Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 08:16 AM - Re: Re: Pmag diode (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
2. 09:19 AM - Desulfators and Lithium (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
3. 10:15 AM - Re: Desulfators and Lithium (Charlie England)
4. 10:22 AM - Re: Desulfators and Lithium (Ernest Christley)
5. 10:32 AM - Re: Desulfators and Lithium (ashleysc@broadstripe.net)
6. 10:47 AM - Re: Desulfators and Lithium (Sebastien)
7. 08:00 PM - GPS antenna removal (Argonaut36)
8. 08:48 PM - Re: GPS antenna removal (Charlie England)
9. 09:45 PM - Re: GPS antenna removal (Argonaut36)
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 08:51 AM 10/21/2019, you wrote:
>
>A dab of E6000 between the diode and other wires will prevent vibration.
I think 'the rub' comes from placing two wires
of differing qualities under the same screw-n-mash
terminal. The smaller wire may not be adequately
supported.
>Another option is to mount the diode at the tach end of wire number 6.
Or in-line with a technique like this:
Emacs!
But more importantly, that diode (actually a
zener) may not be necessary.
Quoting from EmagAir's installation data
Emacs!
Adding the suggested diode depends on
the tachometer being incapable of working with
the stock, 12v tach signal emitted by
the eMag.
Adding the diode clamps the 12v signal down
to 5v for such cases. Do the Tachometer
instructions specifically state that the
input signal cannot exceed 5V?
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: | Desulfators and Lithium |
At 01:33 AM 10/21/2019, you wrote:
>I too have read many articles that both applaud and disprove the
>desulfurization theory. What I "more or less" believe is the
>results that many tell about where they get 6 or 7 years from
>batteries well maintained with with BATTERY MINDER maintainers.
Yup, been using the wall-wart BM and BT maintainers
for decades enjoying very good service lives on
a constellation of laboratory/test batteries.
But those were batteries that lived in a house
and were called upon perhaps a dozen hours/year
or to jump start a vehicle.
>In my 50 years of dealing with batteries, I get about 3 or 4 years
>from flooded batteries and sealed
>batteries, but I have gotten 5 to 6 with the BATTERY MINDERS.
These are maintainers used routinely
on often used batteries?
>However, I totally agree my experience does not have documented
>scientific recorded results and maintenance notes to back it
>up. Overall, I think the BATTERY MINDERS do offer some increased
>longevity, but I certainly have no proof, just an opinion.
There's no contrary argument for the
century plus old philosophy for
holding a battery at or just above it's
nominal open circuit voltage while at-rest.
It's never a bad thing and often an
essential thing to do for any battery that
demonstrates a significant self-discharge
characteristic.
The external maintainer storage philosophy is
endorsed by virtually every battery manufacturer . . .
a few of which even offer their own 'flavor'
of maintainer . . . which differs in no
significant way from other maintainers.
The question before us goes to whether
or not we have both a justification in the
physics of battery operations and a
demonstration in experience that says a
battery suffering loss of capacity due
to sulfation can be recovered by some
external means that reverses the condition.
>Battery chemistry is changing fairly rapidly these days and I am
>a big fan of Lithium batteries, and I am a real believer that
>they will smoke and burn if not maintained properly.
As will severely abused svla and ni-cad batteries . . .
>
>Boeing has proved that even the best Lithium battery maintenance and
>equipment cannot guarantee that there will be no smoke and fire.
The Boeing experience has little relevancy
to the OBAM aviation experience with
lithium technology.
>Personally I will not be using a lithium battery in an airplane that
>I will ride in. The weight and high current capability are very
>tempting, but not tempting enough for me.
The TSO for an airworthy lithium product
calls for a demonstration of ability to
contain the worst possible failure mode
without endangering either aluminum or
bones. I witnessed some of the extreme
faults testing conducted on True Blue products at
Cessna.
https://tinyurl.com/yywq4tw9
https://tinyurl.com/yy4yva7f
The enclosures are vented overboard
and testing demonstrated that enclosure
surface temps under worst case failures
are benign. Boeing has, no doubt,
incorporated similar capability in their
aircraft. The Boeing experience is an outlier
. . . the procurement specification
for their problem child battery was finalize as
much as a decade before the battery fire
events. A great deal was learned about
lithium battery technology in the interval
from Boeing's award of contract to the
time of the fires.
With time-honored, 20/20 hind-sight,
I'm sure there are folks at Boeing who
wished for better information that would
have gone to better decisions.
To my knowledge, no lithium offerings to
OBAM aviation have adopted such practices.
But the probability of serious battery fires
with LiFePO4 cells is exceedingly low. Of
ALL the Li chemistries, LiFePO4 is the most
robust and least reactive to catastrophic
degradation.
Risks for flying with a thoughtfully integrated
lithium product are falling rapidly . . .
having said that . . .
I'm still wrestling with the question of
economics for having replaced SLVA with
lithium in a light aircraft. When you
take six pounds out of your ship's empty
weight, do the fuel tanks get one-gallon
larger? Can you now fly over terrain
at altitudes previously unsurmountable?
Are you now able to depart runways previously
too short? Is there value in being able
to put 6# more 'stuff' in the baggage
compartment?
Yeah, light is always good in airplanes,
even better in helicopters. But for
Joe R.V. Driver, does the cost-of-ownership
for installing a top of the line
lithium project have a positive return?
Given what I've learned and observed so far,
I can deduce no positive return on investment
for having swapped lithium for SVLA. If somebody
has happier numbers to share I'd be pleased
to know them.
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: Desulfators and Lithium |
snipped
> Given what I've learned and observed so far,
> I can deduce */no positive return/* on investment
> for having swapped lithium for SVLA. If somebody
> has happier numbers to share I'd be pleased
> to know them.
>
> Bob . . .
>
I agree that there's no practical justification for lithium at this point.
But the one *potential* method to justify it would be an electrically
dependent engine, specifically electronic fuel injection, that requires
significant current to operate, *and* the decision by the builder to
keep his electrical system a simple 1 alt, 1 battery system. In that
case, it would be possible to 'upsize' the battery to significantly
higher capacity and longer run-time with no gain in weight or size (at
considerable expense).
Not the path I chose, but I do see it as a potential option.
Charlie
--
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
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: Desulfators and Lithium |
In my case, it wasn't just the #6 saved from the battery switch, but the o
ther #6 that I had to put in the opposite end of the plane to balance the b
attery.
The best decision technique I've found for deciding when to spend more for
a product is to set a price for how much you're willing to pay to save a po
und.=C2- For me, it is $30.=C2- All else being equal, if two products a
re identical, I'm will to pay $30 to save a pound.
A typical SVLA is somewhere around $100 (IIRC).=C2- A LiFePo can be had f
or less than $200 (SSTZ14S-FP Scorpion Stinger 12v 387 CCA LiFePo4 Extreme
High Output Battery).=C2- That is about half of *my* cost-to-weight thres
hold for the battery alone, and 1/4 the threshold once the balance weight i
s added.
And, yes, these sort of modifications can enable more gas in the tank.=C2
- I say that as someone that has had to leave gas on the ground to stay u
nder recommended gross.=C2- While just this one mod would only add one ga
llon, the weight savings are additive.
|
|
|
| $178.00 | |
|
|
|
| |
SSTZ14S-FP Scorpion Stinger 12v 387 CCA LiFePo4 Extreme High Output Battery
In order to ship Priority IATA imposed new Shipping Regulations regarding L
ithium Batteries. Lithium Batteries b...
|
|
|
On Tuesday, October 22, 2019, 12:20:18 PM EDT, Robert L. Nuckolls, III
<nuckolls.bob@aeroelectric.com> wrote:
=C2- I'm still wrestling with the question of
=C2- economics for having replaced SLVA with
=C2- lithium in a light aircraft. When you
=C2- take six pounds out of your ship's empty
=C2- weight, do the fuel tanks get one-gallon
=C2- larger? Can you now fly over terrain
=C2- at altitudes previously unsurmountable?
=C2- Are you now able to depart runways previously
=C2- too short? Is there value in being able
=C2- to put 6# more 'stuff' in the baggage
=C2- compartment?
=C2- Yeah, light is always good in airplanes,
=C2- even better in helicopters. But for
=C2- Joe R.V. Driver, does the cost-of-ownership
=C2- for installing a top of the line
=C2- lithium project have a positive return?
=C2-
=C2- Given what I've learned and observed so far,
=C2- I can deduce no positive return on investment
=C2- for having swapped lithium for SVLA. If somebody
=C2- has happier numbers to share I'd be pleased
=C2- to know them.
=C2- 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: Desulfators and Lithium |
Hi Folks;
Let's be honest, buying anything that deteriorates (such as a car or a battery)
never has a "positive return." It's a cost, not an investment.
Concerning LiFePO4 batteries, mine has behaved flawlessly, so far. It stays "topped
up" with the maintainer intended for it. (Don't use desulfinator-type chargers.)
It weighs 3-1/2 pounds and has surprising power to rapidly turn over and start
a 100 HP engine. So far it hasn't burned up anything; hasn't even gotten warm.
It remains to be seen how long this battery will last, but "so far so good."
Cheers! Stu.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Charlie England" <ceengland7@gmail.com>
Sent: Tuesday, October 22, 2019 10:08:53 AM
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Desulfators and Lithium
snipped
Given what I've learned and observed so far,
I can deduce no positive return on investment
for having swapped lithium for SVLA. If somebody
has happier numbers to share I'd be pleased
to know them.
Bob . . .
I agree that there's no practical justification for lithium at this point.
But the one *potential* method to justify it would be an electrically dependent
engine, specifically electronic fuel injection, that requires significant current
to operate, *and* the decision by the builder to keep his electrical system
a simple 1 alt, 1 battery system. In that case, it would be possible to 'upsize'
the battery to significantly higher capacity and longer run-time with no
gain in weight or size (at considerable expense).
Not the path I chose, but I do see it as a potential option.
Charlie
Virus-free. www.avast.com
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: Desulfators and Lithium |
I'd like to address this point Bob
> I'm still wrestling with the question of
> economics for having replaced SLVA with
> lithium in a light aircraft. When you
> take six pounds out of your ship's empty
> weight, do the fuel tanks get one-gallon
> larger? Can you now fly over terrain
> at altitudes previously unsurmountable?
> Are you now able to depart runways previously
> too short? Is there value in being able
> to put 6# more 'stuff' in the baggage
> compartment?
About 30% of my flights are at maximum takeoff weight. When at maximum
takeoff weight, the fuel tanks are almost never full. So in practice, yes
the fuel tanks get one gallon larger in than I can actually carry one more
gallon of fuel.
While the maximum terrain and available airports remain the same, the wear
and tear on the aircraft is slightly reduced by the shorter takeoff and
landing distance and the reduced time to climb. The fuel burn itself is
reduced by a very small but very real amount. If an aircraft flies 100
hours a year and a lighter battery is $200 more and lasts 6 years, at 15
gal / hour and $5 / gallon the battery pays for itself if it saves 0.4%
fuel burn. If it's also saving $5 a year on tires and $5 a year on brakes
(I made that up), you now only need a 0.3% improvement in mpg to completely
pay for the battery. I doubt the math actually adds up to pay for the
battery, but it does reduce the actual cost for airplanes that fly rather
than sit in a hangar.
As for the value of 6# more stuff in an RV, I fly a couple of well equipped
RVs that have a useful load of 40 pounds with 3 hours of fuel (plus
reserve) and 2 adults. 6 pounds would be a 15% increase in baggage capacity
and very welcome.
On the other hand, my friend's super rebel has the battery on the firewall
and any decrease in weight up front decreases the useful baggage load. So
it all depends on the aircraft I guess.
On Tue, Oct 22, 2019 at 10:22 AM Charlie England <ceengland7@gmail.com>
wrote:
> snipped
>
> Given what I've learned and observed so far,
> I can deduce *no positive return* on investment
> for having swapped lithium for SVLA. If somebody
> has happier numbers to share I'd be pleased
> to know them.
>
> Bob . . .
>
> I agree that there's no practical justification for lithium at this point.
>
> But the one *potential* method to justify it would be an electrically
> dependent engine, specifically electronic fuel injection, that requires
> significant current to operate, *and* the decision by the builder to keep
> his electrical system a simple 1 alt, 1 battery system. In that case, it
> would be possible to 'upsize' the battery to significantly higher capacity
> and longer run-time with no gain in weight or size (at considerable
> expense).
>
> Not the path I chose, but I do see it as a potential option.
>
> Charlie
>
>
> <https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient&utm_term=icon> Virus-free.
> www.avast.com
> <https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient&utm_term=link>
> <#m_-4445247911684786102_DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2>
>
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: | GPS antenna removal |
I would like to remove the GPS antenna on my airplane. The antenna is shown in
the attached picture.
The antenna appears to be strongly bound to an aluminum support plate. There are
no screws between the bottom of the antenna and the plate that would not be
visible in the picture.
I removed the 4 screws located at the corners of the plate, hoping that the antenna/support
plate assembly would come off the underneath support saddle as a
unit, but they are not coming off. The plate is also firmly bound to the saddle.
Any suggestions on how to remove this antenna? My preference would be to disconnect
the antenna from the plate, but also disconnecting the assembly antenna/plate
from the saddle would be acceptable, as long as the saddle under the plate
stays in place on the airplane and all the components are not damaged and can
be re-used.
Thanks
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=491924#491924
Attachments:
http://forums.matronics.com//files/gps_antenna_garmin_ga_56_removal_123.pdf
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: GPS antenna removal |
On 10/22/2019 9:58 PM, Argonaut36 wrote:
>
> I would like to remove the GPS antenna on my airplane. The antenna is shown
in the attached picture.
> The antenna appears to be strongly bound to an aluminum support plate. There
are no screws between the bottom of the antenna and the plate that would not
be visible in the picture.
> I removed the 4 screws located at the corners of the plate, hoping that the antenna/support
plate assembly would come off the underneath support saddle as
a unit, but they are not coming off. The plate is also firmly bound to the saddle.
> Any suggestions on how to remove this antenna? My preference would be to disconnect
the antenna from the plate, but also disconnecting the assembly antenna/plate
from the saddle would be acceptable, as long as the saddle under the plate
stays in place on the airplane and all the components are not damaged and
can be re-used.
> Thanks
A jpg attachment would have been simpler to see. :-)
The pic makes it look like it's on fabric; what's it attached to? If
it's on the outer skin, there's likely sealant between the puck & the
plate, and between the plate and the skin. My bet is that there are
countersunk screws coming up through the bottom of the plate into the
puck. I'd try a plastic blade gently around the edges of the plate-skin
interface, to see if it'll peel up.
Charlie
--
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
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: GPS antenna removal |
The antenna is attached to the turtle deck that is made of aluminum plate and is
covered with fabric, as you pointed out. A saddle, that does not appear to
be made of metal, is attached to the turtle deck and provides a flat surface for
the installation of a metal plate. This plate is attached with 4 screws with
4 screws and some sort of glue to the saddle. The antenna seems to be attached
just with glue to the plate, but it is possible that there are also short
screws (that don't go past the saddle inside the turtle) deck, connecting the
antenna to the metal plate. As stated in my initial post, I would like to leave
the saddle on the airplane, because I intend to install a different GPS antenna.
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=491928#491928
Attachments:
http://forums.matronics.com//files/gps_antenna_garmin_ga_56_removal_211.jpg
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! --
|