Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 02:05 AM - Re: Sifting design goals and establishing protocols (supik)
2. 05:46 AM - Re: Re: Funny photo (Roger Curtis)
3. 06:06 AM - Re: Re: Sifting design goals and establishing protocols (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
4. 06:10 AM - Re: Delta Pop Transponder Antenna and Garmin GDL 82 (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
5. 06:17 AM - Re: Re: Solder sleeve review... (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
6. 07:29 AM - Re: Delta Pop Transponder Antenna and Garmin GDL 82 (Kelly McMullen)
7. 07:40 AM - Re: Re: Sifting design goals and establishing protocols (Alec Myers)
8. 08:12 AM - Re: Solder sleeve review... (blues750)
9. 09:01 AM - Re: Re: Sifting design goals and establishing protocols (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
10. 09:04 AM - Re: Stratux alternative ADS-B antennas? (farmrjohn)
11. 09:05 AM - Re: Delta Pop Transponder Antenna and Garmin GDL 82 (Tim Olson)
12. 05:22 PM - Re: Sifting design goals and establishing protocols (supik)
13. 05:44 PM - Re: Re: Sifting design goals and establishing protocols (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
14. 05:51 PM - Re: Funny photo (Ernest Christley)
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: Sifting design goals and establishing protocols |
nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelect wrote:
> To: aeroelectric-list@matronics.com
> Subject: Re: Re: Alternator/shunt question
> Cc: it
>
> In your case, it is entirely practical to task
> the 'standby alternator' with routine flight
> duties. In this case, you have alternator #1 and
> and alternator #2. Each is capable of operating
> the aircraft within limits defined by a
> considered load analysis. In this instance,
> both controllers would be LR3C set for 14.2 Volts.
Bob,
What would then be the method to recognize an alternator failure except for a preflight
check? As long as the remaining alternator is capable of handling the
actual load, there would be no warning to the pilot..
--------
Igor
RV10 in progress
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=486764#486764
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 |
|
CiAgICAKCgoKLS0tLS0tLS0gT3JpZ2luYWwgbWVzc2FnZSAtLS0tLS0tLQpGcm9tOiB1c2VyOTI1
MyA8ZnJhbnNld0BnbWFpbC5jb20+IApEYXRlOiAwMS8wNS8yMDE5ICAyMzowNCAgKEdNVC0wNTow
MCkgClRvOiBhZXJvZWxlY3RyaWMtbGlzdEBtYXRyb25pY3MuY29tIApTdWJqZWN0OiBBZXJvRWxl
Y3RyaWMtTGlzdDogUmU6IEZ1bm55IHBob3RvIAoKLS0+IEFlcm9FbGVjdHJpYy1MaXN0IG1lc3Nh
Z2UgcG9zdGVkIGJ5OiAidXNlcjkyNTMiIDxmcmFuc2V3QGdtYWlsLmNvbT4KCklzIHRoYXQgc3Vw
cG9zZWQgdG8gYmUgZWFydGggZ3JvdW5kIGluIHRoZSBiYWc/CgotLS0tLS0tLQpKb2UgR29yZXMK
CgoKVGhhdCBpcyBob3cgeW91IGdldCB0byBncm91bmQgcmVmZXJlbmNlIHdoZW4geW91IGFyZSBh
dCAxMCwwMDAgZmVldCEKUm9nZXIKCgo
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: Sifting design goals and establishing protocols |
>
>Bob,
>
>What would then be the method to recognize an alternator failure
>except for a preflight check? As long as the remaining alternator is
>capable of handling the actual load, there would be no warning to the pilot..
It's pretty easy to get wound up with
worries about failures . . . especially
un-annunciated or hidden failures. Electro-
whizzies top the list . . . mostly due
to a general lack of understanding for
crafting a failure-tolerant system from
reasonably reliable parts.
Check out the chapter on system reliability
in the 'Connection. We almost never
concern ourselves with dual failures.
Your posting properly notes that once
airborne, you'd have no notice for
loss of the #2 alternator . . . which
is sitting there spinning away with
nothing to do.
Failure rates on equipment items must
certainly be in many hundreds if not
a few thousands of hours. Consider
two devices, say alternators, having
MTBF numbers on the order of 1000
hours.
To deduce such numbers, one has to
either test a bunch of alternators
for thousands of hours (time consuming
and expensive) or do an analysis
based on stress levels to critical
features and/or a statistical process
study of field history. One thing
we do know about automotive alternators
is that they tend to run a long time.
Then what is the likelihood that two
alternators with demonstrated service
histories will crap out on the same
airplane in a single 4-hour window
(one tank of fuel)? The answer is
vanishingly small if not zero.
If the #2 alternator does fail in
flight, you won't know about it until
next pre-flight . . . unless you add
#2 alternator testing to your shutdown
checklist.
The bid takeaway here is that the
probability for one alternator failure
is small, dual failures is practically
zero.
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: Delta Pop Transponder Antenna and Garmin GDL |
82
At 11:36 PM 1/5/2019, you wrote:
>
>Does anyone know if these two play well together?
Transponder/DME/ADSB antennas are
generic devices and not specific
to the panel equipment they are paired
with.
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: Solder sleeve review... |
At 09:52 PM 1/5/2019, you wrote:
>
>One way to measure the resistance in a circuit is to connect a heavy load and
>measure the voltage drop. An automotive headlight makes a good load. The
>voltage drop depends on the wire diameter and length, but should be less than
>1/2 volt. The theoretical voltage drop can be calculated using ohms law.
>Measure the current and look up the wire resistance in a table.
But consider the 'fault' he is hoping to
detect. A 'poor' connection between the
two strands MIGHT have a very low cross
section but its LENGTH is near zero.
I'd venture to say that two joints in
identical wires, one with the desired
over-lap under the shrink and the other
simply tacked end-to-end on the strands
would be indistinguishable from each
other by external observation of
resistance.
I suspect his joints are electrically
adequate and with the mechanical support
of the solder-sleeve shrink, they'll
probably be just fine. However, one's
sense of craftsmanship may dictate
that they should be cut open, cleaned
up and corrected. It's easy to do.
Bob . . .
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: Delta Pop Transponder Antenna and Garmin GDL 82 |
I am using their UAT version for my Dynon ADS-B In receiver(uAvionics
dual freq), and their 1090 version for my Dynon ADS-B Out transponder
(Trig 1090ES). No problems. For the GDL-82 obviously you would want the
UAT version.
On 1/5/2019 10:36 PM, Michael Burbidge wrote:
>
> Does anyone know if these two play well together?
>
> Michael
>
>
>
>
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: Sifting design goals and establishing protocols |
Twin piston engined aircraft routinely have two alternators online simultaneously
and it is widely accepted that due to different set points on their respective
regulators that only one with carry a load when both are operational. It is
immaterial which.
Preflight procedures are to isolate each alternator in turn and verify that in
either case the remaining alternator carries the electrical load demanded of it.
Sent from my iPhone
> On Jan 6, 2019, at 05:05, supik <bionicad@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelect wrote:
>> To: aeroelectric-list@matronics.com
>> Subject: Re: Re: Alternator/shunt question
>> Cc: it
>>
>> In your case, it is entirely practical to task
>> the 'standby alternator' with routine flight
>> duties. In this case, you have alternator #1 and
>> and alternator #2. Each is capable of operating
>> the aircraft within limits defined by a
>> considered load analysis. In this instance,
>> both controllers would be LR3C set for 14.2 Volts.
>
>
> Bob,
>
> What would then be the method to recognize an alternator failure except for a
preflight check? As long as the remaining alternator is capable of handling the
actual load, there would be no warning to the pilot..
>
> --------
> Igor
>
> RV10 in progress
>
>
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=486764#486764
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
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: Solder sleeve review... |
> However, one's
> sense of craftsmanship may dictate
> that they should be cut open, cleaned
> up and corrected.
Kinda what I was thinking... [Embarassed] Thanks to all who replied.
I have a another "problem" to present to the group, just need to
figure out how to ask the question... :D
Dave
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=486773#486773
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: Sifting design goals and establishing protocols |
At 09:38 AM 1/6/2019, you wrote:
>
>Twin piston engined aircraft routinely have two alternators online
>simultaneously and it is widely accepted that due to different set
>points on their respective regulators that only one with carry a
>load when both are operational. It is immaterial which.
This was a 'hard sell' for years after
alternators replaced generators. Generator
wear rates are related to ampere-hours of
service due to brush wear while alternator
wear is largely independent of electrical
demand in service. It was prudent to have
dual regulators 'talk' to each other to
balance the load between two generators.
Emacs!
Equalizer busses are still present on the
starter-generators of some production turbine
aircraft.
>Preflight procedures are to isolate each alternator in turn and
>verify that in either case the remaining alternator carries the
>electrical load demanded of it.
>
When alternators came along, there were
a number of 'paralleling' schemes implemented
with varying degrees of success. Some designers
more aware of the practical results for accurate
paralleling have adopted the run-em-both-and-let-
the-'good'-one-carry-the-loads approach.
The same idea was carried out with the B&C
standby alternator philosophy . . . leave both
on line but set the s/b alternator deliberately
low while adding an "alternator loaded" warning
feature to annunciate failure of the main
alternator.
This is illustrated in Figure Z-12. The
same philosophy could be incorporated in
Igor's RV by controlling the #2 alternator
with an SB-1 regulator . . . but I perceive
little value to be gained with the increase
in complexity.
It made a lot of sense to let us shoe-horn
the standby systems onto TC aircraft (the
FAA's professional worriers worried less).
Simply adding a second alternator with stock
LR-3 regulator offers the same reliability.
I proposed a paralleling system for the Cessna
303 waaayy back when. Demonstrated it and then
had to price it. Powers-that-be of the era
decided the advantages were not worth the cost.
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: Stratux alternative ADS-B antennas? |
Thanks for the tip on the remote mount. Now I'm also considering switching to
the remote gps antenna. That way the stratux could be mounted in the shade vs.
in direct sunlight even though it has a built in fan. John
rick(at)beebe.org wrote:
> Yes, there are two different receivers in there, each with its own antenna.
You could use a tee to tie one antenna to both receivers I guess.
Personally I like that each receiver gets an antenna optimized
for its particular frequency. You can certainly remote mount the two
antennas. Open Flight Solutions sells a plastic holder with a suction
cup to hold them in a rear window, for instance. I've also seen some
3D printed versions on, probably, thingiverse.
> The Stratux is built on a Raspberry Pi single board computer and a couple
software defined radios. I'm pretty sure every other ADS-B receiver
has custom receiver and decoder circuitry inside it.
>
> --Rick
>
>
>
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=486774#486774
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: Delta Pop Transponder Antenna and Garmin GDL |
82
The Delta Pop transponder antenna should work fine if you already own one. I
f you still need to buy one they do have a UAT antenna tuned more precisely f
or 978mhz that would be perfect. They are close enough for the task that ei
ther will work.
Tim
> On Jan 6, 2019, at 8:09 AM, Robert L. Nuckolls, III <nuckolls.bob@aeroelec
tric.com> wrote:
>
> At 11:36 PM 1/5/2019, you wrote:
.com>
>>
>> Does anyone know if these two play well together?
>
> Transponder/DME/ADSB antennas are
> generic devices and not specific
> to the panel equipment they are paired
> with.
>
>
> 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: | Re: Sifting design goals and establishing protocols |
When utilizing LR-3 regulators for both alternators set at the same volts output
will they share the loads equally? 50:50? If yes, wouldn't you adjust regulator
#2 (30amp alt) slightly lower to prevent it from running at 100% if the loads
get high? Very unlikely that I will routinely get above 60amps, that's more
of a hypothetical question.
System monitoring & failure identification:
Would be monitoring the respective bus voltages & amp outputs from the respective
alternators adequate?
Main distribution bus fed from alt #1
E-bus fed from alt #2
Thanks,
--------
Igor
RV10 in progress
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=486783#486783
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: | Re: Sifting design goals and establishing protocols |
At 07:21 PM 1/6/2019, you wrote:
>
>When utilizing LR-3 regulators for both alternators set at the same
>volts output will they share the loads equally? 50:50?
No . . . not with reliability
> If yes, wouldn't you adjust regulator #2 (30amp alt) slightly
> lower to prevent it from running at 100% if the loads get high?
> Very unlikely that I will routinely get above 60amps, that's more
> of a hypothetical question.
Independently controlled alternators/generators
on the same bus will not accurately parallel.
>System monitoring & failure identification:
>
>Would be monitoring the respective bus voltages & amp outputs from
>the respective alternators adequate?
>
>Main distribution bus fed from alt #1
>E-bus fed from alt #2
Do a Z-14 and make them totally independent
of each other.
Bob . . .
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 |
|
Is that type of ground common?
On Saturday, January 5, 2019, 7:24:24 PM EST, Art Zemon <art@zemon.name
> wrote:
=C2-=C2-=C2- -- Art Z.
Sent from my phone. Please excuse brevity and bizarre typos.
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! --
|