Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 04:43 AM - E-mail (Robert Paulk)
2. 05:32 AM - Re: E-mail (Art Zemon)
3. 05:53 AM - Re: E-mail (Charles Kuss)
4. 07:12 AM - Re: E-mail (John M Tipton)
5. 08:36 AM - Re: Lithium BMS and 'load-dump' worries (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
6. 10:50 AM - Re: E-mail (Charlie England)
7. 01:01 PM - Re: Lithium BMS and 'load-dump' worries (eschlanser)
8. 04:36 PM - Re: E-mail (Pat Little)
9. 05:09 PM - Re: Re: Lithium BMS and 'load-dump' worries (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
10. 06:22 PM - Re: Lithium BMS and 'load-dump' worries (CORRECTION) (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
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 |
|
I was wondering how many others on this list are having trouble receiving
their emails by a server other than G-Mail. Comcast has been intermittent
and I am now not receiving them at all. I have spent several hours on the
phone and had several case numbers assigned to no avail. Matt recommended
G-mail and I have not had any problems since changing over but would like
to keep it all in one server. I am not sure that Comcast even delivered
this notice back to this list.
Thanks for any information you can provide.
Bobby
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 |
|
Bobby,
I ran mailing list servers similar to what the AeroElectric list uses for
over 30 years. The problem is that the Matronics server is incorrectly
handling the SMTP headers. It is using a technique which was OK a decade
ago but is now considered to be spoofing (a polite way of saying "forging")
the identity of the sender. Because of this, most email systems consider
messages coming from the AeroElectric list to be spam.
This is what a message looks like in Gmail:
[image: Screenshot 2020-01-11 at 7.25.05 AM.png]
At least Gmail delivers the messages (most of the time). Comcast is
probably dumping them into the spam bucket.
You cannot fix this. The fix has to be done by the folks who run the
mailing list server.
-- Art Z.
On Sat, Jan 11, 2020 at 6:57 AM Robert Paulk <2bpaulk@gmail.com> wrote:
> I was wondering how many others on this list are having trouble
> receiving their emails by a server other than G-Mail. Comcast has been
> intermittent and I am now not receiving them at all. I have spent several
> hours on the phone and had several case numbers assigned to no avail. Matt
> recommended G-mail and I have not had any problems since changing over but
> would like to keep it all in one server. I am not sure that Comcast even
> delivered this notice back to this list.
> Thanks for any information you can provide.
> Bobby
>
--
https://CheerfulCurmudgeon.com/
*Love the stranger for you yourselves were strangers in Egypt. *Deut. 10:19
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 |
|
I'm using Yahoo and I've had no problems
Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android
On Sat, Jan 11, 2020 at 8:49 AM, Robert Paulk<2bpaulk@gmail.com> wrote:
=C2- I was wondering how many others on this list are having trouble rec
eiving their emails by a server other than G-Mail. Comcast has been intermi
ttent and I am now not receiving them at all.=C2- I have spent several ho
urs on the phone and had several case numbers assigned to no avail. Matt re
commended G-mail and I have not had any problems since changing over but wo
uld like to keep it all in one server. I am not sure that Comcast even deli
vered this notice back to this list.Thanks for any information you can prov
ide.Bobby
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 |
|
That explains why I have to go to my =98junk=99 mail box to coll
ect most of my emails from the forum
John (UK)
Sent from my iPad
----x--O--x----
> On 11 Jan 2020, at 1:48 pm, Art Zemon <art@zemon.name> wrote:
>
> =EF=BB
> Bobby,
>
> I ran mailing list servers similar to what the AeroElectric list uses for o
ver 30 years. The problem is that the Matronics server is incorrectly handli
ng the SMTP headers. It is using a technique which was OK a decade ago but i
s now considered to be spoofing (a polite way of saying "forging") the ident
ity of the sender. Because of this, most email systems consider messages com
ing from the AeroElectric list to be spam.
>
> This is what a message looks like in Gmail:
>
> <Screenshot 2020-01-11 at 7.25.05 AM.png>
>
>
> At least Gmail delivers the messages (most of the time). Comcast is probab
ly dumping them into the spam bucket.
>
> You cannot fix this. The fix has to be done by the folks who run the maili
ng list server.
>
> -- Art Z.
>
>
>> On Sat, Jan 11, 2020 at 6:57 AM Robert Paulk <2bpaulk@gmail.com> wrote:
>> I was wondering how many others on this list are having trouble receivi
ng their emails by a server other than G-Mail. Comcast has been intermittent
and I am now not receiving them at all. I have spent several hours on the p
hone and had several case numbers assigned to no avail. Matt recommended G-m
ail and I have not had any problems since changing over but would like to ke
ep it all in one server. I am not sure that Comcast even delivered this noti
ce back to this list.
>> Thanks for any information you can provide.
>> Bobby
>
>
> --
> https://CheerfulCurmudgeon.com/
>
> Love the stranger for you yourselves were strangers in Egypt. Deut. 10:19
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: Lithium BMS and 'load-dump' worries |
At 06:13 PM 1/10/2020, you wrote:
>
>There are also a lot of us running PM alternators and there are a
>lot of them on rotax engines. Most of those regulators are not terribly robust.
>I permanently failed a 20 amp oem John Deere Rectifier/Regulator
>just by idling the engine with a flat battery. Yes I knew better
>but... Anyway the voltage immediately went high enough to trip the
>crowbar OVM. With an EFI engine I will be staying with VRLA
>batteries and no BMS for the time being despite the extra weight.
>Ken
This has the 'smell' of a regulator failure
unrelated to type of battery or power generation
device.
What was the time interval for 'immediate'?
If a matter of seconds or a couple minutes, then
I would infer that the battery was soggy . . . i.e.
not accepting what the alternator was capable
of delivering. The alternator/regulator combination
is inherently current limited under ANY condition.
Hence, if the available current pushed battery
voltage above 16v in a short period of time,
the battery was some combination of soggy (worn
out) or already charged.
I'm not reading anything in your narrative that
suggests a short-term transient (load dump) event
or battery disconnect. I can deduce no reason
to suspect that battery technology choices would
have produced a different outcome.
Run of the mill, regulators for PM alternators
are notoriously weak in their design, particularly
with thermal management. With no more data than
what's provided, I'm inclined to call this
an one-of failure of the regulator.
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 |
|
I get the list via individual emails (gmail address), and almost never
have issues getting them without errors. Occasionally, I'll find
Matronics emails in my spam/junk folders, but they'll typically be from
a particular thread, so I've assumed that it was triggered by a subject
line that the spam filters saw as suspicious.
Perhaps the notification emails for those who subscribed through the
forum are the issue? I monitor the Vans Air Force forum, and that
forum's notification emails have triggered gmail's spoofing filters for
*years*.
Charlie
On 1/11/2020 9:10 AM, John M Tipton wrote:
> That explains why I have to go to my junk mail box to collect most
> of my emails from the forum
>
> John (UK)
>
> Sent from my iPad
>
> ----x--O--x----
>
>> On 11 Jan 2020, at 1:48 pm, Art Zemon <art@zemon.name> wrote:
>>
>>
>> Bobby,
>>
>> I ran mailing list servers similar to what the AeroElectric list uses
>> for over 30 years. The problem is that the Matronics server is
>> incorrectly handling the SMTP headers. It is using a technique which
>> was OK a decade ago but is now considered to be spoofing (a polite
>> way of saying "forging") the identity of the sender. Because of this,
>> most email systems consider messages coming from the AeroElectric
>> list to be spam.
>>
>> This is what a message looks like in Gmail:
>>
>> <Screenshot 2020-01-11 at 7.25.05 AM.png>
>>
>>
>> At least Gmail deliversthe messages (most of the time). Comcast is
>> probably dumping them into the spam bucket.
>>
>> You cannot fix this. The fix has to be done by the folks who run the
>> mailing list server.
>>
>> -- Art Z.
>>
>>
>> On Sat, Jan 11, 2020 at 6:57 AM Robert Paulk <2bpaulk@gmail.com
>> <mailto:2bpaulk@gmail.com>> wrote:
>>
>> I was wondering how many others on this list are having trouble
>> receiving their emails by a server other than G-Mail. Comcast has
>> been intermittent and I am now not receiving them at all. I have
>> spent several hours on the phone and had several case numbers
>> assigned to no avail. Matt recommended G-mail and I have not had
>> any problems since changing over but would like to keep it all in
>> one server. I am not sure that Comcast even delivered this notice
>> back to this list.
>> Thanks for any information you can provide.
>> Bobby
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> https://CheerfulCurmudgeon.com/
>>
>> /Love the stranger for you yourselves were strangers in Egypt. /Deut.
>> 10:19
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: Lithium BMS and 'load-dump' worries |
Bob,
You wrote, If it were my airplane and I was flying
an internally regulated alternator of unknown
pedigree, I'd install Z-24 and refrain from
operating the alternator ON/OFF switch at
high rpm and high alternator loads. In this
case, loss of BMS (or contactor) under optimally
unhappy conditions MIGHT take out the regulator.
I have wired an unmodified, internally regulated Nippondenso 40 amp alternator
in my single AGM Odessey PC680 battery, two alternator, modified Z-13/8 system.
I used Z-24 as a guide but with a Perhelion L-OVP module. On start-up, I switch
the battery on with both alternators off and push the start switch. After
the engine starts, I switch the ND alternator on.
On occasion, I have forgotten to switch the alternator on and took off. A few
minutes later, on climb out with high rpm, I noticed the voltage dropping. Upon
troubleshooting, I realized the alternator was off. I didnt think twice, and
switched the alternator on. I had no idea this sequence was at some risk to
the regulator. Or was it? Would it be a risk to a lithium battery BMS?
Eric S.
South Haven, MI
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=494239#494239
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 |
|
I have set up a filter in gmail to not put into spam any messages from the
aeroelectric list. So they all go into my inbox, but Google sometimes adds
a note at the top of a message saying it would have gone into the spam
folder except that I had the filter in place to keep it out. It looks like
this
[image: image.png]
Here's what the filter looks like, if anybody wants to do the same:
[image: image.png]
and to set it up here is the first step:
[image: image.png]
and here is the second:
[image: image.png]
On Sat, Jan 11, 2020 at 11:56 AM Charlie England <ceengland7@gmail.com>
wrote:
> I get the list via individual emails (gmail address), and almost never
> have issues getting them without errors. Occasionally, I'll find Matronic
s
> emails in my spam/junk folders, but they'll typically be from a particula
r
> thread, so I've assumed that it was triggered by a subject line that the
> spam filters saw as suspicious.
>
> Perhaps the notification emails for those who subscribed through the foru
m
> are the issue? I monitor the Vans Air Force forum, and that forum's
> notification emails have triggered gmail's spoofing filters for *years*.
>
> Charlie
>
> On 1/11/2020 9:10 AM, John M Tipton wrote:
>
> That explains why I have to go to my =98junk=99 mail box to c
ollect most of my
> emails from the forum
>
> John (UK)
>
> Sent from my iPad
>
> ----x--O--x----
>
> On 11 Jan 2020, at 1:48 pm, Art Zemon <art@zemon.name> <art@zemon.name>
> wrote:
>
> =EF=BB
> Bobby,
>
> I ran mailing list servers similar to what the AeroElectric list uses for
> over 30 years. The problem is that the Matronics server is incorrectly
> handling the SMTP headers. It is using a technique which was OK a decade
> ago but is now considered to be spoofing (a polite way of saying "forging
")
> the identity of the sender. Because of this, most email systems consider
> messages coming from the AeroElectric list to be spam.
>
> This is what a message looks like in Gmail:
>
> <Screenshot 2020-01-11 at 7.25.05 AM.png>
>
>
> At least Gmail delivers the messages (most of the time). Comcast is
> probably dumping them into the spam bucket.
>
> You cannot fix this. The fix has to be done by the folks who run the
> mailing list server.
>
> -- Art Z.
>
>
> On Sat, Jan 11, 2020 at 6:57 AM Robert Paulk <2bpaulk@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> I was wondering how many others on this list are having trouble
>> receiving their emails by a server other than G-Mail. Comcast has been
>> intermittent and I am now not receiving them at all. I have spent sever
al
>> hours on the phone and had several case numbers assigned to no avail. Ma
tt
>> recommended G-mail and I have not had any problems since changing over b
ut
>> would like to keep it all in one server. I am not sure that Comcast even
>> delivered this notice back to this list.
>> Thanks for any information you can provide.
>> Bobby
>>
>
>
> --
> https://CheerfulCurmudgeon.com/
>
> *Love the stranger for you yourselves were strangers in Egypt. *Deut.
> 10:19
>
>
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: Lithium BMS and 'load-dump' worries |
> I have wired an unmodified, internally
> regulated Nippondenso 40 amp alternator in my
> single AGM Odessey PC680 battery, two
> alternator, modified Z-13/8 system. I used Z-24
> as a guide but with a Perhelion L-OVP module.
> On start-up, I switch the battery on with both
> alternators off and push the start switch.
> After the engine starts, I switch the ND alternator on.
> On occasion, I have forgotten to switch the
> alternator on and took off. A few minutes
> later, on climb out with high rpm, I noticed
> the voltage dropping. Upon troubleshooting, I
> realized the alternator was off. I didn=99t
> think twice, and switched the alternator on. I
> had no idea this sequence was at some risk to the regulator. Or was it?
It is not . .
> Would it be a risk to a lithium battery BMS?
No . . .
You can generally turn an alternator on/off at any time
without risk to ship's hardware. Z-24 (b-lead
dis-connector) offers some risk to an
INTERNAL regulator IF the alternator is shut off
at higher than idle rpm AND the alternator is heavily
loaded (probably recharging the battery -AND- grunting
ship's loads).
One COULD deliberately create a load-dump
event into the ship's systems by turning
of the battery . . . again while the battery
is heavily loaded. This is POSSIBLE in ships
like Barons and Bonanzas where alternator and
battery switches are not interlinked and
alternator only ops are permitted. However,
the regulators I designed for the Beech
ships were pretty docile for gross load
dump . . . I don't recall the figures now
(that was about 1978). I do recall that the
dump-transient did not exceed DO160/MIL-STD-704
limits - that was a design goal imperative.
Load dump risks are limited to UNLOADING
an alternator . . . not turning it on/off
(EXCEPT where Z-24 DOES unload an internally
regulated alternator placing ONLY the
internal regulator at risk . . . if at
all). ALL Z-figures recommend progressive
transfer, two-pole switches for OFF/BAT/
BAT+ALT making it impossible to deliberately
or inadvertently initiate a load-dump event.
The suggested protocol for turning the
alternator on/off just after engine start
and just before shut down has to do with
an orderly organization of check list that
ALSO happens to be Z-24 friendly.
Load-dumps are something of a wil-o'-the-whisp
(swamp gas). You gotta work to create one
and 99% of the time they are harmless when
they do occur.
BTW . . . I don't think PM rectifier/regulators
are even capable of creating a significant
load dump transient. They use a cycle-by-cycle
conduction control philosophy that does not
present gain/phase issues present in the
wound field system.
Whether or not the battery is fitted with
a BMS isn't a component of the load-dump
scenario.
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: Lithium BMS and 'load-dump' worries (CORRECTION) |
> I have wired an unmodified, internally
> regulated Nippondenso 40 amp alternator in my
> single AGM Odessey PC680 battery, two
> alternator, modified Z-13/8 system. I used Z-24
> as a guide but with a Perhelion L-OVP module.
> On start-up, I switch the battery on with both
> alternators off and push the start switch.
> After the engine starts, I switch the ND alternator on.
> On occasion, I have forgotten to switch the
> alternator on and took off. A few minutes
> later, on climb out with high rpm, I noticed
> the voltage dropping. Upon troubleshooting, I
> realized the alternator was off. I didn=99t
> think twice, and switched the alternator on. I
> had no idea this sequence was at some risk to the regulator. Or was it?
It is not . .
> Would it be a risk to a lithium battery BMS?
No . . .
You can generally turn an alternator on/off at any time
without risk to ship's hardware. Z-24 (b-lead
dis-connector) offers some risk to an
INTERNAL regulator IF the alternator is shut off
at higher than idle rpm AND the alternator is heavily
loaded (probably recharging the battery -AND- grunting
ship's loads).
One COULD deliberately create a load-dump
event into the ship's systems by turning
of the battery . . . again while the ALTERNATOR(S)
is/are heavily loaded. This is POSSIBLE in ships
like Barons and Bonanzas where alternator and
battery switches are not interlinked and
alternator only ops are permitted. However,
the regulators I designed for the Beech
ships were pretty docile for gross load
dump . . . I don't recall the figures now
(that was about 1978). I do recall that the
dump-transient did not exceed DO160/MIL-STD-704
limits - that was a design goal imperative.
Load dump risks are limited to UNLOADING
an alternator . . . not turning it on/off
(EXCEPT where Z-24 DOES unload an internally
regulated alternator placing ONLY the
internal regulator at risk . . . if at
all). ALL Z-figures recommend progressive
transfer, two-pole switches for OFF/BAT/
BAT+ALT making it impossible to deliberately
or inadvertently initiate a load-dump event.
The suggested protocol for turning the
alternator on/off just after engine start
and just before shut down has to do with
an orderly organization of check list that
ALSO happens to be Z-24 friendly.
Load-dumps are something of a wil-o'-the-whisp
(swamp gas). You gotta work to create one
and 99% of the time they are harmless when
they do occur.
BTW . . . I don't think PM rectifier/regulators
are even capable of creating a significant
load dump transient. They use a cycle-by-cycle
conduction control philosophy that does not
present gain/phase issues present in the
wound field system.
Whether or not the battery is fitted with
a BMS isn't a component of the load-dump
scenario.
Bob . . .
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! --
|