Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 05:13 AM - Buy Air Jordan 1 Crimson Tint on 2019mensjordans (blair2019)
2. 09:13 AM - Battery Charger/Maintainers (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
3. 09:18 AM - Re: Re: Three Questions on Z-07 (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
4. 09:56 AM - Risk mitigation (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
5. 10:21 AM - Re: Re: Three Questions on Z-07 (Ken Ryan)
6. 10:28 AM - Re: Battery Charger/Maintainers (skywagon185guy)
7. 11:53 AM - Re: Re: Three Questions on Z-07 (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
8. 11:58 AM - Re: Battery Charger/Maintainers (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
9. 01:44 PM - Re: Three Questions on Z-07 (markfw)
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: | Buy Air Jordan 1 Crimson Tint on 2019mensjordans |
After exposure,2019 Mens Jordans (https://www.2019mensjordans.com) will pay more attention. This pair of black jelly Jolly Air Jordan 1 is probably the next popular spot! The pink Air Jordan 1 is quite rare. In 2017, the airborne Air Jordan 1 Rust Pink was released at the Art Basel in Miami. It has already broken through the 2w yuan mark, and the new product that will be released soon will undoubtedly appear. More close to the people! The Air Jordan 1 Crimson Tint shoe scheme uses a black and red opaque color scheme. The large black lychee covers the body, and the toe, upper and outsole and Swoosh are pink. It is worth mentioning that this time I changed the pink color of the past, there are some jelly orange atmosphere, the effect of the foot is very refreshing, the eye-catching eye-catching dress can be described as men and women!
Last year adidas launched a series of super cost-effective old-fashioned shoes like Yung-1, Yung-96 and the girl-only Falcon. Recently, Falcon has another new fluorescent color exposure, which will be released next month. The adidas Falcon (https://www.2019mensjordans.com/product-category/adidas-falcon/) upper is spliced ??in shades of yellow, orange, pink and blue in a fluorescent hue. It is fresh and dazzling. The silver reflectors add to the eye-catching index of the shoes, and the tops are absolutely eye-catching.
The Air Max 720 series running shoes that were released in February this year can be regarded as the highest level of technology in Nike air cushion technology. The thickness is exaggerated to 38mm, which is the thickest in history. After a variety of color matching, Nike official website recently released a set of official maps of cool gray gradient color, let's take a look. The Nike Air Max 720 Cool Grey (https://www.2019mensjordans.com/product-category/nike-air-max-720/) upper is made of synthetic cotton, complemented by a unique embossed grain embellishment, with a gradient of wolf ash and dark grey, and the upper foot effect must be versatile. At the same time, in the middle of the outer side of the shoe body, the Mini Swoosh embellishment is added to the design, and the midsole is complemented by the iconic design of the Air Max 720. It is a good choice for everyday wear.
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=488109#488109
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: | Battery Charger/Maintainers |
At 03:37 PM 3/15/2019, you wrote:
>
>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.
Color me skeptical about battery failures
on "maintainers" . . .
There was some discussion flying around the
av-circles over 10 years ago wherein readers
reported that Odyssey 'banned' certain brands
of maintainers . . . Battery Tender included.
I was mystified by this. I had been using
Battery Tenders and Battery Minders on
lab batteries for years with no observable
problems . . . the point of a maintainer is
to boost the voltage on a fully charged
battery to some point just above it's
open circuit resting voltage. The rationale
says that one wants to transfer internal
parasitic discharge loads from the CHEMISTRY
to an EXTERNAL source.
My maintainers always sat at about 13.1 to
13.4 volts after their run-up during
charge.
Emacs!
Emacs!
During a battery failure investigation for Raytheon-
Beech, I had occasion to query a Hawker-Enersys engineer
about this topic.
He had no knowledge of any perceived
problems with the wall-warts vs. Odyssey products . . .
those issues were addressed in a different
division of Enersys.
I continued to use my trusty constellation of
wall-warts with pleasing results.
I note that Odyssey has their own flavor of
battery charger. See https://tinyurl.com/y67jy8tb
It offers a charging profile that looks like this:
Emacs!
A search of the 'net revealed several products
featuring 4 to 7 stages of charging. Who wuda thunk
it? I wondered if that 'auto maintain' profile
was dictated by Odyssey . . . or simply popped
up as a feature in a charger they are re-branding.
The 'storage recondition mode' is also a puzzle.
It has the look and smell of a pulsed energy
profile intended to 'break up' lead sulfide
crystals. I've seen countless articles on battery
de-sufation with near miraculous claims for
having preserved or recovering a trashed lead-acid
battery.
Check out this article at Battery University:
https://tinyurl.com/y2kdehzt
The comments are worth reading too. Note that
one comment that cites dozens of patents
on de-sulfation technology wherein the
inventor claims all previous patents are
inadequate or worthless.
I note that this document on the Odyssey
website . . .
https://tinyurl.com/y429aqbj
speaks of SVLA battery recovery process
that calls for several cycles of discharge
to 10v, charge and top off at 14.7 followed
by float at 13.6. Those numbers have been
around for nearly 30 years. To date, I've
not learned of any useful deviations.
Just for grins, I ordered this latest-n-greatest
version of a Battery Minder
https://tinyurl.com/y32cjfvv
So forgive me if, in the absence of any
engineering test documentation, I am
reluctant to embrace any notion that
there's really something new under the
sun in battery chargers. I'll keep
y'al posted on the super-whippy Battery
Tender.
> I'm at about 4 years on my Odyssey 925 in the Aridzona heat, and
> still working fine.
Have you cap-checked the battery recently?
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: Three Questions on Z-07 |
At 10:19 AM 3/16/2019, you wrote:
>The best reason I can think of to have two batteries is to get the
>engine started if the primary battery doesn't get the job done, and
>you happen to be on some remote Alaskan gravel bar. Many modern
>aircraft cannot be hand propped.
One battery, sized and MAINTAINED for the
task will never fail to get the engine
started.
Cranking the engine requires but 3-6
percent of a battery's contained
energy . . . a trivial sum. If the
battery fails to get an engine started,
it's axiomatic that it's suitability
for continued flight has long since
past.
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 |
|
> Some builders are willing to sacrifice money and performance for their
>peace of mind. All we can do is look over their shoulder and point out
>anything that is dangerous. If a builder wants to install two large
>batteries, he will do it whether there is a Z figure for it or not.
>Without guidance, his architecture could have a design flaw
Of course . . . and I have never suggested that
anyone fly with less than optimum comfort in their
design decisions. The freedom to customize
our projects goes to that goal.
Yes there have been gross failures in
batteries. There have been jugs thrown
from engines. There have been intractable
in-flight fires. But these are exceedingly
rare.
I believe the statistics will still
tell us that the #1 cause of engine failure
is fuel exhaustion. #1 cause of munched
airframes is from controlled or uncontrolled
flight into terrain; the outcomes of lapse in
attention to the necessities of heavier-than-air
flight.
There is a cartoon parody describing the
effects of over-worrying risks suffered from
the conduct of relatively ordinary tasks.
osha_cowboy
Emacs!
The "OSHA Cowboy" was hypothesized back in
the 70s . . . a classic complaint about the
effects of bureaucratic worrying becoming
law. OSHA folks are PAID to worry. Many
within the FAA are similarly engaged in
no-value-added rule making. ISO9000 was
probably the greatest destructive force
to creative innovation in the history
of industry.
At least for now, we are relatively free
of such encumbrances. But it behooves us
to explore, discuss, share, experiment and
discard all but the most effective
prophylactics against risk.
And I told him that switch makes his airplane less safe.
But I was only one person. Several others told my friend to install that
switch. So he did.
. . . and so you did your duty as an honorable
member of the community of aviators.
Fly comfortably my friend . . .
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: Three Questions on Z-07 |
"One battery, sized and MAINTAINED for the
task will never fail to get the engine
started."
I get your point Bob, but never say never. We already have one well
respected report of battery failure, not attributable to abuse, just from
the very small sample that consists of the current active members of this
list. (You yourself did the autopsy.)
And remember, we are not all flying airport to airport, or landing in some
farmer's field in Kansas, next to the Interstate (or even county road).
Here in Alaska, we might be landing at some unimproved strip on the tundra,
150 miles from the nearest road. This would be commonplace here. Also
consider cold weather operations where the battery might not be performing
at 100% and the engine might be stiff (and you might be sitting at some
remote landing spot with the 4 hours of available daylight fading quickly).
The consequences of a non-start on the engine vary so much depending upon
the circumstances, I submit that it is not at all unreasonable to either
incorporate a second starting battery, or at least carry one.
Ken
On Sun, Mar 17, 2019 at 8:22 AM Robert L. Nuckolls, III <
nuckolls.bob@aeroelectric.com> wrote:
> At 10:19 AM 3/16/2019, you wrote:
>
> The best reason I can think of to have two batteries is to get the engine
> started if the primary battery doesn't get the job done, and you happen to
> be on some remote Alaskan gravel bar. Many modern aircraft cannot be hand
> propped.
>
>
> One battery, sized and MAINTAINED for the
> task will never fail to get the engine
> started.
>
> Cranking the engine requires but 3-6
> percent of a battery's contained
> energy . . . a trivial sum. If the
> battery fails to get an engine started,
> it's axiomatic that it's suitability
> for continued flight has long since
> past.
>
>
> 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: Battery Charger/Maintainers |
Thanks Bob for these details. . .
Confirms my use of these little maintainers over the last 15+ years on both
autos and planes.
Looking forward to your review of the "latest" Battery Tender especially
what the "pulsed" energy is really doing as mentioned in the ad....
On Sun, Mar 17, 2019 at 9:19 AM Robert L. Nuckolls, III <
nuckolls.bob@aeroelectric.com> wrote:
> At 03:37 PM 3/15/2019, you wrote:
>
> kellym@aviating.com>
>
> 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.
>
> Color me skeptical about battery failures
> on "maintainers" . . .
>
> There was some discussion flying around the
> av-circles over 10 years ago wherein readers
> reported that Odyssey 'banned' certain brands
> of maintainers . . . Battery Tender included.
>
> I was mystified by this. I had been using
> Battery Tenders and Battery Minders on
> lab batteries for years with no observable
> problems . . . the point of a maintainer is
> to boost the voltage on a fully charged
> battery to some point just above it's
> open circuit resting voltage. The rationale
> says that one wants to transfer internal
> parasitic discharge loads from the CHEMISTRY
> to an EXTERNAL source.
>
> My maintainers always sat at about 13.1 to
> 13.4 volts after their run-up during
> charge.
>
> [image: Emacs!]
>
> [image: Emacs!]
>
>
> During a battery failure investigation for Raytheon-
> Beech, I had occasion to query a Hawker-Enersys engineer
> about this topic.
>
> He had no knowledge of any perceived
> problems with the wall-warts vs. Odyssey products . . .
> those issues were addressed in a different
> division of Enersys.
>
> I continued to use my trusty constellation of
> wall-warts with pleasing results.
>
> I note that Odyssey has their own flavor of
> battery charger. See https://tinyurl.com/y67jy8tb
>
> It offers a charging profile that looks like this:
>
> [image: Emacs!]
>
> A search of the 'net revealed several products
> featuring 4 to 7 stages of charging. Who wuda thunk
> it? I wondered if that 'auto maintain' profile
> was dictated by Odyssey . . . or simply popped
> up as a feature in a charger they are re-branding.
>
> The 'storage recondition mode' is also a puzzle.
> It has the look and smell of a pulsed energy
> profile intended to 'break up' lead sulfide
> crystals. I've seen countless articles on battery
> de-sufation with near miraculous claims for
> having preserved or recovering a trashed lead-acid
> battery.
>
>
> Check out this article at Battery University:
>
> https://tinyurl.com/y2kdehzt
>
> The comments are worth reading too. Note that
> one comment that cites dozens of patents
> on de-sulfation technology wherein the
> inventor claims all previous patents are
> inadequate or worthless.
>
> I note that this document on the Odyssey
> website . . .
>
> https://tinyurl.com/y429aqbj
>
> speaks of SVLA battery recovery process
> that calls for several cycles of discharge
> to 10v, charge and top off at 14.7 followed
> by float at 13.6. Those numbers have been
> around for nearly 30 years. To date, I've
> not learned of any useful deviations.
>
> Just for grins, I ordered this latest-n-greatest
> version of a Battery Minder
>
> https://tinyurl.com/y32cjfvv
>
>
> So forgive me if, in the absence of any
> engineering test documentation, I am
> reluctant to embrace any notion that
> there's really something new under the
> sun in battery chargers. I'll keep
> y'al posted on the super-whippy Battery
> Tender.
>
>
> I'm at about 4 years on my Odyssey 925 in the Aridzona heat, and still
> working fine.
>
>
> Have you cap-checked the battery recently?
>
> 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 |
At 12:06 PM 3/17/2019, you wrote:
>"One battery, sized and MAINTAINED for the
>=C2 task will never fail to get the engine
>=C2 started."
>
>I get your point Bob, but never say never. We
>already have one well respected report of
>battery failure, not attributable to abuse, just
>from the very small sample that consists of the
>current active members of this list. (You yourself did the autopsy.)
>
>And remember, we are not all flying airport to
>airport, or landing in some farmer's field in
>Kansas, next to the Interstate (or even county
>road). Here in Alaska, we might be landing at
>some unimproved strip on the tundra, 150 miles
>from the nearest road. This would be commonplace
>here. Also consider cold weather operations
>where the battery might not be performing at
>100% and the engine might be stiff (and you
>might be sitting at some remote landing spot
>with the 4 hours of available daylight fading quickly).
>
>The consequences of a non-start on the engine
>vary so much depending upon the circumstances, I
>submit that it is not at all unreasonable to
>either incorporate a second starting battery, or at least carry one.
No argument . . . that's what FMEA,
load analysis, preventative maintenance,
and matching the hardware to the mission
is all about. How many of the GA fleet
lands on floats anywhere much less
on remote lakes in the NW Territories?
(BTW, about 20 years ago, I did a drawing
for an Alaskan bush pilot adding an
auxiliary battery to the interior of
one of his floats.
Lots of unused volume there. Mounting
the battery there didn't penalize
volume in the aircraft and was easier
to manage structurally)
There are NO broad brush recommendations
here . . . only an encouragement to
match machine and pilot to the task
while maximizing utility and minimizing
risk . . . a start-stick might well
fill the bill. But Z07 was never completed.
If the List wishes to 'fine tune' this
architecture, I'd be pleased to participate
in cogent argument.
Bob . . .
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: Battery Charger/Maintainers |
At 12:24 PM 3/17/2019, you wrote:
>Thanks Bob for these details. . .
>Confirms my use of these little maintainers over the last 15+ years
>on both autos and planes.
>Looking forward to your review of the "latest" Battery Tender
>especially what the "pulsed" energy is really doing as mentioned in the ad....
It may take awhile . . . I read a testimonial
on this product wherein the writer claimed
to have 'recovered a trashed battery to
good as new'. Of course, there was no
quantitative analysis of performance
in the recovered battery . . . I suspect
that it started and engine but capacity
never checked.
Out here in oil-patch-and-cowpie-country,
there is a virtual mountain test subjects
available to test . . . but the writer
of the review did confess that he left
the whizzy maintainer on for 90 days!
We'll see . . .
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: Three Questions on Z-07 |
Bob,
I have assumed that I would use two batteries for 4 reasons:
1. I believed that there was a requirement to have a working battery to (magically
to me) "cushion" delicate avionics from the alternator current;
2. I assumed that I could parallel the LiFePO4 batteries to aid in starting
3. I was trying to guard against a battery failure "from bringing down the whole
system".
4. It is easier for me to mount two smaller batteries in parallel than one large
one given my alternator-out mission requirements.
It seems that reason #1 is bogus, since your discussion of "one large battery"
assumes that the alternator alone can run everything required without a problem.
I don't know where I got this idea.
Reason #2 turns out to (maybe) be bogus as well. Two manufacturers who supply a
BMS with their LiFePo4 batteries recommend AGAINST running their batteries in
parallel. Apparently, low resistance in a single cell of these multi-cell LiFePO4
batteries can greatly reduce capacity and longevity. The manufacturers take
great care to match the resistance of the battery cells when they build them,
and their BMS's spend a lot of time "optimizing" the batteries during charge
and discharge. This is not possible between paralleled batteries and a Resistance
mismatch between the batteries of (for example) 20% can reduce performance
by 40%.
On the other hand another manufacturer who does not supply a BMS with their batteries
says nothing about this. A friend of mine has used their product in parallel
for 3 years without problem.
So, your Z-07 diagram without parallel batteries may still be useful for people
who believe this is a problem for them.
Reason #3 was actually a quote from your 1998 paper "What's all this Battery Isolator
Stuff Anyhow?". I have also heard it mentioned in various discussions of
dual battery installations. As you point out in your 2008 paper "Myths of Multiple
Battery Installation" a shorted cell is exceedingly rare. However, in an
electrically dependent airplane, "rare" is in the eye of the beholder. Is there
any data on this? Given the cell resistance issue LiFePO4 batteries might
that chemistry be more susceptible to this problem?
Finally, reason #4 is a problem that you mention and is certainly not unique to
my situation. My current theory is to use the TCW backup battery solution. It
is automatic, does not parallel the batteries and is a lightweight LiFePO4 solution.
The disadvantage is that (currently) it is limited to a 6 amp/hr capacity,
which is 30 minutes for me throttled back if I lost BOTH my alternator and
primary battery.
Yes, this is non-FEMA thinking to worry about two failures at the same time. I
think that it depends on what the definition of "bringing down the whole system"
is. If a shorted battery cell can somehow stop the alternator from functioning,
isn't that actually one failure?
Mark
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=488119#488119
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! --
|