Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 05:20 AM - Re: Starters (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
2. 05:36 AM - Re: Re: Three Questions on Z-07 (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
3. 07:00 AM - Re: Generator troubleshooting & repair (user9253)
4. 09:48 AM - Re: Re: Three Questions on Z-07 (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
5. 10:21 AM - Re: Starters (Steve Kelly)
6. 10:55 AM - Re: Starters (A R Goldman)
7. 11:53 AM - Re: Three Questions on Z-07 (user9253)
8. 12:17 PM - Re: Starters (Sebastien)
9. 01:38 PM - Re: Starters (Kelly McMullen)
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 |
|
At 10:00 AM 3/13/2019, you wrote:
>
>Can someone with more knowledge than me on the subject, tell me the difference
>between a series wound motor and a PM motor.
That's a question with a really big answer.
It fills a couple of volumes. It all depends
on the application. Series wound motors for
engine cranking are falling in popularity
for a host of interleaved trade-offs. Strong
influences on the shift to PM motors include
falling costs of rare earth magnets compared
to higher manufacturing costs for wound fields.
Wound field motors seem to find favor with
OEMs for diesel engines . . . a wound field
motor has a flatter speed torque curve
than PM motors under heavy load. They
generally outperform PM starters under
adverse conditions (cold, soggy battery,
high resistance in cranking loop).
Emacs!
The downside of series wound motors include
poor load-speed regulation; an unloaded
PM motor has a limit on unloaded RPM.
A series wound motor's unloaded speed
is limited only by friction in the motor's
construction. Some designs are at risk
for self destruction if operated no-load.
There are a dozen trade-offs for deciding
which configuration to adopt for any given
application. Neither configuration is
'superior' to the other over the full
spectrum of operating characteristics.
> Also, does the series wound have more torque.
Not 'more' but 'flatter' speed-torque
characteristics under heavy load . . .
> Is it more durable
Not necessarily. Durability has more to
do with design details and manufacturing
quality than with choice of motors.
>
> I have a Skytech PM on my O-320 thats getting a
>little sluggish on the initial turn of the prop.
>While I'm aware that there may be other causes,
>confidence that my engine will start reliably is important.
Motor condition is but one of several reasons
for sluggish performance. The weakest link
in cranking chain is battery condition.
Just for grins, jumper your car battery
to the ship's battery and see how the engine
cranks. If there is marked improvement,
consider load/capacity checking your battery.
A least likely reason for diminished
performance is an increased voltage
drop in cranking power loop.
Emacs!
It's expected that voltage available at the starter
motor is lower than battery voltage. Just how much
lower has an effect on cranking speed. I'd carefully
check out the cranking power loop, ESPECIALLY the
battery, before swapping out the starter.
> I have heard good things about B&Cs starters. While they're more
> expensive, I guess you get what you pay for.
There were a number of discussions about the
differences for B&C versus other players
circa 1996. Here's one thread
https://tinyurl.com/y38w4ksz
In 23 years since, the various players
have had ample opportunity to secure their
position in the market based on perceived
value and demonstrated track record. Further,
I'm certain that many of the points cited
in the thread are not longer valid . . .
companies have changed hands and
sales volumes have promoted better
manufacturing techniques.
I have no recent knowledge of player
performance in today's starter market.
But I can share that Robinson Helicopter
was quite pleased with the performance
and weight advantages of the B&C
starters. They would swap B&C starters
onto brand new engines fitted with
factory supplied starters.
B&C would receive boxes of Robinson
starters pulled off engines taken
down for overhaul and returned for reman. No
matter how beat up and dirty the starters
were on the outside, the wearing parts
inside looked like they could go another
2,000 hours on the airplane.
I have no foundation to assert that
the major players do not offer good
value . . . but yes, in a free-market
competition for customers, you generally
do get what you pay for.
Bob . . .
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: Three Questions on Z-07 |
At 07:45 PM 3/13/2019, you wrote:
>
>thank you John. Very useful information. I will talk to EarthX about
>dual batteries.
>
Why dual batteries?
When the alternator quits, you have to budget
chemical energy on board to achieve design
goals for altenrator-out endurance.
The e-bus was crafted long before electrically
dependent engines were popular . . . it's
application was pretty narrowly focused on
running the minimum suite of electronics
to get you to intended destination with
no alternator. I.e. ELECTRICAL endurance
could easily outpace FUEL endurance.
Now, with a 14A running load for an engine,
you're probably not hoping for that kind
of electrical endurance. An 18A total
running load for 3+ hours is a pretty
fat battery in lead acid . . . but maybe,
just maybe achievable with a practical
weight/volume in lithium.
For all practical purposes, your alternator
out energy needs for engine and avionics
are the same . . . I think I'd concentrate
on achieving the total energy package
needed for what ever endurance number you
pick. If you can make it equal or greater
than fuel aboard, great. If not practical, then
KNOW what that endurance number is and
orchestrate your Plan-B operations to
fit within that limit.
Applying two batteries to separate
tasks is not very helpful to that
goal. An optimal two-battery configuration
would call for the avionics battery to
be about 1/3 the size of the engine
battery. I think it more practical to
treat the energy needs for flight as
a total package than as two separate
packages. Now, it MIGHT take two
batteries in parallel . . . that's
driven by the energy numbers and your
weight/volume/dollars limits.
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: Generator troubleshooting & repair |
I assume that you are talking about a home generator.
If your generator has brushes, they would be the most likely problem along with
slip rings or commutator.
Other than that, you could check continuity of windings. Google search "how to
repair a home generator".
https://www.motherearthnews.com/homesteading-and-livestock/home-generator-repair-zbcz1502
https://www.repairclinic.com/RepairHelp/Generator-Repair-Help
--------
Joe Gores
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=488084#488084
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: Three Questions on Z-07 |
At 07:35 AM 3/15/2019, you wrote:
>At 07:45 PM 3/13/2019, you wrote:
>>
>>thank you John. Very useful information. I will talk to EarthX
>>about dual batteries.
>
> Why dual batteries?
>
> When the alternator quits, you have to budget
> chemical energy on board to achieve design
> goals for altenrator-out endurance.
I'll have to dig back in the archives to
retrieve the conversations going on while
Z07 was being discussed. Note that the
drawing is watermarked 'Work in Progresss'.
Given the availability of high volume/energy
ratio of lithium batteries; I'm having trouble
justifying a Z07 architecture.
If anyone can champion the idea, I'd be
please to see their argument posted here
on the List . . . but at the present time,
I'm inclined to pull that drawing down.
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 |
|
Bob, Thank you for the reply. I will try to get out to the hanger early
next week and check the voltage readings. The battery is a PC680 at three
months old. Do you have a method you would suggest to do a load/capacity
check on it.
Steve
On Fri, Mar 15, 2019 at 8:27 AM Robert L. Nuckolls, III <
nuckolls.bob@aeroelectric.com> wrote:
> At 10:00 AM 3/13/2019, you wrote:
>
>
> Can someone with more knowledge than me on the subject, tell me the
> difference
> between a series wound motor and a PM motor.
>
>
> That's a question with a really big answer.
> It fills a couple of volumes. It all depends
> on the application. Series wound motors for
> engine cranking are falling in popularity
> for a host of interleaved trade-offs. Strong
> influences on the shift to PM motors include
> falling costs of rare earth magnets compared
> to higher manufacturing costs for wound fields.
> Wound field motors seem to find favor with
> OEMs for diesel engines . . . a wound field
> motor has a flatter speed torque curve
> than PM motors under heavy load. They
> generally outperform PM starters under
> adverse conditions (cold, soggy battery,
> high resistance in cranking loop).
>
> [image: Emacs!]
> The downside of series wound motors include
> poor load-speed regulation; an unloaded
> PM motor has a limit on unloaded RPM.
> A series wound motor's unloaded speed
> is limited only by friction in the motor's
> construction. Some designs are at risk
> for self destruction if operated no-load.
>
> There are a dozen trade-offs for deciding
> which configuration to adopt for any given
> application. Neither configuration is
> 'superior' to the other over the full
> spectrum of operating characteristics.
>
> Also, does the series wound have more torque.
>
>
> Not 'more' but 'flatter' speed-torque
> characteristics under heavy load . . .
>
>
> Is it more durable
>
>
> Not necessarily. Durability has more to
> do with design details and manufacturing
> quality than with choice of motors.
>
>
> I have a Skytech PM on my O-320 thats getting a
> little sluggish on the initial turn of the prop.
> While I'm aware that there may be other causes,
> confidence that my engine will start reliably is important.
>
>
> Motor condition is but one of several reasons
> for sluggish performance. The weakest link
> in cranking chain is battery condition.
> Just for grins, jumper your car battery
> to the ship's battery and see how the engine
> cranks. If there is marked improvement,
> consider load/capacity checking your battery.
>
> A least likely reason for diminished
> performance is an increased voltage
> drop in cranking power loop.
>
> [image: Emacs!]
>
> It's expected that voltage available at the starter
> motor is lower than battery voltage. Just how much
> lower has an effect on cranking speed. I'd carefully
> check out the cranking power loop, ESPECIALLY the
> battery, before swapping out the starter.
>
> I have heard good things about B&Cs starters. While they're more
> expensive, I guess you get what you pay for.
>
>
> There were a number of discussions about the
> differences for B&C versus other players
> circa 1996. Here's one thread
>
> https://tinyurl.com/y38w4ksz
>
> In 23 years since, the various players
> have had ample opportunity to secure their
> position in the market based on perceived
> value and demonstrated track record. Further,
> I'm certain that many of the points cited
> in the thread are not longer valid . . .
> companies have changed hands and
> sales volumes have promoted better
> manufacturing techniques.
>
> I have no recent knowledge of player
> performance in today's starter market.
> But I can share that Robinson Helicopter
> was quite pleased with the performance
> and weight advantages of the B&C
> starters. They would swap B&C starters
> onto brand new engines fitted with
> factory supplied starters.
>
> B&C would receive boxes of Robinson
> starters pulled off engines taken
> down for overhaul and returned for reman. No
> matter how beat up and dirty the starters
> were on the outside, the wearing parts
> inside looked like they could go another
> 2,000 hours on the airplane.
>
> I have no foundation to assert that
> the major players do not offer good
> value . . . but yes, in a free-market
> competition for customers, you generally
> do get what you pay for.
>
>
> 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 |
|
While you are checking...check all of the cable connections for security and
corrosion
Rich
Sent from my iPhone
> On Mar 15, 2019, at 12:18 PM, Steve Kelly <amsk22@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Bob, Thank you for the reply. I will try to get out to the hanger early n
ext week and check the voltage readings. The battery is a PC680 at three mo
nths old. Do you have a method you would suggest to do a load/capacity che
ck on it.
> Steve
>
>> On Fri, Mar 15, 2019 at 8:27 AM Robert L. Nuckolls, III <nuckolls.bob@aer
oelectric.com> wrote:
>> At 10:00 AM 3/13/2019, you wrote:
>
>>>
>>> Can someone with more knowledge than me on the subject, tell me the diff
erence
>>> between a series wound motor and a PM motor.
>>
>> That's a question with a really big answer.
>> It fills a couple of volumes. It all depends
>> on the application. Series wound motors for
>> engine cranking are falling in popularity
>> for a host of interleaved trade-offs. Strong
>> influences on the shift to PM motors include
>> falling costs of rare earth magnets compared
>> to higher manufacturing costs for wound fields.
>> Wound field motors seem to find favor with
>> OEMs for diesel engines . . . a wound field
>> motor has a flatter speed torque curve
>> than PM motors under heavy load. They
>> generally outperform PM starters under
>> adverse conditions (cold, soggy battery,
>> high resistance in cranking loop).
>>
>> <b1f680f.jpg>
>> The downside of series wound motors include
>> poor load-speed regulation; an unloaded
>> PM motor has a limit on unloaded RPM.
>> A series wound motor's unloaded speed
>> is limited only by friction in the motor's
>> construction. Some designs are at risk
>> for self destruction if operated no-load.
>>
>> There are a dozen trade-offs for deciding
>> which configuration to adopt for any given
>> application. Neither configuration is
>> 'superior' to the other over the full
>> spectrum of operating characteristics.
>>
>>> Also, does the series wound have more torque.
>>
>> Not 'more' but 'flatter' speed-torque
>> characteristics under heavy load . . .
>>
>>
>>> Is it more durable
>>
>> Not necessarily. Durability has more to
>> do with design details and manufacturing
>> quality than with choice of motors.
>>
>>>
>>> I have a Skytech PM on my O-320 thats getting a
>>> little sluggish on the initial turn of the prop.
>>> While I'm aware that there may be other causes,
>>> confidence that my engine will start reliably is important.
>>
>> Motor condition is but one of several reasons
>> for sluggish performance. The weakest link
>> in cranking chain is battery condition.
>> Just for grins, jumper your car battery
>> to the ship's battery and see how the engine
>> cranks. If there is marked improvement,
>> consider load/capacity checking your battery.
>>
>> A least likely reason for diminished
>> performance is an increased voltage
>> drop in cranking power loop.
>>
>> <b1f681f.jpg>
>>
>> It's expected that voltage available at the starter
>> motor is lower than battery voltage. Just how much
>> lower has an effect on cranking speed. I'd carefully
>> check out the cranking power loop, ESPECIALLY the
>> battery, before swapping out the starter.
>>
>>> I have heard good things about B&Cs starters. While they're more expe
nsive, I guess you get what you pay for.
>>
>>
>> There were a number of discussions about the
>> differences for B&C versus other players
>> circa 1996. Here's one thread
>>
>> https://tinyurl.com/y38w4ksz
>>
>> In 23 years since, the various players
>> have had ample opportunity to secure their
>> position in the market based on perceived
>> value and demonstrated track record. Further,
>> I'm certain that many of the points cited
>> in the thread are not longer valid . . .
>> companies have changed hands and
>> sales volumes have promoted better
>> manufacturing techniques.
>>
>> I have no recent knowledge of player
>> performance in today's starter market.
>> But I can share that Robinson Helicopter
>> was quite pleased with the performance
>> and weight advantages of the B&C
>> starters. They would swap B&C starters
>> onto brand new engines fitted with
>> factory supplied starters.
>>
>> B&C would receive boxes of Robinson
>> starters pulled off engines taken
>> down for overhaul and returned for reman. No
>> matter how beat up and dirty the starters
>> were on the outside, the wearing parts
>> inside looked like they could go another
>> 2,000 hours on the airplane.
>>
>> I have no foundation to assert that
>> the major players do not offer good
>> value . . . but yes, in a free-market
>> competition for customers, you generally
>> do get what you pay for.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> 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: Three Questions on Z-07 |
I would leave that drawing available unless there is some unknown failure
mode. There are different strokes for different folks. Someone will have a
perceived need that Z-07 will fill.
I would like to see a very simple architecture without an endurance bus or
diodes. It would be designed with the low power requirements (
--------
Joe Gores
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=488093#488093
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 |
|
That is a very common battery, any battery store will test it for you.
On Fri, Mar 15, 2019, 13:31 Steve Kelly <amsk22@gmail.com> wrote:
> Bob, Thank you for the reply. I will try to get out to the hanger early
> next week and check the voltage readings. The battery is a PC680 at three
> months old. Do you have a method you would suggest to do a load/capacity
> check on it.
> Steve
>
> On Fri, Mar 15, 2019 at 8:27 AM Robert L. Nuckolls, III <
> nuckolls.bob@aeroelectric.com> wrote:
>
>> At 10:00 AM 3/13/2019, you wrote:
>>
>>
>> Can someone with more knowledge than me on the subject, tell me the
>> difference
>> between a series wound motor and a PM motor.
>>
>>
>> That's a question with a really big answer.
>> It fills a couple of volumes. It all depends
>> on the application. Series wound motors for
>> engine cranking are falling in popularity
>> for a host of interleaved trade-offs. Strong
>> influences on the shift to PM motors include
>> falling costs of rare earth magnets compared
>> to higher manufacturing costs for wound fields.
>> Wound field motors seem to find favor with
>> OEMs for diesel engines . . . a wound field
>> motor has a flatter speed torque curve
>> than PM motors under heavy load. They
>> generally outperform PM starters under
>> adverse conditions (cold, soggy battery,
>> high resistance in cranking loop).
>>
>> [image: Emacs!]
>> The downside of series wound motors include
>> poor load-speed regulation; an unloaded
>> PM motor has a limit on unloaded RPM.
>> A series wound motor's unloaded speed
>> is limited only by friction in the motor's
>> construction. Some designs are at risk
>> for self destruction if operated no-load.
>>
>> There are a dozen trade-offs for deciding
>> which configuration to adopt for any given
>> application. Neither configuration is
>> 'superior' to the other over the full
>> spectrum of operating characteristics.
>>
>> Also, does the series wound have more torque.
>>
>>
>> Not 'more' but 'flatter' speed-torque
>> characteristics under heavy load . . .
>>
>>
>> Is it more durable
>>
>>
>> Not necessarily. Durability has more to
>> do with design details and manufacturing
>> quality than with choice of motors.
>>
>>
>> I have a Skytech PM on my O-320 thats getting a
>> little sluggish on the initial turn of the prop.
>> While I'm aware that there may be other causes,
>> confidence that my engine will start reliably is important.
>>
>>
>> Motor condition is but one of several reasons
>> for sluggish performance. The weakest link
>> in cranking chain is battery condition.
>> Just for grins, jumper your car battery
>> to the ship's battery and see how the engine
>> cranks. If there is marked improvement,
>> consider load/capacity checking your battery.
>>
>> A least likely reason for diminished
>> performance is an increased voltage
>> drop in cranking power loop.
>>
>> [image: Emacs!]
>>
>> It's expected that voltage available at the starter
>> motor is lower than battery voltage. Just how much
>> lower has an effect on cranking speed. I'd carefully
>> check out the cranking power loop, ESPECIALLY the
>> battery, before swapping out the starter.
>>
>> I have heard good things about B&Cs starters. While they're more
>> expensive, I guess you get what you pay for.
>>
>>
>>
>> There were a number of discussions about the
>> differences for B&C versus other players
>> circa 1996. Here's one thread
>>
>> https://tinyurl.com/y38w4ksz
>>
>> In 23 years since, the various players
>> have had ample opportunity to secure their
>> position in the market based on perceived
>> value and demonstrated track record. Further,
>> I'm certain that many of the points cited
>> in the thread are not longer valid . . .
>> companies have changed hands and
>> sales volumes have promoted better
>> manufacturing techniques.
>>
>> I have no recent knowledge of player
>> performance in today's starter market.
>> But I can share that Robinson Helicopter
>> was quite pleased with the performance
>> and weight advantages of the B&C
>> starters. They would swap B&C starters
>> onto brand new engines fitted with
>> factory supplied starters.
>>
>> B&C would receive boxes of Robinson
>> starters pulled off engines taken
>> down for overhaul and returned for reman. No
>> matter how beat up and dirty the starters
>> were on the outside, the wearing parts
>> inside looked like they could go another
>> 2,000 hours on the airplane.
>>
>> I have no foundation to assert that
>> the major players do not offer good
>> value . . . but yes, in a free-market
>> competition for customers, you generally
>> do get what you pay for.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> 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 |
|
Odyssey batteries are often prematurely aged by keeping on a battery
maintainer. If you contact Odyssey they can give you a rejuvenation
protocol to restore the battery to near full capacity. I'm at about 4
years on my Odyssey 925 in the Aridzona heat, and still working fine.
On 3/15/2019 12:15 PM, Sebastien wrote:
> That is a very common battery, any battery store will test it for you.
>
> On Fri, Mar 15, 2019, 13:31 Steve Kelly <amsk22@gmail.com
> <mailto:amsk22@gmail.com>> wrote:
>
> Bob, Thank you for the reply. I will try to get out to the hanger
> early next week and check the voltage readings. The battery is a
> PC680 at three months old. Do you have a method you would suggest
> to do a load/capacity check on it.
> Steve
>
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! --
|