---------------------------------------------------------- AeroElectric-List Digest Archive --- Total Messages Posted Mon 10/31/16: 10 ---------------------------------------------------------- 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 _____________________________________ Time: 03:21:38 AM PST US Subject: AeroElectric-List: BatteryMinder not recommended for use in aircraft From: "donjohnston" 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 _____________________________________ Time: 03:58:25 AM PST US From: bob noffs Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: 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 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 _____________________________________ Time: 10:43:39 AM PST US From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" Subject: AeroElectric-List: 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 _____________________________________ Time: 12:17:05 PM PST US From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: 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 _____________________________________ Time: 01:24:53 PM PST US Subject: AeroElectric-List: Re: CHT challenge . . . From: "rampil" 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 _____________________________________ Time: 02:34:10 PM PST US Subject: AeroElectric-List: Re: BatteryMinder not recommended for use in aircraft From: "donjohnston" 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 _____________________________________ Time: 03:07:37 PM PST US Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: BatteryMinder not recommended for use in aircraft From: Lyle Peterson 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 _____________________________________ Time: 04:26:52 PM PST US From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: BatteryMinder not recommended for use in aircraft At 05:06 PM 10/31/2016, you wrote: > > >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 _____________________________________ Time: 04:49:30 PM PST US Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: BatteryMinder not recommended for use in aircraft From: Lyle Peterson 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: >> >> >> 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 ____________________________________ Time: 04:55:15 PM PST US From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: 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 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Post A New Message aeroelectric-list@matronics.com UN/SUBSCRIBE http://www.matronics.com/subscription List FAQ http://www.matronics.com/FAQ/AeroElectric-List.htm Web Forum Interface To Lists http://forums.matronics.com Matronics List Wiki http://wiki.matronics.com Full Archive Search Engine http://www.matronics.com/search 7-Day List Browse http://www.matronics.com/browse/aeroelectric-list Browse Digests http://www.matronics.com/digest/aeroelectric-list Browse Other Lists http://www.matronics.com/browse Live Online Chat! http://www.matronics.com/chat Archive Downloading http://www.matronics.com/archives Photo Share http://www.matronics.com/photoshare Other Email Lists http://www.matronics.com/emaillists Contributions http://www.matronics.com/contribution ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- These Email List Services are sponsored solely by Matronics and through the generous Contributions of its members.