Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 03:21 AM - BatteryMinder not recommended for use in aircraft (donjohnston)
2. 03:58 AM - Re: BatteryMinder not recommended for use in aircraft (bob noffs)
3. 10:43 AM - CHT challenge . . . (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
4. 12:17 PM - Re: BatteryMinder not recommended for use in aircraft (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
5. 01:24 PM - Re: CHT challenge . . . (rampil)
6. 02:34 PM - Re: BatteryMinder not recommended for use in aircraft (donjohnston)
7. 03:07 PM - Re: Re: BatteryMinder not recommended for use in aircraft (Lyle Peterson)
8. 04:26 PM - Re: Re: BatteryMinder not recommended for use in aircraft (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
9. 04:49 PM - Re: Re: BatteryMinder not recommended for use in aircraft (Lyle Peterson)
10. 04:55 PM - Re: Re: BatteryMinder not recommended for use in aircraft (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
Message 1
INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Subject: | BatteryMinder not recommended for use in aircraft |
I just got a new BatteryMinder because the old one couldn't push enough electrons
for the new battery. Oh well.
But the new BatteryMinder didn't come with the ring terminal harness. Just the
big alligator clips. I figured that they were charging (pun intended) extra for
the harness.
But then I found out that they do not recommend using the charger on batteries
in the plane. From their manual (emphasis theirs):
1. Attach output cord of charger to the battery clip(s) assembly (BCAA)
(supplied). For aviation applications, we no longer advise use of the RTA
on any batteries while the battery is located within a confined area, such as
in an aircraft engine compartment.
2. Battery should be removed from aircraft or open to free flowing air
to avoid possible build-up of harmful hydrogen gas in the event battery has
a shorted cell(s) or charging source is incorrect or malfunctions.
I can't imagine that people are actually going to remove their battery every time
they want to hook up the BatteryMinder. In my case the battery is in the nose.
With the nose gear door open and the upper access hatch open I've got a
pretty good flow of air.
But that hangar fire at KANE which is being attributed to a BatteryMinder does
raise a doubt. A battery is a lot cheaper than a new plane.
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=461757#461757
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: BatteryMinder not recommended for use in aircraft |
get a little fan for $15 that pulls 15 watts 120 acv and rig it up so your
''enclosed space'' is ventilated. otherwise a tender is useless for me.
bob noffs
On Mon, Oct 31, 2016 at 5:19 AM, donjohnston <don@velocity-xl.com> wrote:
> don@velocity-xl.com>
>
> I just got a new BatteryMinder because the old one couldn't push enough
> electrons for the new battery. Oh well.
>
> But the new BatteryMinder didn't come with the ring terminal harness.
> Just the big alligator clips. I figured that they were charging (pun
> intended) extra for the harness.
>
> But then I found out that they do not recommend using the charger on
> batteries in the plane. From their manual (emphasis theirs):
>
> 1. Attach output cord of charger to the battery clip(s) assembly
> (BCAA) (supplied). For aviation applications, we no longer advise use of
> the RTA on any batteries while the battery is located within a confined
> area, such as in an aircraft engine compartment.
>
> 2. Battery should be removed from aircraft or open to free
> flowing air to avoid possible build-up of harmful hydrogen gas in the
> event battery has a shorted cell(s) or charging source is
> incorrect or malfunctions.
>
> I can't imagine that people are actually going to remove their battery
> every time they want to hook up the BatteryMinder. In my case the battery
> is in the nose. With the nose gear door open and the upper access hatch
> open I've got a pretty good flow of air.
>
> But that hangar fire at KANE which is being attributed to a BatteryMinder
> does raise a doubt. A battery is a lot cheaper than a new plane.
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=461757#461757
>
>
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: | CHT challenge . . . |
At 01:45 AM 10/31/2016, you wrote:
Hi Bob,
I found your discussion on building your own sensors
in AeroElectric Connection very informative, however,
it raises a question: Can any CHT sensor be used with
any CHT gauge as long as the temp ranges are the same
for both devices?
Theoretically possible but as a practical
matter, maybe not. A thermocouple is a
voltage versus temperature SOURCE. As long
as the instrument reading the voltage draws
ZERO current from the source, then that gage
may be sued with any thermocouple of the
right voltage/temperature curve. Most CHT
couples are type K . . . but there ARE a few
type J devices out there to.
As a practical matter, you can parallel any
number of electronic instrumentation systems
onto a single thermocouple . . . electronic
gages have a very high input impedance and do
no 'pollute' the thermocouple's data.
But ALL un-powered temperature displays
place some demand on the thermocouple
making it necessary to MATCH a gage with
a thermocouple based on wire type (J,K,E,T)
and resistance of the thermocouple lead-wire.
I have installed a C90-12F on my Zenith CH750 project and want to
hook up at least one CHT sensor until I can confirm nominal temps
within the experimental cowl that is provided. And I don't want to
spend hundreds of bucks if not necessary.
A local acft used parts shop has a couple of used CHT gauges
available at very reasonable prices but without sensors and wiring.
Acft Spruce provides a sensor CP131 CHT Probe 18m, part number
10-01440. This sensor will fit under one of my selected cylinder spark plugs.
Would such a sensor work properly with a used CHT gauge? The used
gauge I have in mind reads to 600 F and has two leads which I assume
connect to the appropriate two leads from the sensor.
The Aircraft Spruce catalog speaks to the use of type E
thermocouple wire on their spark plug gasket offering.
Here are excerpts from the data tables on the three popular
thermocouple types.
Type E
Emacs!
Tyoe J
Emacs!
Type K
Emacs!
As you can see, type E has a lot more output
that J and K. The tough nut is that any gage
used with this particular produce must be
MATCHED to the wire.
The answer to your question is bounded by two
points: (1) match gage to type of thermocouple
wire and (2) finding an 18mm spark-plug gasket
fitted wire appropriate to the gage.
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: BatteryMinder not recommended for use in aircraft |
At 05:19 AM 10/31/2016, you wrote:
>
>I just got a new BatteryMinder because the old one couldn't push
>enough electrons for the new battery. Oh well.
I'm mystified by this . . . the 'wall-wart'
battery-minder is a SMALL battery charger
. . . on the order of 1 amp or less. It takes
a long time for it to CHARGE a fully discharged
battery.
Once charged, the device shifts to the maintainer
mode whereupon it's only task is to OFFSET self
discharge currents . . . which are measured in
micro-amps.
Do you still have the old Battery Minder? What
model is/was it?
>
>
>But the new BatteryMinder didn't come with the ring terminal
>harness. Just the big alligator clips. I figured that they were
>charging (pun intended) extra for the harness.
>
>But then I found out that they do not recommend using the charger on
>batteries in the plane. From their manual (emphasis theirs):
>
>1.
>Attach output cord of charger to the battery clip(s)
>assembly (BCAA) (supplied). For aviation applications, we no
>longer advise use of the RTA on any batteries while the battery is
>located within a confined area, such as in an aircraft engine compartment.
>
>2.
>Battery should be removed from aircraft or open to free
>flowing air to avoid possible build-up of harmful hydrogen gas in
>the event
>battery has a shorted cell(s) or charging source is
>incorrect or malfunctions.
>
>I can't imagine that people are actually going to remove their
>battery every time they want to hook up the BatteryMinder. In my
>case the battery is in the nose. With the nose gear door open and
>the upper access hatch open I've got a pretty good flow of air.
>
>But that hangar fire at KANE which is being attributed to a
>BatteryMinder does raise a doubt. A battery is a lot cheaper than a new plane.
I REALLY like to see the fire investigation report.
There are millions of battery-minder like products
out there. I've not looked at the larger models but
the wall-wart sized products are certainly UL approved
Class 2 . . . meaning NO EXTERNALLY APPLIED STESS
will cause this product to become a hazard to
persons or property.
On the battery side, the admonition about "charging
batteries in a closed space" smells of worries that
had some foundation in the flooded battery markets
of a gazillion years ago. Batteries in an OBAM
aircraft are likely to be SVLA/RG and not mounted
in a box. Further, the abuse that has to be heaped
on an SVLA/RG battery to trigger a catastrophic
energy release is difficult to produce in the lab
much less as an occurrence in service.
Battery-Minder and Enersys had some kind of a
'falling out' about 15 years ago. Engineers I
spoke with at Enersys couldn't enlighten me
as to any facts and decisions based on physics.
The notion of removing an SVLA/RG battery for
any gentle charging/maintained activity for
the sake of fire safety seems like overkill
. . . but perhaps based on paranoia arising from
some fire investigator's report on a hangar fire.
I'd give $100 to read a copy of that report . . .
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: | Re: CHT challenge . . . |
So far as I know, a cht gauge must match
the alloy combo (i.e., the letter type) of the
TC. Printed temp scale is not relevant. Different
alloy combos output different voltages at the
same temp point.
--------
Ira N224XS
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=461777#461777
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: BatteryMinder not recommended for use in aircraft |
nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelect wrote:
>
> Do you still have the old Battery Minder? What model is/was it?
>
The old battery was a Gill G242S. The BatteryMinder was a 24041-AA-S1 24v battery
Charger/Maintainer/Desulfator-Conditioner.
I replaced the battery with a Gill 7243-14. The tech rep at Gill said that my
old BatteryMinder may not be sufficient for the new battery. I contacted VDC and
they said the 24041-AA-S1 was not recommended for the higher capacity battery
and said that I should upgrade to the 244CEC1-AA-S3.
nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelect wrote:
> I REALLY like to see the fire investigation report.
It is my understanding that the fire occurred recently. I have no idea how long
it takes for one of those to be completed so I might be a while before the report
is finished.
One of the things that I noticed is that they reference "filler cap type batteries".
I'm wondering if sealed batteries are not subject to these warnings.
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=461780#461780
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: BatteryMinder not recommended for use in aircraft |
The fire was on the 29th at about 12:20pm. A homebuilt and a Cessna 182
were destroyed. I received three pictures. One was the exterior of the
hangar. It is still standing but the upper level is blackened. Of the
homebuilt only the tail section remains as recognizable as part of an
airplane. The rest is mostly ashes. It appeared to be a composite
aircraft. There was no image that was clearly of the 182
The fire is being investigated. Most likely there will be no report on
the news regarding the cause. Airport tenants and the management will
most likely have the report when it is released.
On 10/31/2016 4:33 PM, donjohnston wrote:
>
>
> nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelect wrote:
>> Do you still have the old Battery Minder? What model is/was it?
>>
>
>
> The old battery was a Gill G242S. The BatteryMinder was a 24041-AA-S1 24v battery
Charger/Maintainer/Desulfator-Conditioner.
>
> I replaced the battery with a Gill 7243-14. The tech rep at Gill said that my
old BatteryMinder may not be sufficient for the new battery. I contacted VDC
and they said the 24041-AA-S1 was not recommended for the higher capacity battery
and said that I should upgrade to the 244CEC1-AA-S3.
>
>
> nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelect wrote:
>> I REALLY like to see the fire investigation report.
>
>
> It is my understanding that the fire occurred recently. I have no idea how long
it takes for one of those to be completed so I might be a while before the
report is finished.
>
> One of the things that I noticed is that they reference "filler cap type batteries".
I'm wondering if sealed batteries are not subject to these warnings.
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=461780#461780
>
>
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: BatteryMinder not recommended for use in |
aircraft
At 05:06 PM 10/31/2016, you wrote:
><lyleap@centurylink.net>
>
>The fire was on the 29th at about 12:20pm. A homebuilt and a Cessna
>182 were destroyed. I received three pictures. One was the
>exterior of the hangar. It is still standing but the upper level is
>blackened. Of the homebuilt only the tail section remains as
>recognizable as part of an airplane. The rest is mostly ashes. It
>appeared to be a composite aircraft. There was no image that was
>clearly of the 182
>
>The fire is being investigated. Most likely there will be no report
>on the news regarding the cause. Airport tenants and the management
>will most likely have the report when it is released.
Was a 'battery charger/maintainer' even mentioned
as a possible participant in the fire?
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: BatteryMinder not recommended for use in aircraft |
No mention at all of a possible cause. I will ask some EAA Chapter
members what they know. It was two of them that first got the word out
to chapter members.
Lyle
On 10/31/2016 6:25 PM, Robert L. Nuckolls, III wrote:
> At 05:06 PM 10/31/2016, you wrote:
>> <lyleap@centurylink.net>
>>
>> The fire was on the 29th at about 12:20pm. A homebuilt and a Cessna
>> 182 were destroyed. I received three pictures. One was the exterior
>> of the hangar. It is still standing but the upper level is
>> blackened. Of the homebuilt only the tail section remains as
>> recognizable as part of an airplane. The rest is mostly ashes. It
>> appeared to be a composite aircraft. There was no image that was
>> clearly of the 182
>>
>> The fire is being investigated. Most likely there will be no report
>> on the news regarding the cause. Airport tenants and the management
>> will most likely have the report when it is released.
>
> Was a 'battery charger/maintainer' even mentioned
> as a possible participant in the fire?
>
>
> 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: BatteryMinder not recommended for use in |
aircraft
At 04:33 PM 10/31/2016, you wrote:
>
>
>nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelect wrote:
> >
> > Do you still have the old Battery Minder? What model is/was it?
> >
>
>
>The old battery was a Gill G242S. The BatteryMinder was a
>24041-AA-S1 24v battery Charger/Maintainer/Desulfator-Conditioner.
>
>I replaced the battery with a Gill 7243-14. The tech rep at Gill
>said that my old BatteryMinder may not be sufficient for the new
>battery. I contacted VDC and they said the 24041-AA-S1 was not
>recommended for the higher capacity battery and said that I should
>upgrade to the 244CEC1-AA-S3.
Hmmmmm . . . I've read/seen similar assertions
as to suitability to task . . . all of which were
mystifying. Indeed, if you're wanting to charge a
40 a.h. battery with a 0.75A wall-wart, it will
indeed take a long time . . . but just as a 0.75
amp load would take days to discharge the battery,
so too would a 0.75A charger take days to stuff the
energy back in. But if one has no sense of urgency
for demanding a fully charged battery, the time
to charge should be irrelevant.
Once the charger reaches the top-off cycle and
drops to a maintenance mode, then energy demands on
the maintainer are a tiny fraction of that available
for charging. As I mentioned earlier, it's micro-amps
in an RG battery.
If you still have your old maintainer, it would be
interesting to do a couple of cap-checks on your
battery and use the two chargers to replenish them
while recording the events on a data acquisition
system . . . but that takes a lot of time to
set up and run the experiment . . . so I guess
we're not going to know . . . soon . . .
Bob . . .
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! --
|