Today's Message Index:
----------------------
0. 12:27 AM - Coming Soon - The List of Contributors - Please Make A Contribution Today! (Matt Dralle)
1. 04:05 AM - Re: lithium facts (Jan de Jong)
2. 08:38 AM - Re: lithium facts (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
3. 09:38 AM - Re: lithium facts (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
4. 09:54 AM - Re: lithium facts (Jan de Jong)
5. 10:03 AM - Re: lithium facts (Paul Millner)
6. 10:32 AM - Re: lithium facts (Jay Hyde)
7. 10:46 AM - Re: lithium facts (Jan de Jong)
8. 11:58 AM - Re: lithium facts (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
9. 12:15 PM - Re: lithium facts (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
10. 12:23 PM - Re: lithium facts (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
11. 07:29 PM - Re: lithium facts (Jim Kale)
12. 09:29 PM - Ammeter going haywire (Bill Bradburry)
13. 09:57 PM - Re: Ammeter going haywire (Bob McCallum)
14. 10:10 PM - Re: lithium facts (Bill Bradburry)
15. 10:42 PM - Re: Ammeter going haywire (Ben)
Message 0
| 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: | Coming Soon - The List of Contributors - Please Make |
A Contribution Today!
Each year at the end of the List Fund Raiser, I post a message acknowledging everyone
that so generously made a Contribution to support the Lists. Its my way
of publicly thanking everyone that took a minute to show their appreciation
for the Lists.
Please take a moment and assure that your name is on that List of Contributors
(LOC)! As a number of members have pointed out over the years, the List seems
at least as valuable a building / entertainment tool as your typical magazine
subscription!
Assure that your name is on this year's LOC! Show others that you appreciate the
Lists. Making a Contribution to support the Lists is fast and easy using your
Credit card or Paypal on the Secure Web Site:
http://www.matronics.com/contribution
or by dropping a personal check in the mail to:
Matt Dralle / Matronics
581 Jeannie Way
Livermore CA 94550
I would like to thank everyone that has so generously made a Contribution thus
far in this year's List Fund Raiser! Remember that its YOUR support that keeps
these Lists going and improving! Don't forget to include a little comment about
how the Lists have helped you!
Best regards,
Matt Dralle
Matronics Email List Administrator
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: lithium facts |
Bob,
I've been following the LiFePO4 scene for some years and don't quite get
your statement that charging a cell to 3.6V instead of 4.2V would leave
50% of full charge unused.
Maybe that is true for LiFePO4 compared to other lithium products but
not, I believe, for LiFePO4 as such. Maybe that is what you mean?
I believe that the following may be true for a LiFePO4 (A123) cell:
1. there is very little capacity between 3.6V and 4.2V (using a 0.1 or
0.05 C cutoff)
2. the 4.2V maximum is intended for specific fast charging methods with
a short stay at 4.2V followed by a much lower float voltage
3. 4.2V is not immediately damaging but not good for long life
You could test and quantify point 1 above if you like?
Regards,
Jan de Jong
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: lithium facts |
At 06:04 2014-11-05, you wrote:
Bob,
I've been following the LiFePO4 scene for some years and don't quite
get your statement that charging a cell to 3.6V instead of 4.2V would
leave 50% of full charge unused.
Not 'unused' . . . but not even pumped into the cell during
charge for later recovery during discharge . . .
Emacs!
In the plot above we see the recovered energy plots for the same
cell topped off at 3.7 volts and 4.2 volts. When charged at the
higher voltage, the cell presents as a 3.7 volt source. When
discharged at 5A, the cell tossed in the towel at about 4.4 a.h.
When charged at 3.7 volts, it presents as a 3.4 volt source and
tosses in the towel at 2.1 a.h.
Maybe that is true for LiFePO4 compared to other lithium products but
not, I believe, for LiFePO4 as such. Maybe that is what you mean?
I have found no literature that speaks to major differences
between the lithium couples . . . but in any case, LiFePO4 is
the technology of choice.
I believe that the following may be true for a LiFePO4 (A123) cell:
1. there is very little capacity between 3.6V and 4.2V (using a 0.1
or 0.05 C cutoff)
I excerpted an image earlier from A123's specifications for their
LiFePO4, 26650 cell where they made it clear that while
4.2 is the max allowable charge voltage, 3.7 was the nominally
adopted charge voltage.
2. the 4.2V maximum is intended for specific fast charging methods
with a short stay at 4.2V followed by a much lower float voltage
3. 4.2V is not immediately damaging but not good for long life
I've read nothing to date that speaks specifically to such
a notion. But anecdotally, the 'big guys' are reported to
favor the cycling of lithium in their products between
the bounds of 20 and 80 percent of potential charge. Of
course, the 'big guys' can PICK their system voltage
for the purposes of meeting design goals.
We're pretty much stuck with that belt-driven thingy
up front set for 14.4 volts, when divided by 4 yields
3.6 volts. Okay, lets jack up the regulator to 14.8,
no big deal.
The point is that properties of materials (LiFePO4)
married to our energy management constraints (14.8
volts) says that ANY lithium product we may choose
to install will be operated between approx 50% and
some lower level close to 0% 0 - assuming that the
BMS or pilot watching the battery-only voltage
shuts things down at 2.8 x 4 or 11.2 volts.
This idea is re-enforced by the testing I did
earlier on an AeroVoltz product which had all
the outward appearances of being a 3x4 array
of 26650 cells. I suggested before testing that
the thing was probably going to test out in the
neighborhood of a 7.5 a.h. battery . . . which
was confirmed as I recall. I need to dig that
data up . ..
You could test and quantify point 1 above if you like?
I think the data gathered and presented above supports
my perceptions and subsequent assertions . . . This
also lends some understanding for the wide variations
in advertised capacity of the various Li products. One
supplier may be speaking in practical terms for long
life of their product while others may be capitalizing
on the chemistry's potential capacity. When used in
something with modern power conditioning electronics
(constant current to LED in flashlight, switchmode
power supply in a computer, etc.) one can indeed
stuff more electrons in for future recovery at
the higher design point of 4.2 volts. But our
14 volt airplanes and other vehicles are what they
are . . . so dropping lithium into the battery box
says we're bounded by the 0-50% box which, by the
way, promises much longer service life.
Bob . . .
Message 3
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: lithium facts |
Earlier I wrote:
The point is that properties of materials (LiFePO4)
married to our energy management constraints (14.8
volts) says that ANY lithium product we may choose
to install will be operated between approx 50% and
some lower level close to 0% 0 - assuming that the
BMS or pilot watching the battery-only voltage
shuts things down at 2.8 x 4 or 11.2 volts.
This idea needs to be explored further . . .
Q: Okay, just how many times over the lifetime of
any given battery in an airplane do we EXPECT to
discharge down to zero percent in flight?
A: CLOSE TO ZERO . . . the risks are very low
assuming that we've done due diligence with
FMEA/architecture, preventative maintenance
and Plan-B.
From an operational perspective, all we expect
from the battery for 99.9% of all operations is
get the engine started. How much energy does that
take? Hmmmm . . . 200A x 10 seconds x 12v
24,000 watt-seconds. How much energy does a 4 x 4
array of 26650 cells charged to 50% of potential
capacity contain? About 4 cells wide x 4 cells
tall x 3.2 volts x 5A for about 1200 seconds
is about 300,000 watt-seconds, give or take.
So, our 'partially charged' array of cells is
only taxed to the tune of about 2% of contained
energy once-per-flight-cycle, 50 times a year.
After the engine starts, we have DESIGNED the
alternator system to assume all loads and recharge
the battery.
So what is the projected service-life of the battery
when cycled between 50 and 48% of potential charge?
I haven't the foggiest . . . nor does A123 I'll
bet. Their engineering data gathering will focus
on full-range cycling (like between 2.8 and 4.2
volts per manufacturer's data sheet) or perhaps
20 and 80% per the hybrid car engineer's design
goals.
The aviation design goals are unique and a VERY
small fraction of the marketplace . . . hence
it's unrealistic to expect A123 or anyone else
to offer data that goes to meeting our design
goals. On the other hand, somebody like Concorde
or True Blue is intently interested in meeting
aviation-unique design goals.
This is the imperative behind getting our own
data set that speaks to meeting OBAM aviation
design goals, which may in fact be more expansive
than TC design goals. I like to design for battery-only
ops for duration of fuel aboard. Beechjet engineers
can only dream of such goals.
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: lithium facts |
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: lithium facts |
On 11/5/2014 9:37 AM, Robert L. Nuckolls, III wrote:
> *
> 24,000 watt-seconds. How much energy does a 4 x 4
> array of 26650 cells charged to 50% of potential
> capacity contain? About 4 cells wide x 4 cells
> tall x 3.2 volts x 5A for about 1200 seconds =
> is about 300,000 watt-seconds, give or take.
>
> So, our 'partially charged' array of cells is
> only taxed to the tune of about 2% of contained
> energy once-per-flight-cycle *
Math check! 24/300 = 8%... but 2% is 10's complement, for what that's
worth (my mind works that way, at least...)
Paul
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: lithium facts |
Hey Paul!
That was a very elegant way of showing the error, in a way that
demonstrates how our minds work...
And, I'm loving the arguments presented in the main thread. Thanks to
Bob, Matt and all the contributors!
Its the most amazing thing to be able to transcend borders, ideology,
theocracy and prejudice as we do here; as is happening in all spheres-
and it is changing the world (for the better).
Johannesburg Jay
On 2014-11-05 08:00 PM, Paul Millner wrote:
>
> On 11/5/2014 9:37 AM, Robert L. Nuckolls, III wrote:
>> *
>> 24,000 watt-seconds. How much energy does a 4 x 4
>> array of 26650 cells charged to 50% of potential
>> capacity contain? About 4 cells wide x 4 cells
>> tall x 3.2 volts x 5A for about 1200 seconds =
>> is about 300,000 watt-seconds, give or take.
>>
>> So, our 'partially charged' array of cells is
>> only taxed to the tune of about 2% of contained
>> energy once-per-flight-cycle *
>
> Math check! 24/300 = 8%... but 2% is 10's complement, for what that's
> worth (my mind works that way, at least...)
>
> Paul
> *
>
>
> *
--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~**~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
HH Enterprises
ND Elec Eng, NHD Elec Eng, BTech Elec Eng, GDE Elec Eng
General Engineering Service and Manufacturing processes.
Aircraft building and repair; specialist in aircraft electrical
and avionics systems.
Great dinner parties, phenomenal conversation and general good fun.
Adventuring, great living, kayaking and exploration.
Flight instruction
Mobile: +27 (0) 83 300 8675
Blog: www.wordpress/rawhyde.com
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~**~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
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: lithium facts |
Well, all I can say - I'm amazed.
I wonder why I never read anything anywhere but 3.6V to 3.7V - with dire
warnings about exceeding much...
By the way, these people show 90% charge at 3.6V (100% at 4.2V):
http://www.powerstream.com/LLLF.htm
Jan de Jong
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: lithium facts |
>
>Math check! 24/300 = 8%... but 2% is 10's complement, for what
>that's worth (my mind works that way, at least...)
>
>Paul
Good catch! I was mousing it out on the uSoft
Windows calculator . . . which has problematic
ergonomics . . . especially for ol' farts.
An eye-ball check would have raised the flag . . .
Bob . . .
Message 9
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: lithium facts |
At 12:46 2014-11-05, you wrote:
>
>Well, all I can say - I'm amazed.
>I wonder why I never read anything anywhere but 3.6V to 3.7V - with
>dire warnings about exceeding much...
I suspect the 3.7 figure is the supplier's
safe-haven. You can't hurt the cell by limiting
to this value as demonstrated by countless examples
of 4-cell stacks in vehicular DC power systems.
I've got some 'wall-wart' single-cell chargers
I'm going to study in detail . . .
I note that these chargers are supplied in both
3.7v . . .
http://tinyurl.com/nr8m5t8
and 4.2 volt . . .
http://tinyurl.com/nu55dth
. . . versions but without explanation as to
the difference . . .
Here's one add that speaks to 3.7/4.2 volts in
one breath . . .
http://tinyurl.com/opmcjb9
but in the fine print, we see that they claim
a 4.2 volt output for cells spec'd in the 3.6
to 4.2 range. I read this to mean that they're
going to charge your battery to a 4.2 volt endpoint
irrespective of how it was 'rated'.
>By the way, these people show 90% charge at 3.6V (100% at 4.2V):
>http://www.powerstream.com/LLLF.htm
Interesting link. Thanks!
I'll have to study it a bit . . .
Bob . . .
Message 10
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: lithium facts |
At 12:46 2014-11-05, you wrote:
>
>Well, all I can say - I'm amazed.
>I wonder why I never read anything anywhere but 3.6V to 3.7V - with
>dire warnings about exceeding much...
>
>By the way, these people show 90% charge at 3.6V (100% at 4.2V):
>http://www.powerstream.com/LLLF.htm
Check out this page . . .
http://tinyurl.com/2349lq2
and the links cited thereon. Isidor Buchmann is
about as knowledgeable as they come about batteries
exceeded only by his generosity for sharing what
he knows.
Bob . . .
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 |
|
As I understand it from Google and Wikipedia, A-123 was a brand name
that
went out of business a couple of years ago. However, I believe the
chemistry was LiFe PO4.
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of
Robert L.
Nuckolls, III
Sent: Tuesday, November 4, 2014 9:47 AM
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: lithium facts
<mailto:aeroelectric-list@matronics.com>
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: lithium facts
At 23:49 2014-11-03, you wrote:
Hi Bob;
Thank you for performing a valuable service in testing lithium iron
batteries.=C2 You have made a good point that a=C2 lithium iron battery
may be
capable of starting the engine, but may fall short in longevity=C2 while
running the instruments.=C2
A conundrum that arises from the inability/
unwillingness of suppliers to offer DATA to
support the customers broader needs.
I've often mentioned the early struggles of
Bolder Technologies to find market niche
for their 1.1 a.h., flashlight-cell sized
jelly-roll products that would crank an
engine but wouldn't run your panel for 10
minutes.
We tested some of those cells at B&C about
15 years ago . . . pretty amazing . . .
when they worked . . . but completely
inappropriate to our mission.
We have a similar situation here. The
energetic hawkers of lithium are quick
to point out engine cranking abilities
in terms of 'equivalencies' but without
hard numbers for EVERY feature of lithium's
performance. So just as we saw with Bolder
products, successful incorporation of
the new technology requires that the
system integrator (that's YOU) understands
the trade offs not only in weight and load
dump but capacity, low temperature performance,
and requirements for exploiting capacity (system
voltage). My early studies have demonstrated
that a 4-cell stack of lithium gets De-rated
in a 14.4v system to approximately 1/2 of
potential capacity.
This means that for cell-paks consisting of
arrays of 26650 cells, the USEFUL capacity
is less than the POTENTIAL capacity. Revisiting
the data published by A123 on their 26650
cell offering we see:
Note that while they speak to a MAX ALLOWABLE charge
voltage of 4.2 (pretty much standard across the spectrum
of lithium cells) they also speak to STANDARD CHARGE
and NOMINAL CAPACITY? with numbers on the same order
as demonstrated by my experiments thus far. A123 data
speaks directly to this 14v system de-rating phenomenon.
One point that has not been made in their favor is that substitution of
a 3
to 4# battery for a 20 to 30# one may solve a weight and balance problem
without needing to=C2 move the battery to the tail cone and adding long
and
heavy cables.
Very good. Yes, the lighter weight of a lithium
engine cranking battery may indeed offer such
an opportunity . . . as long as all other trade-offs
do not impact system performance in undesirable ways.
I think it improbable that we're going to see really
profound weight ratios. Just as the Bolder cells would
happily dump 400A when new, it was never demonstrated that
they would do that for say 50 times a year for say 4
years in service. We've not yet seen numbers on fielded
products with having a 1:6 weight savings or even
1:4 . . .
Bob . . .
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: | Ammeter going haywire |
What could cause the amperage that normally reads about two and a half amps
to suddenly start a smooth and gradual climb over about 35 minutes to 9
amps? Does this mean the battery is going south? Something else?
Bill
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: | Ammeter going haywire |
First question is what current is this ammeter reading ?? Alternator output
?? Battery charge current ?? Buss current on some buss ?? Something else ??
Bob McC
_____
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Bill
Bradburry
Sent: Thursday, November 06, 2014 12:28 AM
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Ammeter going haywire
What could cause the amperage that normally reads about two and a half amps
to suddenly start a smooth and gradual climb over about 35 minutes to 9
amps? Does this mean the battery is going south? Something else?
Bill
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 |
|
Those A123 batteries were pretty hot. Below is a couple of links to the
Killacycle that they powered with the batteries. 8.21 seconds in the
quarter mile!
The second link shows what can happen if you don=92t stay on top of
things.
Remember that they named the thing =93Killacycle=94 !
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GDHJNG2PngQ
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9o15EALghp0
I don=92t think that Bill Dube was seriously injured. Pride is a
different
matter.
_____
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Jim
Kale
Sent: Wednesday, November 05, 2014 9:27 PM
Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: lithium facts
As I understand it from Google and Wikipedia, A-123 was a brand name
that
went out of business a couple of years ago. However, I believe the
chemistry was LiFe PO4.
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of
Robert L.
Nuckolls, III
Sent: Tuesday, November 4, 2014 9:47 AM
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: lithium facts
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: lithium facts
At 23:49 2014-11-03, you wrote:
Hi Bob;
Thank you for performing a valuable service in testing lithium iron
batteries.=C2 You have made a good point that a=C2 lithium iron battery
may be
capable of starting the engine, but may fall short in longevity=C2 while
running the instruments.=C2
A conundrum that arises from the inability/
unwillingness of suppliers to offer DATA to
support the customers broader needs.
I've often mentioned the early struggles of
Bolder Technologies to find market niche
for their 1.1 a.h., flashlight-cell sized
jelly-roll products that would crank an
engine but wouldn't run your panel for 10
minutes.
We tested some of those cells at B&C about
15 years ago . . . pretty amazing . . .
when they worked . . . but completely
inappropriate to our mission.
We have a similar situation here. The
energetic hawkers of lithium are quick
to point out engine cranking abilities
in terms of 'equivalencies' but without
hard numbers for EVERY feature of lithium's
performance. So just as we saw with Bolder
products, successful incorporation of
the new technology requires that the
system integrator (that's YOU) understands
the trade offs not only in weight and load
dump but capacity, low temperature performance,
and requirements for exploiting capacity (system
voltage). My early studies have demonstrated
that a 4-cell stack of lithium gets De-rated
in a 14.4v system to approximately 1/2 of
potential capacity.
This means that for cell-paks consisting of
arrays of 26650 cells, the USEFUL capacity
is less than the POTENTIAL capacity. Revisiting
the data published by A123 on their 26650
cell offering we see:
Emacs!
Note that while they speak to a MAX ALLOWABLE charge
voltage of 4.2 (pretty much standard across the spectrum
of lithium cells) they also speak to STANDARD CHARGE
and NOMINAL CAPACITY? with numbers on the same order
as demonstrated by my experiments thus far. A123 data
speaks directly to this 14v system de-rating phenomenon.
One point that has not been made in their favor is that substitution of
a 3
to 4# battery for a 20 to 30# one may solve a weight and balance problem
without needing to=C2 move the battery to the tail cone and adding long
and
heavy cables.
Very good. Yes, the lighter weight of a lithium
engine cranking battery may indeed offer such
an opportunity . . . as long as all other trade-offs
do not impact system performance in undesirable ways.
I think it improbable that we're going to see really
profound weight ratios. Just as the Bolder cells would
happily dump 400A when new, it was never demonstrated that
they would do that for say 50 times a year for say 4
years in service. We've not yet seen numbers on fielded
products with having a 1:6 weight savings or even
1:4 . . .
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: | Ammeter going haywire |
I had a very similar thing happen to me a few years back.... My ammeter
did the same thing, slowly and smoothly keep climbing like my charging s
ystem was on a load cell with an increasing load put on it... Turned out
to be my Optima Red Top battery going bad... Took it back to the dealer
,they tested it and agreed there was a bad batch and he gave me a new o
ne.... Been running great every since... Ben Haas
N801BH
www.haaspowerair.com
---------- Original Message ----------
From: Bob McCallum <robert.mccallum2@sympatico.ca>
Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Ammeter going haywire
First question is what current is this ammeter reading ?? Alternator out
put ?? Battery charge current ?? Buss current on some buss ?? Something
else ??
Bob McC
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:owner-aeroele
ctric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Bill Bradburry
Sent: Thursday, November 06, 2014 12:28 AM
To: aeroelectric-list@matronics.com
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Ammeter going haywire
What could cause the amperage that normally reads about two and a half
amps to suddenly start a smooth and gradual climb over about 35 minutes
to 9 amps? Does this mean the battery is going south? Something else?
Bill
www.aeroelectric.comwww.buildersbooks.comwww.homebuilthelp.com
www.mypilotstore.comwww.mrrace.com http://www.matronics.com/contribution
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List http://fo
========================
========================
========================
========================
========================
==============
____________________________________________________________
The #1 Worst Carb Ever?
Click to Learn #1 Carb that Kills Your Blood Sugar (Don't Eat Th
is!)
http://thirdpartyoffers.netzero.net/TGL3241/545b165ab831b165a1dd4st03duc
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! --
|