Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 11:36 AM - The case for "gas tightness" (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
2. 12:52 PM - Re: AEC9005 IBMM and LV Warning Module (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
3. 12:54 PM - Re: Re: GTR-200 garbeled reception (skywagon185guy)
4. 03:49 PM - Re: Re: AEC9005 IBMM and LV Warning Module (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
5. 09:55 PM - Re: Z102 w/AEC9005 (Eric Page)
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: | The case for "gas tightness" |
See:
https://tinyurl.com/y39dpm9n
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: AEC9005 IBMM and LV Warning Module |
Eric, to answer your questoins:
> > 1. Am I correct in my understanding that:
> > a) the auxiliary battery is normally paralleled with the main
> battery during
> > engine start *and* during normal operation (bus voltage >13V) so
> that it can be
> > recharged by the alternator?
The AEC9005 IBMM/LVWarn product was put on the
market about 2003 time-frame in response to
desires to automatically support the little
auxiliary battery recommended by LightSpeed.
Since detection of an LV condition is primary
to the functionality of the IBMM . . . it was
a simple matter to include a flasher to drive
a LV Warning lamp as well.
Over the 2003 to 2012 market-run, we sold
about 168 completed assemblies and a hand-full
of kits.
> > b) the auxiliary battery will be isolated to engine-related
> functions only, if the bus falls below 13V?
The idea was to offer automatic isolation of the
auxiliary ignition battery simultaneously with
annunciation of low voltage.
> > 2. The Z102 schematic shows a START CMD signal from the
> push-to-start switch to an
> > AEC90XX Aux Battery Management Module (ABMM).
Z102 is a work in progress. I snatched a
drawing for the AEC9005 to poke into that
slot knowing that the functionality would
require upgrading to accept a signal from
the starter system to keep the contactor
closed during start.
That activity was yet to be accomplished.
The original IBMM did not have a flasher for
driving an LED. It was never produced. Found
the genesis drawing from 1999 which I've modified
to include a lv override input from the starter
push button. Exploit as you see fit.
> The only thing like this that I can find is your AEC9005 series of
> Low Voltage Warning and ABMM devices. However, the AEC9005
> schematic in this document...
> >
> > http://www.aeroelectric.com/DIY/LV_Warn_Fab_and_Install.pdf
> >
> > ...does not include an input for the START CMD signal. Is there
> another ABMM design
> > on the drawing board, or does Z102 contemplate an iteration of
> AEC9005 with the addition
> > of the START CMD facility? If the latter, then is it safe to
> assume that START CMD is
> > simply a gate drive signal to the FET, diode isolated from the
> comparator output?
> >
Yeah, that would make it work as depicted . . .
> > 3. On the AEC9005 schematic linked above, what is the purpose of
> Zener diode Z118? Is
> > it to protect the FET against excessive V(d-s) in case the
> contactor's flyback
> > diode fails to perform, or is missing?
Correct. The AEC9005 was a stand-alone device that
might have been paired with an external relay that
did not have coil suppression installed. Better to
have TWO such devices than NO such devices!
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: GTR-200 garbeled reception |
Ditto on Eric's suggestion....
Sometimes the "chassis" is mounted a tad too far back from the equipment
panel front surface. When the radio is slid into the chassis some of the
many pins don't connect well to the back chassis connectors. Solution is
to remount the chassis by pulling it forward before securing it with its
mounting screws.....
D
On Sat, Oct 17, 2020 at 6:47 AM eschlanser <eschlanser@yahoo.com> wrote:
> eschlanser@yahoo.com>
>
> Marty,
>
> Have you tried it in another aircraft that has a GTR-200 that is working?
> I had a similar problem with my GNS-430W. I don=99t know how simila
r these
> two radios=99 connectors are, but I verified my radio was ok by tes
ting it in
> another airplane. Then I started troubleshooting my installation. I thoug
ht
> I had it seated ok, but it only takes but a tiny, tiny bit to be not seat
ed
> well. At least in mine anyway.
> Check out the radio first, and go from there. Good luck.
>
> Not an A&P,
> Eric
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=498878#498878
>
>
===========
===========
===========
===========
===========
>
>
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: AEC9005 IBMM and LV Warning Module |
P.S. the calibration resistors have been adjusted
to raise the L.V. Warn set-point to 13.5 volts.
This will make the finished assembly compatible with
BOTH LiFePO4 and SVLA batteries.
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: Z102 w/AEC9005 |
nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelect wrote:
> Sorry 'bout that . . my bad.
Thanks, Bob, no worries. There's been a lot of signal here lately, so it was easy
to fall below the noise floor!
> I've been pondering the 'step up' from Z101 to Z102 . . . not sure I'm all that
enthusiastic about it.
>
> Help us understand the motivation for an AUX battery added specifically to support
the engine.
The presence of Z102, and its labeling for "automotive conversions" led me to believe
that it was the current state-of-the-art for aircraft so equipped. I'm
in the early planning stages at this point, so I'm happy to entertain other ideas.
The plane will be a day/night VFR-only aircraft. I plan to use it for back-country
flying, so keeping the starter spinning at off-airport locations and the
engine running over expanses of hostile terrain are primary concerns. The plane
will have LED lights, a transponder, an ADS-B receiver, a single comm radio,
one EFIS screen, and perhaps a lightweight, low power multi-function backup
instrument. I would view minimum equipment as engine, lights, comm and backup
instrument.
The engine I'm considering (AeroMomentum AM15 (https://aeromomentum.com/am15.html),
based on a Suzuki 1.5L inline 4-cyl) ships with a single 65A (probably Denso
(https://aeromomentum.com/images/Alternator.JPG)) alternator. I don't yet
know whether it's supplied as an internally or externally regulated unit, but
I suspect that it will need modification. I also don't know if the engine has
a spot for a second alternator, but given the absence of a power steering pump
or AC compressor, it's probably feasible to mount one.
> Your total electrical needs for comfortable flight are predictable and/or measurable.
The amount of energy contained in a battery is similarly known.
>
> If you split duties of the two batteries for alternator-out operations, then
your endurance is set by whichever battery gives up first.
Indeed. My working assumption was that Z102 had identical batteries supporting
separate, smaller loads so that the time-to-darkness-and-quiet would be pushed
farther into the future than with a single battery of similar capacity. Since
the engine-only electrical load -- especially at a constant cruise power setting
-- would be very predictable, I suspect that you would be able to make an
eerily accurate estimate of remaining fan-assisted flight time.
That said, a second alternator extends endurance to the bottom of the fuel tank,
doesn't necessarily require a turn for home, and given my simple VFR equipment,
would likely impose no requirement to load-shed.
> Z101 offers dual feed bus structures with opportunity for load shedding to a
predictable level. THAT number drives the battery selection and maintenance protocol.
>
> That's one of the reasons I discontinued the IBMM . . . $cost of ownership$ for
a second battery is significant especially when it's not a quantum boost to
system reliability.
I see. So, given the reliability of batteries in general, and the simplicity of
Z101 vs Z102, it sounds like you're leaning toward a recommendation for Z101
with a battery sized and maintained to achieve worst case engine-off pre-flight
activities followed by spirited engine starts. The single battery would not
be expected to support alternator-out flight loads for any longer than it takes
the pilot to identify the problem and flip the AUX ALT switch. Operation
in this condition would be assured by pre-flight testing of the standby alternator/regulator.
Is that more-or-less accurate?
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=498916#498916
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! --
|