Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 07:49 AM - Re: Re: Physical construction of Z101 engine bus & battery bus (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
2. 09:37 AM - Re: Physical construction of Z101 engine bus & battery bus (Ken Ryan)
3. 09:46 AM - Re: Re: Physical construction of Z101 engine bus & battery bus (David Carter)
4. 09:52 AM - digest distribution stopped? (farmrjohn)
5. 11:54 AM - DIY replacement for Rotax voltage regulator (GTH)
6. 01:02 PM - Re: DIY replacement for Rotax voltage regulator (Rowland Carson)
7. 01:28 PM - Re: Physical construction of Z101 engine bus & battery bus (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
8. 01:33 PM - Re: Re: Physical construction of Z101 engine bus & battery bus (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
9. 02:16 PM - Re: DIY replacement for Rotax voltage regulator (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
10. 03:31 PM - Re: Physical construction of Z101 engine bus & battery bus (Ken Ryan)
11. 05:30 PM - Re: DIY replacement for Rotax voltage regulator (GTH)
12. 07:23 PM - Re: DIY replacement for Rotax voltage regulator (Graeme Hart)
13. 07:23 PM - Re: Physical construction of Z101 engine bus & battery bus (Foghorn Inc)
14. 07:51 PM - Re: Physical construction of Z101 engine bus & battery bus (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 |
|
| Subject: | Re: Physical construction of Z101 engine bus |
& battery bus
At 07:59 PM 6/6/2020, you wrote:
>
>Since bob gave permission to others to answer, here are my suggestions:
you never need my permission . . . this is a moderated
forum for open discussion.
>Mount both relays as close as practical to the battery.
>Doing that meets the 6" wire length rule of thumb.
The 6-inch rule is a holdover from waaayyy back when
where the FAA deemed it acceptable to 'burn a piece
of wire that is 6-inches or less in length'. I.e.
no fault protection required.
One can only guess details of reasoning behind this bit
of 1960's wisdom.
Today we can strive to keep potentially vulnerable
(smaller gages) of 'unprotected' wires to a minimum.
Control installation such that probability for
hard faults to ground are exceedingly rare.
Use of fusible link wire where practical (here
there is a 9-inch rule of thumb for MINIMUM
length).
If the wire has to go through a firewall,
provide mechanical protection over and
above normally fused branch wires (two
layers of heat shrink?)
>Since you want the engine bus located on the cabin side of the firewall, also
>move the diode bridge to aft of the firewall between the main power
>bus and the engine bus.
>Move the diode feed from the main battery contactor to main power
>bus. Electrically it will be the
>same, just connected to the other end of the 6AWG feeder.
>
>Since there are only 2 items connected to the battery bus, consider
>eliminating the battery bus.
>Connect both items to the battery post using inline fuses.
>
>Use all fuses except for the alternator feed 5 amp breaker.
>Fuses cost less, weigh less, and never fail to blow when required.
>Never replace fuses or reset breakers in flight, except perhaps the
>alternator field.
Sounds like a plan . . .
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: Physical construction of Z101 engine bus & battery |
bus
Bob, regarding Z101, it seems that auto conversions like the Honda based
Viking and Suzuki based Aeromomentum are becoming more and more popular.
These engines are electrically dependent, but they do not lend themselves
to a dual alternator setup. I wonder if you would consider developing a
Z101-B that utilized dual batteries rather than dual alternators?
Ken
On Sat, Jun 6, 2020 at 7:00 AM Robert L. Nuckolls, III <
nuckolls.bob@aeroelectric.com> wrote:
> At 08:50 AM 6/6/2020, you wrote:
>
> Could someone please re-post the link to Z101? Thanks.
>
>
> https://tinyurl.com/yc4r5huy
>
> Latest iteration on the next revision level.
> I've been sifting through the details and
> I think it's 99% 'clean'.
>
> I'm also working on a set of notes that
> elaborates on the evolution of concepts
> illustrated.
>
> I'm kinda 'distracted' with a bathroom
> remodel at the moment but you guys can
> massage this thread . . .
>
>
> 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: Physical construction of Z101 engine bus & |
battery bus
Thanks for the replies. I was not aware of the 9" minimum length on fusible
links. Is that somewhere in the Connection? Are crimped butt connectors
adequate for connecting the fusible link to the protected wire?
I recently received some of this fusible link wire in both 12 & 14 gauge.
Anyone have experience with it?
Pico 8124PT 12 Gauge Fusible Link...
https://www.amazon.com/dp/B0002ZGBRE?ref=ppx_pop_mob_ap_share
PICO 8125PT 14 AWG Fusible Link Wire
https://www.amazon.com/dp/B004BT6NZ2?ref=ppx_pop_mob_ap_share
Regards,
David
On Sun, Jun 7, 2020 at 10:50 AM Robert L. Nuckolls, III <
nuckolls.bob@aeroelectric.com> wrote:
> At 07:59 PM 6/6/2020, you wrote:
>
>
> Since bob gave permission to others to answer, here are my suggestions:
>
>
> you never need my permission . . . this is a moderated
> forum for open discussion.
>
> Mount both relays as close as practical to the battery.
> Doing that meets the 6" wire length rule of thumb.
>
>
> The 6-inch rule is a holdover from waaayyy back when
> where the FAA deemed it acceptable to 'burn a piece
> of wire that is 6-inches or less in length'. I.e.
> no fault protection required.
>
> One can only guess details of reasoning behind this bit
> of 1960's wisdom.
>
> Today we can strive to keep potentially vulnerable
> (smaller gages) of 'unprotected' wires to a minimum.
> Control installation such that probability for
> hard faults to ground are exceedingly rare.
>
> Use of fusible link wire where practical (here
> there is a 9-inch rule of thumb for MINIMUM
> length).
>
> If the wire has to go through a firewall,
> provide mechanical protection over and
> above normally fused branch wires (two
> layers of heat shrink?)
>
>
> Since you want the engine bus located on the cabin side of the firewall,
> also
> move the diode bridge to aft of the firewall between the main power bus
> and the engine bus.
> Move the diode feed from the main battery contactor to main power bus.
> Electrically it will be the
> same, just connected to the other end of the 6AWG feeder.
>
> Since there are only 2 items connected to the battery bus, consider
> eliminating the battery bus.
> Connect both items to the battery post using inline fuses.
>
> Use all fuses except for the alternator feed 5 amp breaker.
> Fuses cost less, weigh less, and never fail to blow when required.
> Never replace fuses or reset breakers in flight, except perhaps the
> alternator field.
>
> Sounds like a plan . . .
>
> Bob . . .
>
--
---
David Carter
david@carter.net
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: | digest distribution stopped? |
Has the digest distribution stopped? I haven't received one for some time now.
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=496660#496660
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: | DIY replacement for Rotax voltage regulator |
Hi all,
Some weeks ago, Mike Millers gave is kind permission to publish his
homebuilt version for a Rotax voltage regulator
http://contrails.free.fr/elec_alt_miller_en.php
Feel free to comment or ad complementary data.
FWIW,
--
Best regards,
Gilles
http://contrails.free.fr
http://lapierre.skunkworks.free.fr
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: DIY replacement for Rotax voltage regulator |
On 2020-06-07, at 19:49, GTH <gilles.thesee@free.fr> wrote:
> Some weeks ago, Mike Millers gave is kind permission to publish his homebuilt
version for a Rotax voltage regulator
>
> http://contrails.free.fr/elec_alt_miller_en.php
>
> Feel free to comment or ad complementary data.
Gilles - thanks for the reminder. I downloaded the file package (chiefly as an
academic exercise at the present) but I was unable to open the PCB file with any
of the versions of EAGLE now available for my Mac. Turned out it was created
in a very elderly version of the EAGLE PCB design software. Ive since had help
from various folk (including Mike Miller) to convert the PCB file to a version
that can be read by current versions of EAGLE. If theres somewhere I could
post the updated file that could be accessible to others and is likely to stay
available for the foreseeable future, Id be glad to know of it.
in friendship
Rowland
| Rowland Carson ... that's Rowland with a 'w' ...
| <rowlandcarson@gmail.com> http://www.rowlandcarson.org.uk
| Skype, Twitter: rowland_carson Facebook: Rowland Carson
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: Physical construction of Z101 engine bus & battery |
bus
At 11:32 AM 6/7/2020, you wrote:
>Bob, regarding Z101, it seems that auto conversions like the Honda
>based Viking and Suzuki based Aeromomentum are becoming more and
>more popular. These engines are electrically dependent, but they do
>not lend themselves to a dual alternator setup. I wonder if you
>would consider developing a Z101-B that utilized dual batteries
>rather than dual alternators?
Is it not possible/practical to maintain one battery
such that it is capable of supporting the engine
in an alternator-out scenario?
How are the duties of two batteries allocated in what
I presume is a engine manufacturer's recommendation
for dual batteries?
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: Physical construction of Z101 engine bus |
& battery bus
At 11:41 AM 6/7/2020, you wrote:
>Thanks for the replies. I was not aware of the 9" minimum length on
>fusible links. Is that somewhere in the Connection?
not yet but will be called out on Z101's notes . . . and probably
as 6" minimum.
>Are crimped butt connectors adequate for connecting the fusible link
>to the protected wire?
Yes
>I recently received some of this fusible link wire in both 12 & 14
>gauge. Anyone have experience with it?
Used on millions of cars for decades. Will be
testing here on the bench and recording the
results. Crimped or soldered joints will, I
trust, prove satisfactory. There is nothing
magic about the wire . . . it's the insulation
that makes it special.
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: DIY replacement for Rotax voltage regulator |
>Gilles - thanks for the reminder. I downloaded
>the file package (chiefly as an academic
>exercise at the present) but I was unable to
>open the PCB file with any of the versions of
>EAGLE now available for my Mac. Turned out it
>was created in a very elderly version of the
>EAGLE PCB design software. I=99ve since had help
>from various folk (including Mike Miller) to
>convert the PCB file to a version that can be
>read by current versions of EAGLE. If there=99s
>somewhere I could post the updated file that
>could be accessible to others and is likely to
>stay available for the foreseeable future, I=99d be glad to know of
it.
>in friendship
>
>Rowland
Send it to me. I'll archive it in a folder
on AeroElectric.com along with the rest
of the package.
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: Physical construction of Z101 engine bus & battery |
bus
I am not speaking to any engine manufacturers recommendation (although the
Honda Viking manufacturer does recommend two batteries. I just thought I
was applying logic -- if dual alternator + battery (triple power source) is
desirable for electrically dependent engines, wouldn't that reasoning imply
that if the second alternator is not practical, a second battery could be
used as the third power source? I could ask you a similar question: Are not
two independent power sources (battery and alternator) sufficient to meet
the needs of the electrically dependent engine. Obviously you saw value in
adding the second alternator. Why no value in adding the second battery?
On Sun, Jun 7, 2020 at 12:32 PM Robert L. Nuckolls, III <
nuckolls.bob@aeroelectric.com> wrote:
> At 11:32 AM 6/7/2020, you wrote:
>
> Bob, regarding Z101, it seems that auto conversions like the Honda based
> Viking and Suzuki based Aeromomentum are becoming more and more popular.
> These engines are electrically dependent, but they do not lend themselves
> to a dual alternator setup. I wonder if you would consider developing a
> Z101-B that utilized dual batteries rather than dual alternators?
>
>
> Is it not possible/practical to maintain one battery
> such that it is capable of supporting the engine
> in an alternator-out scenario?
>
> How are the duties of two batteries allocated in what
> I presume is a engine manufacturer's recommendation
> for dual batteries?
>
>
> Bob . . .
>
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: DIY replacement for Rotax voltage regulator |
Le 07/06/2020 21:56, Rowland Carson a crit:
> /I downloaded the file package (chiefly as an academic exercise at the
> present) but I was unable to open the PCB file with any of the
> versions of EAGLE now available for my Mac. Turned out it was created
> in a very elderly version of the EAGLE PCB design software. Ive since
> had help from various folk (including Mike Miller) to convert the PCB
> file to a version that can be read by current versions of EAGLE. If
> theres somewhere I could post the updated file that could be
> accessible to others and is likely to stay available for the
> foreseeable future, Id be glad to know of it. /
Rowland and all,
Thanks for your offer.
I was able to open the files with a free version of Eagle I downloaded
last week, and converted them to gerber files that can be read by any
CAD program - and any vendor for that matter.
But I'm not at all familiar with Eagle so I'm not sure I did it right.
So if you or anyone can provide verified gerber files I'd willingly
publish them so one can directly order from a PCB vendor.
By the way some times ago I had very good success with several PCB
orders from a far East company, at a price of $5 for 10 pcs (100x100 mm
~4"x4"). Not much more expensive for larger dimensions.
--
Best regards,
Gilles
http://contrails.free.fr
http://lapierre.skunkworks.free.fr
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: DIY replacement for Rotax voltage regulator |
Hi Rowland
I was able to open the original file in a PC version of Eagle.
I'm sure you already know this but for the benefit of others, the only
issue I noticed was the size. It came up as 4.00 x 3.93 inches (101.6 x
99.8mm). If it was resized so that it was 100 x 100 mm or smaller then it
can be sent to one of the cheap board houses as a prototype board and
manufactured for as little as US$21 for five boards delivered via DHL.
This was from JLCPCB who seem to be the cheapest at the moment. I've used
them for one board and they seem perfectly up to the task of producing a
simple board like this.
Graeme
On Mon, Jun 8, 2020 at 8:11 AM Rowland Carson <rowlandcarson@gmail.com>
wrote:
> rowlandcarson@gmail.com>
>
> On 2020-06-07, at 19:49, GTH <gilles.thesee@free.fr> wrote:
>
> > Some weeks ago, Mike Millers gave is kind permission to publish his
> homebuilt version for a Rotax voltage regulator
> >
> > http://contrails.free.fr/elec_alt_miller_en.php
> >
> > Feel free to comment or ad complementary data.
>
>
> Gilles - thanks for the reminder. I downloaded the file package (chiefly
> as an academic exercise at the present) but I was unable to open the PCB
> file with any of the versions of EAGLE now available for my Mac. Turned o
ut
> it was created in a very elderly version of the EAGLE PCB design software
.
> I=99ve since had help from various folk (including Mike Miller) to
convert
> the PCB file to a version that can be read by current versions of EAGLE.
If
> there=99s somewhere I could post the updated file that could be acc
essible to
> others and is likely to stay available for the foreseeable future, I
=99d be
> glad to know of it.
>
> in friendship
>
> Rowland
>
>
>
===========
===========
===========
===========
===========
>
>
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: Physical construction of Z101 engine bus & battery |
bus
SDSEFI recommends 2 alternators and a battery. If you have a single battery a
nd alternator they recommend an additional battery that is only connected to
the ENG BUS for an emergency. The recommended procedure is to charge that b
attery on the 1st of the month and load test yearly.
I=99m going with 2 alternators and an ETX-900 battery for my dual SDSE
FI setup.
Jeff Parker
757-817-4929
> On Jun 7, 2020, at 18:37, Ken Ryan <keninalaska@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> =EF=BB
> I am not speaking to any engine manufacturers recommendation (although the
Honda Viking manufacturer does recommend two batteries. I just thought I wa
s applying logic -- if dual alternator + battery (triple power source) is de
sirable for electrically dependent engines, wouldn't that reasoning imply th
at if the second alternator is not practical, a second battery could be used
as the third power source? I could ask you a similar question: Are not two i
ndependent power sources (battery and alternator) sufficient to meet the nee
ds of the electrically dependent engine. Obviously you saw value in adding t
he second alternator. Why no value in adding the second battery?
>
>
>> On Sun, Jun 7, 2020 at 12:32 PM Robert L. Nuckolls, III <nuckolls.bob@aer
oelectric.com> wrote:
>> At 11:32 AM 6/7/2020, you wrote:
>>> Bob, regarding Z101, it seems that auto conversions like the Honda based
Viking and Suzuki based Aeromomentum are becoming more and more popular. Th
ese engines are electrically dependent, but they do not lend themselves to a
dual alternator setup. I wonder if you would consider developing a Z101-B t
hat utilized dual batteries rather than dual alternators?
>>
>> Is it not possible/practical to maintain one battery
>> such that it is capable of supporting the engine
>> in an alternator-out scenario?
>>
>> How are the duties of two batteries allocated in what
>> I presume is a engine manufacturer's recommendation
>> for dual batteries?
>>
>>
>> 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 |
|
| Subject: | Re: Physical construction of Z101 engine bus & battery |
bus
At 05:26 PM 6/7/2020, you wrote:
>I am not speaking to any engine manufacturers recommendation (although the
>Honda Viking manufacturer does recommend two batteries. I just thought
>I was applying logic -- if dual alternator=C2 + battery (triple power
source)
>is desirable for electrically=C2 dependent engines, wouldn't that reasoning
>imply that if the second alternator is not practical, a second battery
>could be used as the third power source? I could ask you a similar
question:
>Are not two independent power sources (battery and alternator) sufficient
>to meet the needs of the electrically=C2 dependent engine. Obviously you
>saw value in adding the second alternator. Why
>no value in adding the second battery?
Excellent question.
It's a problem in energy budgets combined with
efforts to assure continued airworthiness.
The airplane cannot do without a battery if
you're going to have a starter. Depending on
your planned mission profiles, you will want
to size the battery (1) for cranking then
(2) minimum endurance in alternator-out modes.
This study gave impetus for the creation of
the endurance bus . . . a fast and predictable
way to economically tap known quantity of energy
stored in the battery's chemistry.
Z13/8 was a small but significant amplification
of that idea . . . <b>the second alternator's endurance
had no practical limits.</b> Hence, energy on the chemistry
just might be held completely in reserve for
descent and approach to landing.
Z13/20 (and the aux alternator option on
Z101) expanded the Z13/8 endurance opportunity
by a factor of 2.5 or better.
Okay, suppose the drive pad isn't available.
We are still charged with identifying and the
delivering to energy required to comfortably
terminate a worst-case mission.
This means that as a part of routine maintenance
the ship's chemistry needs to be monitored for
capability. We could certainly store that energy
on TWO devices but to what advantage? If we're laboring
under the notion that a battery can suddenly become
unavailable during one tank of gas, then we have
to assume that EITHER battery can roll over and
die . . . okay, how would that failure be
annunciated . . . how would remaining energy be
managed . . . ?
I think that's the scenario anticipated by the
folks that crafted that battery manager with a
full-wave rectifier that -anded- two, completely
isolated batteries together. Assume the alternator
has quit and some time later one battery
craps out. How does the pilot become aware of the
problem and what kind of energy juggling issues
are presented when the available energy drops
to half? This assuming he really knows that the
two batteries were performing equally and has
recently quantified their condition, he now
has to come up with a new "plan C?" and perhaps
declare an emergency.
This scenario first assumes TWO critical failures
during the consumption of one tank of fuel . . .
about 3-4 hour window. Part 23 certs don't
get concerned with dual failures at all.
Part 25 and heavier will wade into the reliability
quagmire with mountains of computer generated probability
studies that get 'worked' on until somebody
finally sprinkles the holy water and off they
go.
Ask Capt. Sullivan what he thinks about
reliability studies . . .
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HKJ1lIh2Cgk
So we're left to our own devices which in reality
are not so bad.
The short answer is: A diligently maintained
battery is the most reliable source of energy
on the airplane. Replacing it when ability
to store energy drops below some benchmark
(generally 75 to 80% of new) means that it
always cranks the engine and will provide a
quantified option for dealing with alternator
failure. Two batteries just doubles your
preventative maintenance labor. Further,
you need to decide if plan-b can reliably
depend on the sum total of energy in two
batteries . . . or will they be sized to
independently step up to the task? The
second option calls for 2X the battery
weight and volume; the first option complicates
calculations and switching operations for
carrying out a plan-b that shouldn't ever
happen. BOTH options still demand good
preventative maintenance.
Just as you KNOW fuel aboard when you launch,
you also need to know Watt-Hours aboard
no matter how many batteries you're carrying.
If you have TWO properly maintained batteries,
in all likelihood, you'll be carrying around
$twice$ the hardware with virtually no value
added to the ship's overall reliability.
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! --
|