Matronics Email Lists :: View topic

Matronics Email Lists
Web Forum Interface to the Matronics Email Lists

Get Email Distribution Too! FAQ Search Memberlist Usergroups Register

Profile Log in to check your private messages Log in

Z-* Question
Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3 Next

Matronics Email Lists Forum Index -> AeroElectric-List

View previous topic :: View next topic

Author Message

kenryan

Joined: 20 Oct 2009
Posts: 429

Posted: Wed Jul 11, 2018 9:04 am Post subject: Z-* Question

If you "solve" the "problem" by moving the alternator feed wire to the battery side of the contactor, then you create a separate problem (one many would consider more serious) in that you will have nullified the ability to cut off all current by simply moving the master switch.



On Wed, Jul 11, 2018 at 7:40 AM BMC_Dave <bmcdave85(at)gmail.com (bmcdave85(at)gmail.com)> wrote:



 	  Quote: 	
		  --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "BMC_Dave" <bmcdave85(at)gmail.com (bmcdave85(at)gmail.com)>

 

 It almost feels like I'm being intentionally gaslit, I'll try again. We're addressing the OPs use of Z14 and his concern about why the alternator isn't on the battery bus side of the contactor. Additionally, the current architecture doesn't include any LV warning on the battery bus side.

 

 So as it is drawn currently drawn in Z14, running an electrically dependent engine is dangerous because you have a single point of failure (the contactor) and zero indication anything is wrong until your engine dies and you have no means to turn it back on... 

 

 Yes, we discussed adding a LV warning to the battery bus.... in other threads about other architecture drawings. It's a good idea, you should probably do that, or similar like putting the LR-3 LV sense on the battery bus instead.

 

 I've heard many times about how contactor failures are rare, once followed immediately by a description of how hard they wear and steps that can be taken to mitigate that... Point is this single point of failure is easy to side-step with out adding anything to the system. The reluctance to do so is confusing and no one seems to want to explain why.

 

 

 

 

 Read this topic online here:

 

 http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=481560#481560

 

 

 

 

 

 

 ===========

  -

 Electric-List" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List

 ===========

  FORUMS -

 eferrer" target="_blank">http://forums.matronics.com

 ===========

 WIKI -

 errer" target="_blank">http://wiki.matronics.com

 ===========

 b Site -

           -Matt Dralle, List Admin.

 rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/contribution

 ===========

user9253

Joined: 28 Mar 2008
Posts: 1944
Location: Riley TWP Michigan

Posted: Wed Jul 11, 2018 9:34 am Post subject: Re: Z-* Question

 	  Quote: 	
		  The reluctance to do so is confusing and no one seems to want to explain why. 	


I explained why.  If the alternator "B" lead is connected directly to the battery, then that "B" lead is always hot no matter if the field switch is on or off.  That always hot wire is more likely to cause an incident than a failed contactor.

  The Z figures just show the basic power layout.  They are not meant to show every electrical circuit in an airplane.  Notice that there is no radio or EFIS on the Z figure.  It is up to the builder to wire his plane to make it safe.  If you want a low voltage warning, then install it.  If there is only one ignition system, then provide it with two sources of power via diodes or switches.  Just do not make changes that create a new danger.

_________________
Joe Gores

BMC_Dave

Joined: 04 Jul 2018
Posts: 40

Posted: Wed Jul 11, 2018 9:54 am Post subject: Re: Z-* Question

 	  kenryan wrote: 	
		  If you "solve" the "problem" by moving the alternator feed wire to the battery side of the contactor, then you create a separate problem (one many would consider more serious) in that you will have nullified the ability to cut off all current by simply moving the master switch.



On Wed, Jul 11, 2018 at 7:40 AM BMC_Dave <bmcdave85> wrote:



 	  Quote: 	
		  --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "BMC_Dave" <bmcdave85>

 

 It almost feels like I'm being intentionally gaslit, I'll try again. We're addressing the OPs use of Z14 and his concern about why the alternator isn't on the battery bus side of the contactor. Additionally, the current architecture doesn't include any LV warning on the battery bus side.

 

 So as it is drawn currently drawn in Z14, running an electrically dependent engine is dangerous because you have a single point of failure (the contactor) and zero indication anything is wrong until your engine dies and you have no means to turn it back on... 

 

 Yes, we discussed adding a LV warning to the battery bus.... in other threads about other architecture drawings. It's a good idea, you should probably do that, or similar like putting the LR-3 LV sense on the battery bus instead.

 

 I've heard many times about how contactor failures are rare, once followed immediately by a description of how hard they wear and steps that can be taken to mitigate that... Point is this single point of failure is easy to side-step with out adding anything to the system. The reluctance to do so is confusing and no one seems to want to explain why.

 

 

 

 

 Read this topic online here:

 

 http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=481560#481560

 

 

 

 

 

 

 ===========

  -

 Electric-List" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List

 ===========

  FORUMS -

 eferrer" target="_blank">http://forums.matronics.com

 ===========

 WIKI -

 errer" target="_blank">http://wiki.matronics.com

 ===========

 b Site -

           -Matt Dralle, List Admin.

 rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/contribution

 ===========

 

 

 

 	
	




No it doesn't. Moving the alternator feed line to the battery side of the contactor doesn't change how the Main DC Pwr Master Switch turns off the alternator (by opening the ALT FLD circuit).



 	  user9253 wrote: 	
		  

I explained why.  If the alternator "B" lead is connected directly to the battery, then that "B" lead is always hot no matter if the field switch is on or off.  	




Electrically, how is having the B lead after the contactor different than having it before the contactor if the contactor is closed?



What new danger is made by moving the alternator feed, and maybe the LO V warning from the LR-3, to the battery side of the contactor?



ETA: I thought alternators were turned on and off by closing and opening the field circuit, is this not correct?

cluros(at)gmail.com
Guest

Posted: Wed Jul 11, 2018 10:21 am Post subject: Z-* Question

Dave, you are correct that if the alternator is off, that wire will not be powered by the alternator. It WILL be powered by the battery because you have connected it directly to the battery right?



On Wed, Jul 11, 2018, 1:59 PM BMC_Dave <bmcdave85(at)gmail.com (bmcdave85(at)gmail.com)> wrote:



 	  Quote: 	
		  --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "BMC_Dave" <bmcdave85(at)gmail.com (bmcdave85(at)gmail.com)>

 

 

 kenryan wrote:

 > If you "solve" the "problem" by moving the alternator feed wire to the battery side of the contactor, then you create a separate problem (one many would consider more serious) in that you will have nullified the ability to cut off all current by simply moving the master switch.

 > 

 > On Wed, Jul 11, 2018 at 7:40 AM BMC_Dave  wrote:

 > 

 > 

 > > --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "BMC_Dave" 

 > >  

 > >  It almost feels like I'm being intentionally gaslit, I'll try again. We're addressing the OPs use of Z14 and his concern about why the alternator isn't on the battery bus side of the contactor. Additionally, the current architecture doesn't include any LV warning on the battery bus side.

 > >  

 > >  So as it is drawn currently drawn in Z14, running an electrically dependent engine is dangerous because you have a single point of failure (the contactor) and zero indication anything is wrong until your engine dies and you have no means to turn it back on... 

 > >  

 > >  Yes, we discussed adding a LV warning to the battery bus.... in other threads about other architecture drawings. It's a good idea, you should probably do that, or similar like putting the LR-3 LV sense on the battery bus instead.

 > >  

 > >  I've heard many times about how contactor failures are rare, once followed immediately by a description of how hard they wear and steps that can be taken to mitigate that... Point is this single point of failure is easy to side-step with out adding anything to the system. The reluctance to do so is confusing and no one seems to want to explain why.

 > >  

 > >  

 > >  

 > >  

 > >  Read this topic online here:

 > >  

 > >  http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=481560#481560 (http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=481560#481560)

 > >  

 > >  

 > >  

 > >  

 > >  

 > >  

 > >  ===========

 > >   -

 > >  Electric-List" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List

 > >  ===========

 > >   FORUMS -

 > >  eferrer" target="_blank">http://forums.matronics.com

 > >  ===========

 > >  WIKI -

 > >  errer" target="_blank">http://wiki.matronics.com

 > >  ===========

 > >  b Site -

 > >            -Matt Dralle, List Admin.

 > >  rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/contribution

 > >  ===========

 > >  

 > >  

 > >  

 > >  

 > 

 

 

 No it doesn't. Moving the alternator feed line to the battery side of the contactor doesn't change how the Main DC Pwr Master Switch turns off the alternator (by opening the ALT FLD circuit).

 

 

 user9253 wrote:

 > 

 > I explained why.  If the alternator "B" lead is connected directly to the battery, then that "B" lead is always hot no matter if the field switch is on or off.  

 

 

 Electrically, how is having the B lead after the contactor different than having it before the contactor if the contactor is closed? Should the contactor open, and your B lead is on the battery side, this would have the same effect as opening the ALT field circuit, thereby shutting off the alternator. Unless I'm radically misunderstanding how alternators work...

 

 

 

 

 Read this topic online here:

 

 http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=481568#481568

 

 

 

 

 

 

 ===========

  -

 Electric-List" rel="noreferrer noreferrer" target="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List

 ===========

  FORUMS -

 eferrer noreferrer" target="_blank">http://forums.matronics.com

 ===========

 WIKI -

 errer noreferrer" target="_blank">http://wiki.matronics.com

 ===========

 b Site -

           -Matt Dralle, List Admin.

 rel="noreferrer noreferrer" target="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/contribution

 ===========

Rocketman1988

Joined: 21 Jun 2012
Posts: 63

Posted: Wed Jul 11, 2018 10:32 am Post subject: Re: Z-* Question

I do not see the Z-14 as dangerous as drawn for my EFII aircraft.  The ECUs can be split between the busses, the fuel pumps can be split and the injector supply will be come from a buss powered by both batteries through a diode bridge.



There is no possible way to make any system 100% reliable; if you drill down far enough, you can't always find a serious failure that will compromise the system.  The point is risk mitigation...

nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelect
Guest

Posted: Wed Jul 11, 2018 10:40 am Post subject: Z-* Question

At 10:34 AM 7/11/2018, you wrote:

  	  Quote: 	
		  --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "BMC_Dave" <bmcdave85(at)gmail.com>



 It almost feels like I'm being intentionally gaslit, I'll try again. We're addressing the OPs use of Z14 and his concern about why the alternator isn't on the battery bus side of the contactor. 	


   So the b-lead is 'cold' when the master switch is OFF



  	  Quote: 	
		   Additionally, the current architecture doesn't include any LV warning on the battery bus side. 	


   Because in-flight contactor failure rates are very

   low. But if one wishes to 'cover' that possibility,

   lv warning on a battery-bus fed appliance would

   provide the hedge.



 

 

   Bob . . .

BMC_Dave

Joined: 04 Jul 2018
Posts: 40

Posted: Wed Jul 11, 2018 10:41 am Post subject: Re: Z-* Question

 	  cluros(at)gmail.com wrote: 	
		  Dave, you are correct that if the alternator is off, that wire will not be powered by the alternator. It WILL be powered by the battery because you have connected it directly to the battery right?



	




Ahhh, I see it now thanks. Yeah that's true, though I'm not positive on the placement of these things in relation to each other. If going to the starter contactor is a whole lot different than going to the bat side of the battery contactor.

nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelect
Guest

Posted: Wed Jul 11, 2018 10:45 am Post subject: Z-* Question

 	  Quote: 	
		  > 

 >    Yes . . . unless you put low voltage monitoring

 >    on the battery . . . easy to do. But if engine

 >    dependency on fuel pressure and ignition is

 >    addressed by redundant systems, why are they

 >    all running from one battery?

 > 

 >  

 >    Bob . . .



 

 That's the point, in Z14 they don't appear to be, correct? 	


   Correct. I have shown primary systems on main battery,

   secondary on the aux battery . . . hence even loss

   of one battery contactor does not present an

   intractable hazzard to comfortable termination

   of flight. I have been assuming (possibly incorrectly)

   that there was some feature of this discussion that

   absolutely depended on energy from a single

   battery bus for continued flight.



 

   Bob . . .

BMC_Dave

Joined: 04 Jul 2018
Posts: 40

Posted: Wed Jul 11, 2018 10:47 am Post subject: Re: Z-* Question

 	  Rocketman1988 wrote: 	
		  I do not see the Z-14 as dangerous as drawn for my EFII aircraft.  The ECUs can be split between the busses, the fuel pumps can be split and the injector supply will be come from a buss powered by both batteries through a diode bridge.



There is no possible way to make any system 100% reliable; if you drill down far enough, you can't always find a serious failure that will compromise the system.  The point is risk mitigation... 	




Fair enough, I just see the architecture as-drawn to have a pretty serious single point of failure for electronically dependent engines. As it can occur with no notice to the pilot that something has happened, and no way to provide power to the bits that need it once your engine shuts off. The reluctance to acknowledge this is perplexing.

cluros(at)gmail.com
Guest

Posted: Wed Jul 11, 2018 11:09 am Post subject: Z-* Question

The starter contactor is on the other side of the battery contactor. With the battery contactor off, no battery power to the starter contactor, no battery power to the b lead.

On Wed, Jul 11, 2018, 2:46 PM BMC_Dave <bmcdave85(at)gmail.com (bmcdave85(at)gmail.com)> wrote:

 	  Quote: 	
		  --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "BMC_Dave" <bmcdave85(at)gmail.com (bmcdave85(at)gmail.com)>

 cluros(at)gmail.com wrote:

 > Dave, you are correct that if the alternator is off, that wire will not be powered by the alternator. It WILL be powered by the battery because you have connected it directly to the battery right?

 > 

 > 

 Ahhh, I see it now thanks. Yeah that's true, though I'm not positive on the placement of these things in relation to each other. If going to the starter contactor is a whole lot different than going to the bat side of the battery contactor.

 Read this topic online here:

 http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=481573#481573

 ===========

  -

 Electric-List" rel="noreferrer noreferrer" target="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List

 ===========

  FORUMS -

 eferrer noreferrer" target="_blank">http://forums.matronics.com

 ===========

 WIKI -

 errer noreferrer" target="_blank">http://wiki.matronics.com

 ===========

 b Site -

           -Matt Dralle, List Admin.

 rel="noreferrer noreferrer" target="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/contribution

 ===========

yellowduckduo(at)gmail.co
Guest

Posted: Wed Jul 11, 2018 11:25 am Post subject: Z-* Question

If one incorporates the Z-24  OVP protection for internal VR 

alternators, that OVP contactor or relay disconnects the battery from 

the B lead if the alternator is turned off.

Ken



On 11/07/2018 2:15 PM, Sebastien wrote:

 	  Quote: 	
		   Dave, you are correct that if the alternator is off, that wire will 

 not be powered by the alternator. It WILL be powered by the battery 

 because you have connected it directly to the battery right?



 On Wed, Jul 11, 2018, 1:59 PM BMC_Dave <bmcdave85(at)gmail.com 

 <mailto:bmcdave85(at)gmail.com>> wrote:



     

     <bmcdave85(at)gmail.com <mailto:bmcdave85(at)gmail.com>>

     kenryan wrote:

     > If you "solve" the "problem" by moving the alternator feed wire

     to the battery side of the contactor, then you create a separate

     problem (one many would consider more serious) in that you will

     have nullified the ability to cut off all current by simply moving

     the master switch.

     >

     > On Wed, Jul 11, 2018 at 7:40 AM BMC_Dave  wrote:

     >

     >

     > > 

     > >

     > >  It almost feels like I'm being intentionally gaslit, I'll try

     again. We're addressing the OPs use of Z14 and his concern about

     why the alternator isn't on the battery bus side of the contactor.

     Additionally, the current architecture doesn't include any LV

     warning on the battery bus side.

     > >

     > >  So as it is drawn currently drawn in Z14, running an

     electrically dependent engine is dangerous because you have a

     single point of failure (the contactor) and zero indication

     anything is wrong until your engine dies and you have no means to

     turn it back on...

     > >

     > >  Yes, we discussed adding a LV warning to the battery bus....

     in other threads about other architecture drawings. It's a good

     idea, you should probably do that, or similar like putting the

     LR-3 LV sense on the battery bus instead.

     > >

     > >  I've heard many times about how contactor failures are rare,

     once followed immediately by a description of how hard they wear

     and steps that can be taken to mitigate that... Point is this

     single point of failure is easy to side-step with out adding

     anything to the system. The reluctance to do so is confusing and

     no one seems to want to explain why.

     > >

     > >

     > >

     > >

     > >  Read this topic online here:

     > >

     > > http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=481560#481560

     (http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=481560#481560)

     > >

     > >

     > >

     > >

     > >

     > >

     > >  ===========

     > >   -

     > >  Electric-List" rel="noreferrer"

     target="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List

     > >  ===========

     > >   FORUMS -

     > >  eferrer" target="_blank">http://forums.matronics.com

     > >  ===========

     > >  WIKI -

     > >  errer" target="_blank">http://wiki.matronics.com

     > >  ===========

     > >  b Site -

     > >            -Matt Dralle, List Admin.

     > >  rel="noreferrer"

     target="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/contribution

     > >  ===========

     > >

     > >

     > >

     > >

     >

     No it doesn't. Moving the alternator feed line to the battery side

     of the contactor doesn't change how the Main DC Pwr Master Switch

     turns off the alternator (by opening the ALT FLD circuit).

     user9253 wrote:

     >

     > I explained why.  If the alternator "B" lead is connected

     directly to the battery, then that "B" lead is always hot no

     matter if the field switch is on or off.

     Electrically, how is having the B lead after the contactor

     different than having it before the contactor if the contactor is

     closed? Should the contactor open, and your B lead is on the

     battery side, this would have the same effect as opening the ALT

     field circuit, thereby shutting off the alternator. Unless I'm

     radically misunderstanding how alternators work...





     Read this topic online here:



     http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=481568#481568

     ===========

     -

     Electric-List" rel="noreferrer noreferrer"

     target="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List

     ===========

     FORUMS -

     eferrer noreferrer" target="_blank">http://forums.matronics.com

     ===========

     WIKI -

     errer noreferrer" target="_blank">http://wiki.matronics.com

     ===========

     b Site -

               -Matt Dralle, List Admin.

     rel="noreferrer noreferrer"

     target="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/contribution

     ===========

BMC_Dave

Joined: 04 Jul 2018
Posts: 40

Posted: Wed Jul 11, 2018 11:27 am Post subject: Re: Z-* Question

So the reasoning is that having an always-hot B lead is more dangerous than the single point failure of the battery contactor? If I'm finally getting that point?



Is sparking of a severed B lead the only concern, or is there something else about having the alternator always hot that is no bueno? How long is that 10 AWG run from the AUX ALT? Or the 4 AWG run from the main battery to the contactor, it doesn't have an *?

nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelect
Guest

Posted: Wed Jul 11, 2018 11:28 am Post subject: Z-* Question

At 01:47 PM 7/11/2018, you wrote:

  	  Quote: 	
		  --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "BMC_Dave" <bmcdave85(at)gmail.com>

 Rocketman1988 wrote:

 > I do not see the Z-14 as dangerous as drawn for my EFII aircraft.  The ECUs can be split between the busses, the fuel pumps can be split and the injector supply will be come from a buss powered by both batteries through a diode bridge.

 > 

 > There is no possible way to make any system 100% reliable; if you drill down far enough, you can't always find a serious failure that will compromise the system.  The point is risk mitigation...

 Fair enough, I just see the architecture as-drawn to have a pretty serious single point of failure for electronically dependent engines. As it can occur with no notice to the pilot that something has happened, and no way to provide power to the bits that need it once your engine shuts off. The reluctance to acknowledge this is perplexing. 	

   I don't think anyone is failing to acknowledge

   anything. You have hypothesized a suite

   of hardware that is not illustrated in Z-14.

   As published, Z-14 purports to show that

   redundant systems can improve on system

   reliability by feeding them from separate

   power systems . . . where it has been

   judged that no single failure puts the

   aircraft at risk.

   If some primary component is not backed

   up with a secondary -and- assuming that it

   has only one feed point for power,

   Z-14 offers no advice and the system

   may benefit from some adjustments.

   If an alternator feed is moved to the

   battery (like 100% of cars) then the

   regulator supply and voltage sense

   must also be moved to the battery side

   of the contactor as well. From a

   performance perspective, there's nothing

   wrong with it . . . and it would mitigate

   the failed contactor scenario.

   The only down side is that the b-lead

   is hot all the time. This has post

   crash safety implications and maintenance

   implications (be sure to unhook battery(-)

   before turning wrenches under the cowl

   just like you do on your car.

   Bob . . .

user9253

Joined: 28 Mar 2008
Posts: 1944
Location: Riley TWP Michigan

Posted: Wed Jul 11, 2018 11:39 am Post subject: Re: Z-* Question

If you look in the very bottom left corner of Z-14 at the aux battery bus, there are secondary ignition and secondary fuel pump fuses.  So there is no single point of failure.  If the main battery completely shorts out and dies, the engine keeps running because it will get electricity from the aux battery and aux alternator.

  It might be confusing because the aux bus is drawn with part of it horizontal and part of it vertical.

_________________
Joe Gores

Rocketman1988

Joined: 21 Jun 2012
Posts: 63

Posted: Wed Jul 11, 2018 11:42 am Post subject: Re: Z-* Question

 	  BMC_Dave wrote: 	
		   	  Rocketman1988 wrote: 	
		  I do not see the Z-14 as dangerous as drawn for my EFII aircraft.  The ECUs can be split between the busses, the fuel pumps can be split and the injector supply will be come from a buss powered by both batteries through a diode bridge.



There is no possible way to make any system 100% reliable; if you drill down far enough, you can't always find a serious failure that will compromise the system.  The point is risk mitigation... 	




Fair enough, I just see the architecture as-drawn to have a pretty serious single point of failure for electronically dependent engines. As it can occur with no notice to the pilot that something has happened, and no way to provide power to the bits that need it once your engine shuts off. The reluctance to acknowledge this is perplexing. 	




Ok, where specifically is the issue?  The essentials will be powered by a buss supplied by BOTH batteries through a diode bridge. So:



one contractor fails > engine keeps running

one alternator fails > engine keeps running

one battery fails > engine keeps running



If the essentials include a fuel pump and ECU then:



two alternators and 1 battery fail > engine keeps running.



I have intentionally left the EFIS and radios from this discussion, focusing on only the engine.



Short of a combined multiple failure > engine keeps running.



Please explain your how the Z-14 as drawn has a single point of failure...

BMC_Dave

Joined: 04 Jul 2018
Posts: 40

Posted: Wed Jul 11, 2018 12:00 pm Post subject: Re: Z-* Question

 	  Rocketman1988 wrote: 	
		   	  BMC_Dave wrote: 	
		   	  Rocketman1988 wrote: 	
		  I do not see the Z-14 as dangerous as drawn for my EFII aircraft.  The ECUs can be split between the busses, the fuel pumps can be split and the injector supply will be come from a buss powered by both batteries through a diode bridge.



There is no possible way to make any system 100% reliable; if you drill down far enough, you can't always find a serious failure that will compromise the system.  The point is risk mitigation... 	




Fair enough, I just see the architecture as-drawn to have a pretty serious single point of failure for electronically dependent engines. As it can occur with no notice to the pilot that something has happened, and no way to provide power to the bits that need it once your engine shuts off. The reluctance to acknowledge this is perplexing. 	




Ok, where specifically is the issue?  The essentials will be powered by a buss supplied by BOTH batteries through a diode bridge. So:



one contractor fails > engine keeps running

one alternator fails > engine keeps running

one battery fails > engine keeps running



If the essentials include a fuel pump and ECU then:



two alternators and 1 battery fail > engine keeps running.



I have intentionally left the EFIS and radios from this discussion, focusing on only the engine.



Short of a combined multiple failure > engine keeps running.



Please explain your how the Z-14 as drawn has a single point of failure... 	




Battery contactor fails, engine keeps running... until?

BMC_Dave

Joined: 04 Jul 2018
Posts: 40

Posted: Wed Jul 11, 2018 12:04 pm Post subject: Re: Z-* Question

 	  user9253 wrote: 	
		  If you look in the very bottom left corner of Z-14 at the aux battery bus, there are secondary ignition and secondary fuel pump fuses.  So there is no single point of failure.  If the main battery completely shorts out and dies, the engine keeps running because it will get electricity from the aux battery and aux alternator.

  It might be confusing because the aux bus is drawn with part of it horizontal and part of it vertical. 	




Aren't those two separate buses? But yes I did miss the aux FP and IGN. So now at least you have a means to restore engine power once it stops after nothing tells you your main bat has run down completely. Unless you added the aforementioned low voltage warning that isn't indicated on the drawing.

ceengland7(at)gmail.com
Guest

Posted: Wed Jul 11, 2018 2:37 pm Post subject: Z-* Question

On 7/11/2018 3:04 PM, BMC_Dave wrote:

 	  Quote: 	

 user9253 wrote:

> If you look in the very bottom left corner of Z-14 at the aux battery bus, there are secondary ignition and secondary fuel pump fuses.  So there is no single point of failure.  If the main battery completely shorts out and dies, the engine keeps running because it will get electricity from the aux battery and aux alternator.

>    It might be confusing because the aux bus is drawn with part of it horizontal and part of it vertical.

 Aren't those two separate buses?

Yes; driving two separate engine controllers (ignitions). If the main 

contactor fails, and you fly the plane to main battery depletion, the 

2nd engine controller keeps the engine running. You'll surely know you 

have a problem the next time you try to start the plane, even if you've 

managed to miss all the signs up to that point.

As everyone keeps saying, the Z figures are templates; *not* finished 

schematics that can't be adjusted to fit individual needs. If you're 

running a single ignition controller, fed by the battery bus, and if, 

overall, you like Z-14 for your purposes, then add low voltage 

monitoring to the battery bus. Wouldn't that solve your issue of 

undetected contactor failure? If you like moving the B lead to the 

battery bus, then add a contactor to the B lead so it can be interrupted 

when the a/c is powered down (crash & maintenance protection). Or, if 

you're comfortable with the B lead being always hot, and you're aware of 

the implications, then hook it up that way, and move your high/low 

voltage protection/monitoring to the battery bus.

Charlie

---

This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.

https://www.avast.com/antivirus

nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelect
Guest

Posted: Wed Jul 11, 2018 3:10 pm Post subject: Z-* Question

At 03:04 PM 7/11/2018, you wrote:

  	  Quote: 	
		  --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "BMC_Dave" <bmcdave85(at)gmail.com>



 

 user9253 wrote:

 > If you look in the very bottom left corner of Z-14 at the aux battery bus, there are secondary ignition and secondary fuel pump fuses.  So there is no single point of failure.  If the main battery completely shorts out and dies, the engine keeps running because it will get electricity from the aux battery and aux alternator.

 >   It might be confusing because the aux bus is drawn with part of it horizontal and part of it vertical.



 	


   Figure 17-5 in the 'Connection is accompanied by

   a narrative describing the philosophy behind

   Z-14.



   The idea was to craft two, independent systems

   that could be used in tandem for some flight

   conditions:



 

 [img]cid:.0[/img]



 

   A cross-feed contactor could be closed during engine

   cranking to offer better starter performance. All

   normal ops are conducted with the cross-feed open.



   If an alternator is lost, the cross-feed contactor

   can be closed to share power offered by the remaining

   alternator. A feeder off any of the four busses has

   access to four power sources. This means that no

   endurance bus is needed.



   When electrically dependent power plants are

   fitted with redundant sub-systems, then those

   pairs are distributed between the two battery

   busses.



   With the exception of battery contactor loss, it is

   exceedingly unlikely that any battery bus becomes

   un-powered . . . and only after that battery

   is depleted.



   The only time that condition elevates risk is when a

   non-redundant power plant subsystem is powered from

   that bus.



   This discussion underscores the value of doing

   the load analysis for various flight conditions

   combined with the FMEA to ensure power

   distribution to accessories needed for comfortable

   termination of flight.



 

   Bob . . .

31e4346.jpg

Description:

Filesize:

82.77 KB

Viewed:

19285 Time(s)

jonlaury

Joined: 06 Nov 2006
Posts: 336

Posted: Thu Jul 12, 2018 7:31 am Post subject: Re: Z-* Question

 	  BMC_Dave wrote: 	
		  It almost feels like I'm being intentionally gaslit, I'll try again. ... (snip) 	




For the etymologically curious:



"The original (meaning) stems from 1938 stage play Gas Light and the dimming of the gas lights in the house that happened when the husband was using the gas lights in the flat above while searching for the jewels belonging to a woman whom he had murdered. The wife correctly notices the dimming lights and discusses it with her husband, but he insists that she merely imagined a change in the level of illumination."

Display posts from previous:

	Matronics Email Lists Forum Index -> AeroElectric-List	All times are GMT - 8 Hours Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3 Next
Page 2 of 3

Jump to:

You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum