>
> (Yes, I know. Lucas does not make refrigerators.)
>
>
> Do not archive.
>
>
> Best regards,
>
> Rob Housman
> Irvine,=C3=82 California
> Europa XS
> Rotax 914
> S/N A070
> Airframe complete
> Avionics in progress
>
>
>
> From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:owner-aeroelect
ric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Charlie England
> Sent: Monday, August 25, 2014 10:10 AM
> To: aeroelectric-list@matronics.com
> Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Z13/8 Main Alternator.
>
> Hi Mike,
>
> You do know that on this side of the pond, Lucas is known as 'The Prince o
f Darkness', right? ;-)
>
> Internally regulated alternators and their OV protection scheme have been d
eleted from the current version of 'the book'. But, if you eliminate the sep
arate 'aircraft style' separate switching of the alternator, then you can us
e Bob's OV module to control a separate contactor, in series with the B lead
.
>
> Bob & I had a recent discussion about this very issue, titled something li
ke, 'the question that won't die'.
>
> Charlie
>
>
>
>
> On 9 April 2014 16:44, MikeDunlop <mdunlop001@aol.com> wrote:
>
> I'm finishing off my electrical system in a Long-EZ that includes the SD-8
, exactly as per the Z13/8 and have to make a final choice of the main alter
nator.
>
> For cost and availability locally I've decided to go with either a Lucas 6
0amp or 70amp. The advice I'm seeking is regarding the regulator, these unit
s have an internal regulator, so do I keep the internal regulator? (remember
the Z13/8 has the OV protection between the regulator and the bus) or do I d
o a conversion to use a B&C external regulator (I have a spare one I could u
se).
>
> I've read many, many threads on OV and runaway alternators etc. and am not
too sure if using the internal regulator in the Z13/8 architecture will giv
e me complete protection.
>
> Regards
>
> Mike Dunlop (UK)
>
>
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=421821#421821
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ==========
> -
> Electric-List" target="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroEl
ectric-List
> ==========
> FORUMS -
> _blank">http://forums.matronics.com
> ==========
> b Site -
> -Matt Dralle, List Admin.
> target="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/contribution
> ==========
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --
> Bill Allen
> LongEz160 N99BA FD51
> CZ4 G-BYLZ EGBJ
>
>
> http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List
> http://forums.matronics.com=C3=82 =C3=82 =C3=82 =C3=82 =C3=82 =C3=82 =C3=82
=C3=82 - List Contribution Web generous =C3=82 =C3=82 =C3=82 =C3=82 =C3=82
=C3=82 =C3=82 =C3=82 =C3=82 =C3=82 =C3=82 =C3=82 =C3=82 =C3=82 =C3=82 =C3=82
=C3=82 =C3=82 =C3=82 =C3=82 =C3=82 =C3=82 =C3=82 -Matt http://www.matronic
s.com/c
>
>
>
3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3
D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3
D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3
D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3
D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
>
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: Z13/8 Main Alternator. |
At 01:25 PM 8/25/2014, you wrote:
>And
>
>"Why did the British fail in the personal PC market?"
>
>"Because they couldn't stop them leaking oil....."
Come on guys . . .
Bob . . .
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: | Carling switch resistance for micro currents? |
Hi Bob,
Last night I was metering a circuit (for total resistance) not including the
load at the end of the wire. The circuit consists of about 10 feet of 18AWG
wire, an ATC fuse, fuse block and a carling SPST switch all obtained from
B&C, and two alligator test leads. I was surprised to find the meter (my
trusty Fluke) read several megohms when I closed the switch. I was
expecting to see something less than 5 ohms (probably less than one). It
would appear that there is quite a high resistance when only the very small
current of the metering circuit is passing through the switch. Is this
normal?
Note: The meter showed 0.2 ohms with the test leads shorted so the meter
seems to be functioning correctly.
Bevan
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: Carling switch resistance for micro currents? |
At 03:05 PM 8/25/2014, you wrote:
Hi Bob,
Last night I was metering a circuit (for total resistance) not including the
load at the end of the wire. The circuit consists of about 10 feet of 18AWG
wire, an ATC fuse, fuse block and a carling SPST switch all obtained from
B&C, and two alligator test leads. I was surprised to find the meter (my
trusty Fluke) read several megohms when I closed the switch. I was
expecting to see something less than 5 ohms (probably less than one). It
would appear that there is quite a high resistance when only the very small
current of the metering circuit is passing through the switch. Is this
normal?
Note: The meter showed 0.2 ohms with the test leads shorted so the meter
seems to be functioning correctly.
Okay, you've cited a number of devices in series
all of which feature several 'metallic' joints
normally expected to be a few milliohms each.
Divide and conquer.
Clip the ohmmeter to the fuseblock treaded
power input post and then march downstream
with the other lead looking for the first
instance of "too much" resistance.
Somewhere along the way you're going to find
a bad crimp or perhaps a switch with contacts
so 'self-worn' that they need to be cycled
clean. Is the ship's battery available to this
circuit? Put a sacrificial 20A fuse in the
fuseholder, dead short the far end of the
wire to ground then 'rattle' the toggle until
the fuse blows. Pop a couple of fuses. Then
put the proper fuse back in and march off smartly
forward.
I've used a similar technique to clean the shelf-
fuzz off of several high dollar, mil-spec switches
in biz-jets. In both cases, the switches had never
been asked to SWITCH a significant load for years.
Do a little arc-therapy on them and they good to
go for another 5-10 years.
Bob . . .
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: | Carling switch resistance for micro currents? |
If you are actually measuring "several megohms" then 1=3B the switch is op
en=2C 2=3B the fuse is blown=2C or 3=3B one of the connections is not attac
hed. Several megohms is what you would see holding the meter leads=2C one i
n each of your hands=2C with no metallic electrical circuit attached. You s
hould be seeing less than an ohm or so with the circuit as you described it
.
Bob McC
> From: fvalarm@rapidnet.net
> To: aeroelectric-list@matronics.com
> Subject: AeroElectric-List: Carling switch resistance for micro currents?
> Date: Mon=2C 25 Aug 2014 13:05:51 -0700
>
>
>
> Hi Bob=2C
>
> Last night I was metering a circuit (for total resistance) not including
the
> load at the end of the wire. The circuit consists of about 10 feet of 18
AWG
> wire=2C an ATC fuse=2C fuse block and a carling SPST switch all obtained
from
> B&C=2C and two alligator test leads. I was surprised to find the meter (m
y
> trusty Fluke) read several megohms when I closed the switch. I was
> expecting to see something less than 5 ohms (probably less than one). It
> would appear that there is quite a high resistance when only the very sma
ll
> current of the metering circuit is passing through the switch. Is this
> normal?
>
> Note: The meter showed 0.2 ohms with the test leads shorted so the meter
> seems to be functioning correctly.
>
> Bevan
>
>
===========
===========
===========
===========
>
>
>
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: Carling switch resistance for micro currents? |
Bevan,=0A=0Awhat you are describing is not normal.- The resistance thru t
he closed switch should be the same as when you short the test leads togeth
er.=0A=0A-Jeff=0A=0A=0A=0AOn Monday, August 25, 2014 1:23 PM, B Tomm <fvala
rm@rapidnet.net> wrote:=0A =0A=0A=0A--> AeroElectric-List message posted by
: "B Tomm" <fvalarm@rapidnet.net>=0A=0A=0AHi Bob,=0A=0ALast night I was met
ering a circuit (for total resistance) not including the=0Aload at the end
of the wire.- The circuit consists of about 10 feet of 18AWG=0Awire, an A
TC fuse, fuse block and a carling SPST switch all obtained from=0AB&C, and
two alligator test leads. I was surprised to find the meter (my=0Atrusty Fl
uke) read several megohms when I closed the switch.- I was=0Aexpecting to
see something less than 5 ohms (probably less than one).- It=0Awould app
ear that there is quite a high resistance when only the very small=0Acurren
t of the metering circuit is passing through the switch.- Is this=0Anorma
l?=0A=0ANote:- The meter showed 0.2 ohms with the test leads shorted so t
===============
Message 17
INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Subject: | Re: Z13/8 Main Alternator. |
On 8/25/2014 2:02 PM, Robert L. Nuckolls, III wrote:
> <nuckolls.bob@aeroelectric.com>
>
> At 01:25 PM 8/25/2014, you wrote:
>> And
>>
>> "Why did the British fail in the personal PC market?"
>>
>> "Because they couldn't stop them leaking oil....."
>
> Come on guys . . .
>
>
> Bob . . .
Yeah; sorry 'bout that. I didn't mean to stimulate the retelling of
*every* joke about British tech. Besides, the Brits have done lots of
stuff first, or better. The jet engine, for one. And if you've never
flown a Chipmunk, you need to. I don't think anything flew as well until
RV's came along.
Charlie
Message 18
INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Subject: | Carling switch resistance for micro currents? |
Thanks for all the replies. I have not been back to the hangar to do
anymore since posting my original question but I will add a little more info
here.
This particular circuit has never operated any load yet. It has been
sitting for a couple years since originally crafted. The plane is in a
heated/insulated space. Nothing else rusts or corrodes in this space.
The fuse is 5amp. I believe I also clipped the meter's alligator directly
to the screw terminal of the fuse block thereby eliminating the block and
fuse but will retry tonight.
I don't have a battery in the plane yet. I use a 30 amp DC power supply
that plugs into a piper style remote power port. It puts out 14VDC and has
run all my other loads just fine. When the DC power supply is powered up, I
get the full voltage at the load end of the subject wire which is what I
expected to see. Since there has never been any load driven by this circuit
(no current flowing) there has never been and arky sparky happening at the
switch. So, is some arky sparky required to get the switch to indicate 0
ohms when in the on position?
I wouldn't think so but I seem to recall something about these switches not
being designed for extremely small currents.
What I do see is open circuit with the switch off, dropping to several
megohms when on. I may try powering a medium load (5-10 amps) to see...
A) If the load powers up as expected while metering current through the
circuit.
B) Check the switch to see if it generates any noticeable heat during this
test
C) Re measure the closed circuit resistance after the test to see if it now
appears more normal.
Anything else?
Bevan
_____
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Bob
McCallum
Sent: Monday, August 25, 2014 1:43 PM
Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Carling switch resistance for micro
currents?
If you are actually measuring "several megohms" then 1; the switch is open,
2; the fuse is blown, or 3; one of the connections is not attached. Several
megohms is what you would see holding the meter leads, one in each of your
hands, with no metallic electrical circuit attached. You should be seeing
less than an ohm or so with the circuit as you described it.
Bob McC
> From: fvalarm@rapidnet.net
> To: aeroelectric-list@matronics.com
> Subject: AeroElectric-List: Carling switch resistance for micro currents?
> Date: Mon, 25 Aug 2014 13:05:51 -0700
>
>
>
> Hi Bob,
>
> Last night I was metering a circuit (for total resistance) not including
the
> load at the end of the wire. The circuit consists of about 10 feet of
18AWG
> wire, an ATC fuse, fuse block and a carling SPST switch all obtained from
> B&C, and two alligator test leads. I was surprised to find the meter (my
> trusty Fluke) read several megohms when I closed the switch. I was
> expecting to see something less than 5 ohms (probably less than one). It
> would appear that there is quite a high resistance when only the very
small
> current of the metering circuit is passing through the switch. Is this
> normal?
>
> Note: The meter showed 0.2 ohms with the test leads shorted so the meter
> seems to be functioning correctly.
>
> Bevan
>==================
>
>
>
Message 19
INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Subject: | Re: Z13/8 Main Alternator. |
Sometime in the mid 1700's the French invented the toilet seat.
After 75 years of use, the English greatly improved on the French design
by cutting a hole in it.
Michael
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------
-----Original Message-----
From: Charlie England
Sent: Monday, August 25, 2014 2:27 PM
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Z13/8 Main Alternator.
<ceengland7@gmail.com>
On 8/25/2014 2:02 PM, Robert L. Nuckolls, III wrote:
> <nuckolls.bob@aeroelectric.com>
>
> At 01:25 PM 8/25/2014, you wrote:
>> And
>>
>> "Why did the British fail in the personal PC market?"
>>
>> "Because they couldn't stop them leaking oil....."
>
> Come on guys . . .
>
>
> Bob . . .
Yeah; sorry 'bout that. I didn't mean to stimulate the retelling of
*every* joke about British tech. Besides, the Brits have done lots of
stuff first, or better. The jet engine, for one. And if you've never
flown a Chipmunk, you need to. I don't think anything flew as well until
RV's came along.
Charlie
-----
No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Message 20
INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Subject: | Re: Z-19 Function |
>From the EFII Bus Manager manual:
> Fuel Pump Mode Switch
> This switch has two positions and determines the fuel pump drive operation of
the Bus Manager. When in position 1/Auto (the normal operating position), fuel
pump 1 will be running and operating the engine. The Bus Manager will continuously
monitor the fuel rail pressure by tapping into the signal wire from the
fuel pressure sender that is connected to your engine monitor. If the fuel rail
pressure drops below a precalibrated limit, the bus Manager will automatically
turn on fuel pump 2. When in position 2, fuel pump 2 is forced ON and fuel
pump 1 will be turned OFF. Wire the Fuel Pump Mode Switch to the control harness
as shown on DRAWING 2.
Is there a failure mode of the DFII that could result in the unwanted shutting
off of a fuel pump? I am not saying that could happen, just saying that unexpected
things could happen if the pilot is not very familiar with automatic systems.
Regardless of the electrical system architecture, the builder needs to
ask, "If this part fails, how will I know it, what are the consequences, and what
is my plan B?"
Joe
--------
Joe Gores
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=429317#429317
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! --
|