Matronics Email Lists :: View topic - Odyssey Battery Alternative

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

Odyssey Battery Alternative
Goto page 1, 2 Next

Matronics Email Lists Forum Index -> AeroElectric-List

View previous topic :: View next topic

Author Message

longg(at)pjm.com
Guest

Posted: Fri Apr 03, 2009 11:59 am Post subject: Odyssey Battery Alternative

Several of our hangar members have been experiencing trouble with reserve power using the popular Odyssey 680 battery. If running avionics and the like prior to starting (even briefly), the reserve power on these things really take a hit.  

   

I am not a huge fan of jump starting an aircraft or starting on reduced voltage when my craft is already electrically dependent and the taking off into a emergency situation with less than full reserve.  

   

Recently I found an option which has more cranking amps, (better A.H. value and about the same weight (or less). Albeit slightly more expensive, they may offer a good alternative for 680 users who find their batteries run down a bit too fast for their liking.  

   

http://www.braillebattery.com/index.php/  

   

Glenn  

      [quote][b]

recapen(at)earthlink.net
Guest

Posted: Fri Apr 03, 2009 12:36 pm Post subject: Odyssey Battery Alternative

Glenn,



Which one on the site would be the replacement?



Thanks,

Ralph



--

longg(at)pjm.com
Guest

Posted: Fri Apr 03, 2009 1:18 pm Post subject: Odyssey Battery Alternative

Ralph,



B2015C provides the best bang for the buck. It is slightly wider than the 680 at 6.8" X 3.4 X 6.1 vs. 7 1/16 X 3 X 6 9/16 which may cause you to modify your mounting or buy theirs.



What you get is 1067 vs. 680 cranking amps and 20 AH vs. 17 AH which is a big improvement. The weight is the same.



Glenn



--

Ed Anderson

Joined: 10 Jan 2006
Posts: 475

Posted: Fri Apr 03, 2009 3:26 pm Post subject: Odyssey Battery Alternative

Good fine, Glenn.  I notice that it would appear that unless you need the

reported superior features of the carbon fiber case (heat/vibration) that

the B2015 has the same electrical specifications at $159.99 vice $239.99 for

the B2015C.



Ed



Ed Anderson



Rv-6A N494BW Rotary Powered



Matthews, NC



eanderson(at)carolina.rr.com



http://www.andersonee.com



http://www.dmack.net/mazda/index.html



http://www.flyrotary.com/



http://members.cox.net/rogersda/rotary/configs.htm#N494BW



http://www.rotaryaviation.com/Rotorhead%20Truth.htm



--

_________________
Ed Anderson
Rv-6A N494BW Rotary Powered
Matthews, NC
eanderson@carolina.rr.com

recapen(at)earthlink.net
Guest

Posted: Sat Apr 04, 2009 4:38 am Post subject: Odyssey Battery Alternative

Thanks,



Definitely something to think about when it becomes replacement time.  My 

680 is brand new - I replaced a four year old one that I had beaten up 

pretty hard during the construction process.  The new one seems to do fine 

at the present - but I keep a Battery Hawk on it between flights so it's 

always topped off.



Ralph

RV6A N822AR (at) N06 8.3 hours - waiting for the wind gusts to die down so I 

can fly off some more hours.....!



---

nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelect
Guest

Posted: Sat Apr 04, 2009 6:08 am Post subject: Odyssey Battery Alternative

At 07:28 AM 4/4/2009, you wrote:

  	  Quote: 	
		  --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Ralph E. Capen" <recapen(at)earthlink.net>



 Thanks,



 Definitely something to think about when it becomes replacement time.  My 680 is brand new - I replaced a four year old one that I had beaten up pretty hard during the construction process.  The new one seems to do fine at the present - but I keep a Battery Hawk on it between flights so it's always topped off. 	


   Why did you replace it? Was it sent to recycle because

   it's capacity had fallen below your e-bus run-time benchmark

   or because it didn't crank the engine any more?



   This thread started with the following statements:



 

 "Several of our hangar members have been experiencing trouble with reserve power using the popular Odyssey 680 battery. If running avionics and the like prior to starting (even briefly), the reserve power on these things really take a hit."



 "I am not a huge fan of jump starting an aircraft or starting on reduced voltage when my craft is already electrically dependent and the taking off into a emergency situation with less than full reserve."



 "Recently I found an option which has more cranking amps, (better A.H. value and about the same weight (or less). Albeit slightly more expensive, they may offer a good alternative for 680 users who find their batteries run down a bit too fast for their liking."



   "Reserve power" speaks to watt-seconds of energy

   contained when fully charged. This is closely

   related to the battery's rated capacity in Ampere-

   Hours although apparent capacity can vary widely 

   depending on loads due to the battery's internal

   losses (conduction = 1/resistance). Double the

   load on a battery and internal losses go up by

   a factor of 4.



   The terms "briefly" and "really takes a hit"

   are not quantified. Nor were the pre-cranking loads

   for operation of "running avionics and the like".

   So we're not privy to the numbers that define

   expected/desired battery performance. We also

   don't know the numbers that drove perceptions

   of "experiencing trouble".



   My words are not intended to cause anyone discomfort

   but it is helpful to understand the numbers behind

   a proposed exchange of product. Then each of you

   needs to decide how the exchange will improve on

   your personal expectations for system performance

   and the amount of $time$ you're willing to expend

   as a cost of ownership.



   The Braille batteries appear to have been fine

   tuned for lower internal resistance. This is 

   suggested by the greater "cranking" or "pulse"

   current ratings. But in terms of capacity, watt-seconds

   of energy stored is pretty much set by how many

   pounds of reactants (lead) is in the battery.

   Indeed, their a.h. ratings/pound of product weight

   are right in line with everybody else's products.



   They speak to the "conductance" test and something

   new . . . which it is not. The test is easily 

   performed with modern "battery analyzers". An

   example of this instrument can be seen at:



  http://www.midtronics.com/default.asp



   where we find no less than 15 different models

   of device selling for hundreds of dollars. What

   your buying with these capable instruments is

   convenience of light weight, compact size,

   digital readout, and perhaps some predictions

   of service-life. However, the data gathered

   is the same as that which you would get from

   this piece of arcane technology from Harbor

   Freight for about $60.



  http://aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Battery_Testers/HF91129_4.jpg



   The later device requires some understanding

   and skill but ultimately is a BETTER measure

   of cranking performance because the test loads

   are REAL and not extrapolated from short, pulsed

   values in the digital instrument.



   What does internal resistance (reciprocal of

   conductance) have to do with capacity? Nothing.

   Capacity is related to pounds of chemistry

   available to store energy. The efficiency with

   which that energy can be extracted for useful

   purposes IS affected by internal resistance. 

   This is discussed in some detail in the battery

   chapter update published at:



   http://aeroelectric.com/R12A/02_Battery_12A2.pdf



   Without knowing the nature and magnitude of 

   "experiencing trouble" which drives the decision

   to seek a more robust battery, we're not able

   to advance this deliberation based on physics

   and comparative measurements. I can only hypothesize

   as follows:



   The perceptions of poor battery performance are

   probably based on a pre-cranking battery load

   that is unnecessarily large. Without an e-bus

   and the ability to get your ATIS data and

   a departure clearance, then flipping on the

   battery master burdens the battery with loads

   that far exceed present requirements.



   Keep in mind too that the energy required to

   get a well tuned engine started is but a few

   percent of a battery's capacity. This battery

   voltage/current curve . . .



  http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Curves/turbine_start_a.jpg



   was taken from a Beechjet engine start. It

   begins with over 800A and tapers to 300A

   over a period of 27 seconds. After all that

   abuse, the battery is tapped for perhaps 6%

   of contained energy.  I agree that we're

   comparing apples and oranges with respect to

   types of engines and design goals for two

   vastly different airplanes. But I'll suggest

   that if somebody is having trouble getting

   and engine started -OR- has seriously depleted

   a battery during pre-flight operations because

   of loads imposed before the alternator comes

   on line . . . a serious reevaluation of design

   goals and operating procedures is called for.



   Back to the Braille battery product.

   They probably do conform to marketing hype

   concerning a lower internal resistance. This

   is easily demonstrated with and instrument not

   unlike the Harbor Freight device cited above.

  

   Now the question: What does the more expensive

   battery buy you in terms of cost of ownership?

   Now that you've installed the Lexus of batteries,

   how are you going to modify your rules of 

   ownership and operation for the purpose of meeting

   design goals for your airplane? Are you going to

   do periodic capacity checks to make well

   considered decisions as to when the battery

   needs replacing? Is it a reasonable expectation

   that $time$ to maintain plust $time$ to buy the

   higher price battery will be SMALLER than $time$

   to buy an el-cheepo battery and replace it

   every year?



   Finally, rushing off to buy this premium

   battery product may not get you the same

   return on investment expected by those who are

   "experiencing trouble" with their current

   battery choices. Without an analysis of how

   their disappointment arises, there's no

   guarantee that YOUR purchase of the more

   robust battery will produce a good return

   on your investment.



   Bob . . .

       [quote][b]

nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelect
Guest

Posted: Sat Apr 04, 2009 6:28 pm Post subject: Odyssey Battery Alternative

At 03:25 PM 4/4/2009, you wrote:

 	  Quote: 	
		  Has anyone used one of these batteries and have any info/user 

reports that may be useful in determining whether it's suitable in 

an aircraft?  Their site lists this as a "sealed valve regulated 

design," is this comparable to the AGM batteries Odyssey sells?


	


    See



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/VRLA



    RG (recombinant gas), AGM (absorbed glass mat), VRSLA (valve

    regulated sealed lead acid), and "starved electrolyte, glass

    mat", and perhaps a dozen other variations on the theme are

    all siblings. Specific products may claim a superior performance

    in some regard like longer shelf life, higher cranking power,

    greater ruggedness, virgin lead, etc. etc. Any of these features

    may well have proven to add value in the laboratory comparison

    with other technologies . . . but in real service aboard airplanes,

    the day-to-day "abuses" that depart from the laboratory demonstrations

    tend to be the true limiting factor in service life.



    Take laboratory grade care of your battery and it will

    probably deliver a good service life. Just keep in mind

    that all other things being equal, price does not deliver

    proportionate increases in ANY performance parameter.



    Virtually every battery that does not audibly "slosh"

    when you shake it is some form of "sealed" device

    and therefore "comparable" to all other products of

    the same class . . . lead-acid batteries not open to

    atmosphere.



    Finally, if the old "slosher" Rebat, Concorde and Gill

    batteries of yesteryear were ever considered suitable

    for use aboard airplanes, then ANY sealed device you can put

    your hands today is MORE suited.



        Bob . . .



        ----------------------------------------)

        ( . . .  a long habit of not thinking   )

        ( a thing wrong, gives it a superficial )

        ( appearance of being right . . .       )

        (                                       )

        (                  -Thomas Paine 1776-  )

        ----------------------------------------

bbradburry(at)bellsouth.n
Guest

Posted: Sat Apr 04, 2009 8:36 pm Post subject: Odyssey Battery Alternative

Talk about your bang for the buck!

I am using the BB Battery.  The price is in the $30 range. The BP17-12 is

the same size as the 680 and weighs 13.5 lbs.  The BP20-12 is also the same

size and weighs 14.0 lbs. 



See the specs here:



http://www.bb-battery.com/productsbp.asp



Since I plan to change out one of my batteries each year, it doesn't make

sense to me to pay over $100 when I can pay under $50.



Bill B



--

dale.r(at)cox.net
Guest

Posted: Sat Apr 04, 2009 9:15 pm Post subject: Odyssey Battery Alternative

Bill Bradburry wrote:

 	  Quote: 	
		   



 Talk about your bang for the buck!

 I am using the BB Battery.  The price is in the $30 range. The BP17-12 is

 the same size as the 680 and weighs 13.5 lbs.  The BP20-12 is also the same

 size and weighs 14.0 lbs. 



 See the specs here:



 http://www.bb-battery.com/productsbp.asp



 Since I plan to change out one of my batteries each year, it doesn't make

 sense to me to pay over $100 when I can pay under $50.

   


	


Made in mainland  (PDRC) China?



Dale R.

ceengland(at)bellsouth.ne
Guest

Posted: Sun Apr 05, 2009 5:45 am Post subject: Odyssey Battery Alternative

Dale Rogers wrote:

 	  Quote: 	

 Bill Bradburry wrote:

> 

> <bbradburry(at)bellsouth.net>

>

> Talk about your bang for the buck!

> I am using the BB Battery.  The price is in the $30 range. The 

> BP17-12 is

> the same size as the 680 and weighs 13.5 lbs.  The BP20-12 is also 

> the same

> size and weighs 14.0 lbs.

> See the specs here:

>

> http://www.bb-battery.com/productsbp.asp

>

> Since I plan to change out one of my batteries each year, it doesn't 

> make

> sense to me to pay over $100 when I can pay under $50.

>   

 Made in mainland  (PDRC) China?

 Dale R. 

If this is intended to be a political question, it begs another. Have 

you bought any gas for your plane or car lately (terrorism)? Or 

virtually any other consumer product (China again)?

I think that it's instructional that around 50 years of economic 

isolation of Cuba has left it virtually unchanged in it's government, 

economy or human rights. While after 30 years of trade with China it 

isn't 'free', but it's a lot closer than it was 30 years ago, and its 

people are certainly a bit better off economically.

I have an 'alternative' view of this stuff. I think that change must 

come from within, & if you want to have external influence, the best way 

to drive it is to let the citizens see how good it *could* be, with 

better government.

Charlie

echristley(at)nc.rr.com
Guest

Posted: Sun Apr 05, 2009 8:55 am Post subject: Odyssey Battery Alternative

Charlie England wrote:

 	  Quote: 	

 <ceengland(at)bellsouth.net>

 Dale Rogers wrote:

>

> Made in mainland  (PDRC) China?

>

> Dale R.

 I have an 'alternative' view of this stuff. I think that change must 

 come from within, & if you want to have external influence, the best 

 way to drive it is to let the citizens see how good it *could* be, 

 with better government.

 Charlie

Heh, Charlie, to drive home that point and bring it back around to 

aviation, someone asked that Russian guy that defected to the US with 

one of their MiGs about what made him do it.  I can't remember his name, 

but I remember that with all the propaganda the government showed him 

depicting how terrible it was to live in American cities, he couldn't 

get past the question of who owned all those cars.

The largest, strongest oak tree will always rot from the inside.

-- 

http://www.ernest.isa-geek.org

dale.r(at)cox.net
Guest

Posted: Sun Apr 05, 2009 7:29 pm Post subject: Odyssey Battery Alternative

Charlie England wrote:

 	  Quote: 	
		   Dale Rogers wrote:

> Made in mainland  (PDRC) China?



 If this is intended to be a political question, it begs another. Have 

 you bought any gas for your plane or car lately (terrorism)? Or 

 virtually any other consumer product (China again)?



 I think that it's instructional that around 50 years of economic 

 isolation of Cuba has left it virtually unchanged in it's government, 

 economy or human rights. While after 30 years of trade with China it 

 isn't 'free', but it's a lot closer than it was 30 years ago, and its 

 people are certainly a bit better off economically.



 I have an 'alternative' view of this stuff. I think that change must 

 come from within, & if you want to have external influence, the best 

 way to drive it is to let the citizens see how good it *could* be, 

 with better government.

Charlie,
	




It wasn't ~intended~ to be "political" - more of a QA issue.

There's been a lot of contaminated product coming from the

PRC.  I've seen a lot of poor quality hardware (tools, shop

equipment, electronics) coming from there.  Dunno if I want

my electric-dependent airplane to rely on a battery coming

from such an environment.



Best regards,

Dale R.

Speedy11(at)aol.com
Guest

Posted: Mon Apr 06, 2009 5:30 am Post subject: Odyssey Battery Alternative

Well said, Dale.

 The rest of us knew what you meant.

 Stan Sutterfield

 Do not archive

  

  	  Quote: 	
		  Charlie    England wrote:

 	  Quote: 	
		   Dale Rogers wrote:

> Made in mainland     (PDRC) China?



 If this is intended to be a political question,    it begs another. Have 

 you bought any gas for your plane or car lately    (terrorism)? Or 

 virtually any other consumer product (China    again)?



 I think that it's instructional that around 50 years    of economic 

 isolation of Cuba has left it virtually unchanged in it's    government, 

 economy or human rights. While after 30 years of trade    with China it 

 isn't 'free', but it's a lot closer than it was 30    years ago, and its 

 people are certainly a bit better off    economically.



 I have an 'alternative' view of this stuff. I    think that change must 

 come from within, & if you want to have    external influence, the best 

 way to drive it is to let the citizens    see how good it *could* be, 

 with better    government.

Charlie,
	




It wasn't ~intended~ to be "political" - more    of a QA issue.

There's been a lot of contaminated product coming from    the

PRC.  I've seen a lot of poor quality hardware (tools,    shop

equipment, electronics) coming from there.  Dunno if I want

my    electric-dependent airplane to rely on a battery coming

from such an    environment.



Best regards,

Dale R. 	


 

  

 Worried about job security? Check out the 5 safest jobs in a recession.

nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelect
Guest

Posted: Mon Apr 06, 2009 5:31 am Post subject: Odyssey Battery Alternative

At 10:28 PM 4/5/2009, you wrote:

 	  Quote: 	

Charlie England wrote:

>Dale Rogers wrote:

>>Made in mainland  (PDRC) China?

>

>If this is intended to be a political question, it begs another. 

>Have you bought any gas for your plane or car lately (terrorism)? 

>Or virtually any other consumer product (China again)?

>

>I think that it's instructional that around 50 years of economic 

>isolation of Cuba has left it virtually unchanged in it's 

>government, economy or human rights. While after 30 years of trade 

>with China it isn't 'free', but it's a lot closer than it was 30 

>years ago, and its people are certainly a bit better off economically.

>

>I have an 'alternative' view of this stuff. I think that change 

>must come from within, & if you want to have external influence, 

>the best way to drive it is to let the citizens see how good it 

>*could* be, with better government.

Charlie,

It wasn't ~intended~ to be "political" - more of a QA issue.

There's been a lot of contaminated product coming from the

PRC.  I've seen a lot of poor quality hardware (tools, shop

equipment, electronics) coming from there.  Dunno if I want

my electric-dependent airplane to rely on a battery coming

from such an environment.

   Point taken. However, recall there was a time

   when "Made in Japan" labels gave one pause. We

   had some discussions here on the List about Harbor

   Fright's quality. Bottom line is that for any emerging

   technology, process or manufacturing culture, there

   will ALWAYS be those who's ambitions exceed their

   capabilities or willingness to accomplish the best-we-

   know-how-to-do. Shucks we see this today with "Made in

   USA" products. Why should we be having startup brownout

   discussions on otherwise perfectly wonderful appliances?

   Folks who rely on ANY words on any label to do a trade

   study are at risk for being disappointed. At the same

   time, those who automatically reject any product based

   on perceptions of a class of manufacturers are at

   risk of expending $time$ with poor return on investment.

   Folks who promulgate product avoidance based on

   culture are doing a disservice to those within that

   culture who are honestly striving to be competitive.

   Competition: the free market principal that brought us

   monster ram for pennies, gigaflop processors for

   dollars and $100 hand-helds that will find your

   driveway in zero-zero fog.

   I've seen stuff at H.F. that I wouldn't buy. I have

   a number of H.F. machine tools in my shop that service

   my needs nicely. A $350 lathe paid for itself in the

   first job! That was 7 years ago and it's still doing

   what I need done within limits of its design.

   Discussions here on the List can add the most value

   for its members by evaluating specific products from

   ANY source based on demonstrated price/performance

   benchmarks. Advice that paints a product with a brush

   dipped into cultural perceptions is demonstrably lacking

   in foundation and places top performers in that culture

   at a capriciously invented disadvantage.

   Further, while we may have disagreements with and

   even have reason to be fearful of governments (our

   own not withstanding!) recall that there are folks

   who design, build and sell products from all parts

   of the world who would probably like to be building an

   airplane in THEIR garage too.

   Finally, if it's a part with failure implications for an

   uncomfortable arrival with the earth . . . isn't

   that why failure tolerance is among our design goals?

        Bob . . .

        ----------------------------------------)

        ( . . .  a long habit of not thinking   )

        ( a thing wrong, gives it a superficial )

        ( appearance of being right . . .       )

        (                                       )

        (                  -Thomas Paine 1776-  )

        ----------------------------------------

longg(at)pjm.com
Guest

Posted: Mon Apr 06, 2009 6:50 am Post subject: Odyssey Battery Alternative

Bob,  

   

Thanks for the dissertation on batteries J Actually this is very helpful. If dry cell or sealed batteries are indeed using the same old technology as the slosh type, then the extra $$ are indeed a complete waste of money, yes?   

   

I suppose they do a bit of marketing with the carbon fibre casings etc., but is there no better mouse trap hiding in there somewhere? I do not have the Braille factory specs, but that would be an interesting read. My main interest is their lower weight and smaller size. That takes more than marketing. There is nothing to say the BB battery at < $50 would not provide the same performance albeit without the lower internal resistance. I may be confused, but isn’t cranking power what we want in batteries? When it’s 10 degrees outside and I’ve had my ship plugged in for 30 minutes, I don’t want to hear ra-ra-ra after just one try. If they can boost cranking power by 30 percent, why wouldn’t you want that? If I lived in Southern CA, perhaps I wouldn’t care. A mission specific thing.  

   

The experience of one of our builders has shown that turning on the avionics 5 minutes before starting has disabled the Odyssey’s ability to the point where it will not provide enough cranking power to turn over the engine. He flies a Jabaru 230 with the Jabaru 6-cylinder engine. I have not put a meter on the draw (I will), but I did learn that he has two GRT displays installed which require a heartbeat be maintained from the battery at all times. As you may know the GRT does not support internal battery backup directly.  

   

I already own an Odyssey and I’m not going to toss it in the trash but I will meter it and report on its performance later. Nevertheless, I will add a second battery to feed the Aux bus and the dual Lightspeed ignition in the event the rest of Z-13/8 fails to co-operate while flying over the airplane eating PA woods at night.  

   

Glenn  

       

From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Robert L. Nuckolls, III

 Sent: Saturday, April 04, 2009 10:07 AM

 To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com

 Subject: Re: Odyssey Battery Alternative  

  

  

   

At 07:28 AM 4/4/2009, you wrote:

 

   

--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Ralph E. Capen" <recapen(at)earthlink.net>

 

 Thanks,

 

 Definitely something to think about when it becomes replacement time.  My 680 is brand new - I replaced a four year old one that I had beaten up pretty hard during the construction process.  The new one seems to do fine at the present - but I keep a Battery Hawk on it between flights so it's always topped off.  



   Why did you replace it? Was it sent to recycle because

   it's capacity had fallen below your e-bus run-time benchmark

   or because it didn't crank the engine any more?

 

   This thread started with the following statements:

 

 

 "Several of our hangar members have been experiencing trouble with reserve power using the popular Odyssey 680 battery. If running avionics and the like prior to starting (even briefly), the reserve power on these things really take a hit."

 

 "I am not a huge fan of jump starting an aircraft or starting on reduced voltage when my craft is already electrically dependent and the taking off into a emergency situation with less than full reserve."

 

 "Recently I found an option which has more cranking amps, (better A.H. value and about the same weight (or less). Albeit slightly more expensive, they may offer a good alternative for 680 users who find their batteries run down a bit too fast for their liking."

 

   "Reserve power" speaks to watt-seconds of energy

   contained when fully charged. This is closely

   related to the battery's rated capacity in Ampere-

   Hours although apparent capacity can vary widely 

   depending on loads due to the battery's internal

   losses (conduction = 1/resistance). Double the

   load on a battery and internal losses go up by

   a factor of 4.

 

   The terms "briefly" and "really takes a hit"

   are not quantified. Nor were the pre-cranking loads

   for operation of "running avionics and the like".

   So we're not privy to the numbers that define

   expected/desired battery performance. We also

   don't know the numbers that drove perceptions

   of "experiencing trouble".

 

   My words are not intended to cause anyone discomfort

   but it is helpful to understand the numbers behind

   a proposed exchange of product. Then each of you

   needs to decide how the exchange will improve on

   your personal expectations for system performance

   and the amount of $time$ you're willing to expend

   as a cost of ownership.

 

   The Braille batteries appear to have been fine

   tuned for lower internal resistance. This is 

   suggested by the greater "cranking" or "pulse"

   current ratings. But in terms of capacity, watt-seconds

   of energy stored is pretty much set by how many

   pounds of reactants (lead) is in the battery.

   Indeed, their a.h. ratings/pound of product weight

   are right in line with everybody else's products.

 

   They speak to the "conductance" test and something

   new . . . which it is not. The test is easily 

   performed with modern "battery analyzers". An

   example of this instrument can be seen at:

 

 http://www.midtronics.com/default.asp

 

   where we find no less than 15 different models

   of device selling for hundreds of dollars. What

   your buying with these capable instruments is

   convenience of light weight, compact size,

   digital readout, and perhaps some predictions

   of service-life. However, the data gathered

   is the same as that which you would get from

   this piece of arcane technology from Harbor

   Freight for about $60.

 

 http://aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Battery_Testers/HF91129_4.jpg

 

   The later device requires some understanding

   and skill but ultimately is a BETTER measure

   of cranking performance because the test loads

   are REAL and not extrapolated from short, pulsed

   values in the digital instrument.

 

   What does internal resistance (reciprocal of

   conductance) have to do with capacity? Nothing.

   Capacity is related to pounds of chemistry

   available to store energy. The efficiency with

   which that energy can be extracted for useful

   purposes IS affected by internal resistance. 

   This is discussed in some detail in the battery

   chapter update published at:

 

 http://aeroelectric.com/R12A/02_Battery_12A2.pdf

 

   Without knowing the nature and magnitude of 

   "experiencing trouble" which drives the decision

   to seek a more robust battery, we're not able

   to advance this deliberation based on physics

   and comparative measurements. I can only hypothesize

   as follows:

 

   The perceptions of poor battery performance are

   probably based on a pre-cranking battery load

   that is unnecessarily large. Without an e-bus

   and the ability to get your ATIS data and

   a departure clearance, then flipping on the

   battery master burdens the battery with loads

   that far exceed present requirements.

 

   Keep in mind too that the energy required to

   get a well tuned engine started is but a few

   percent of a battery's capacity. This battery

   voltage/current curve . . .

 

 http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Curves/turbine_start_a.jpg

 

   was taken from a Beechjet engine start. It

   begins with over 800A and tapers to 300A

   over a period of 27 seconds. After all that

   abuse, the battery is tapped for perhaps 6%

   of contained energy.  I agree that we're

   comparing apples and oranges with respect to

   types of engines and design goals for two

   vastly different airplanes. But I'll suggest

   that if somebody is having trouble getting

   and engine started -OR- has seriously depleted

   a battery during pre-flight operations because

   of loads imposed before the alternator comes

   on line . . . a serious reevaluation of design

   goals and operating procedures is called for.

 

   Back to the Braille battery product.

   They probably do conform to marketing hype

   concerning a lower internal resistance. This

   is easily demonstrated with and instrument not

   unlike the Harbor Freight device cited above.

  

   Now the question: What does the more expensive

   battery buy you in terms of cost of ownership?

   Now that you've installed the Lexus of batteries,

   how are you going to modify your rules of 

   ownership and operation for the purpose of meeting

   design goals for your airplane? Are you going to

   do periodic capacity checks to make well

   considered decisions as to when the battery

   needs replacing? Is it a reasonable expectation

   that $time$ to maintain plust $time$ to buy the

   higher price battery will be SMALLER than $time$

   to buy an el-cheepo battery and replace it

   every year?

 

   Finally, rushing off to buy this premium

   battery product may not get you the same

   return on investment expected by those who are

   "experiencing trouble" with their current

   battery choices. Without an analysis of how

   their disappointment arises, there's no

   guarantee that YOUR purchase of the more

   robust battery will produce a good return

   on your investment.

 

   Bob . . .

      	  Quote: 	
		    http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List 	
0 	  Quote: 	
		   	
1 	  Quote: 	
		   	
2 	  Quote: 	
		   	
3 	  Quote: 	
		   	
4 	  Quote: 	
		   	
5 	  Quote: 	
		   	
6 	  Quote: 	
		   	
7 	  Quote: 	
		   	
8 	  Quote: 	
		   	
9

      [quote][b]

ceengland(at)bellsouth.ne
Guest

Posted: Mon Apr 06, 2009 9:38 am Post subject: Odyssey Battery Alternative

From: Dale Rogers <dale.r(at)cox.net>

To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com

Sent: Sunday, April 5, 2009 10:28:08 PM

Subject: Re: Odyssey Battery Alternative

 --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Dale Rogers <dale.r(at)cox.net (dale.r(at)cox.net)>

Charlie England wrote:

 	  Quote: 	
		   Dale Rogers wrote:

> Made in mainland  (PDRC) China?

 If this is intended to be a political question, it begs another. Have you bought any gas for your plane or car lately (terrorism)? Or virtually any other consumer product (China again)?

 I think that it's instructional that around 50 years of economic isolation of Cuba has left it virtually unchanged in it's government, economy or human rights. While after 30 years of trade with China it isn't 'free', but it's a lot closer than it was 30 years ago, and its people are certainly a bit better off economically.

 I have an 'alternative' view of this stuff. I think that change must come from within, & if you want to have external influence, the best way to  drive it is to let the citizens see how good it *could* be, with better government.

Charlie,

It wasn't ~intended~ to be "political" - more of a QA issue.

There's been a lot of contaminated product coming from the

PRC.  I've seen a lot of poor quality hardware (tools, shop

equipment, electronics) coming from there.  Dunno if I want

my electric-dependent airplane to rely on a battery coming

from such an environment.

Best regards,

Dale R.

Ahh, yes, that makes sense; sorry for the misunderstanding. I wonder where the higher priced ones are made. 

One thing I did notice is that the internal resistance is rather high; from something like 11 to 16 mOhms. IIRC, the Odessey is closer to 6 mOhms. I'm using a similarly rated battery in my RV-4 (Lyc O-320) & it cranks 'ok' but I doubt it would be up to the task on a hi compression IO360.

Charlie

 [quote][b]

nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelect
Guest

Posted: Mon Apr 06, 2009 10:03 am Post subject: Odyssey Battery Alternative

At 09:48 AM 4/6/2009, you wrote:

 	  Quote: 	
		  Bob,



Thanks for the dissertation on batteries J Actually this is very 

helpful. If dry cell or sealed batteries are indeed using the same 

old technology as the slosh type, then the extra $$ are indeed a 

complete waste of money, yes?


	


   No. All lead-acid batteries use lead, lead dioxide, lead sulfate,

   sulfuric acid and water to craft a reversible electrical energy

   storage system.



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lead-acid_battery



    Fabrication methods that exploit this reaction have seen

    huge evolutionary steps since the time that Plante'

    first described the phenomenon in 1859 (before the

    civil war!)



    Even during my short experience with lead-acid

    technology (my first car was a 6v, '41 Pontiac

    acquired in 1961) we've see amazing improvements

    in robusness, volumetric efficiency, electrical

    efficiency, ease of integration and cost of

    ownership for this venerable process.



 	  Quote: 	
		  I suppose they do a bit of marketing with the carbon fibre casings 

etc., but is there no better mouse trap hiding in there somewhere? I 

do not have the Braille factory specs, but that would be an 

interesting read. My main interest is their lower weight and smaller 

size. That takes more than marketing. There is nothing to say the BB 

battery at < $50 would not provide the same performance albeit 

without the lower internal resistance. I may be confused, but isn't 

cranking power what we want in batteries? When it's 10 degrees 

outside and I've had my ship plugged in for 30 minutes, I don't want 

to hear ra-ra-ra after just one try. If they can boost cranking 

power by 30 percent, why wouldn't you want that? If I lived in 

Southern CA, perhaps I wouldn't care. A mission specific thing.


	


    You're speaking in non-quantified concerns, conditions

    and design goals. Yes, it's probably a given that a

    $200 battery has features justifying its increases

    in cost over a $50 battery of the same capacity. Do

    you need and/or can you exploit a 30% increase in cranking

    power? If you arbitrarily say "yes" . . . then perhaps

    an upgrade to Braille products is selling your design

    goals short. How about a ni-cad? Those are super cranking

    batteries . . . but they have trade-offs.

 	  Quote: 	
		  

The experience of one of our builders has shown that turning on the 

avionics 5 minutes before starting has disabled the Odyssey's 

ability to the point where it will not provide enough cranking power 

to turn over the engine. He flies a Jabaru 230 with the Jabaru 

6-cylinder engine. I have not put a meter on the draw (I will), but 

I did learn that he has two GRT displays installed which require a 

heartbeat be maintained from the battery at all times. As you may 

know the GRT does not support internal battery backup directly.


	


   Okay. What is the capacity of the battery he's using?

   How large are his avionics loads? Is he just running

   the necessary electro-whizzies for pre-flight . . .

   or is the whole panel lit up? 5 minutes is a long

   time to set there with the panel all lit up. This battery

   is supposed to carry e-bus loads for how long? Minutes,

   an hour? THREE hours?



   Your narrative doesn't inform us sufficiently to offer

   considered advice. If a 5-minute panel load is degrading

   cranking performance, the FIRST question can be answered

   only by capacity and load testing the battery. There's

   a high probability that his battery is trashed. But if

   his panel loads are say, 50 amps . . . AND assuming that

   the 5-minute pre-flight ops are part of his design

   goals, then let's see . . .



   The PC680 is rated for 7 milliohms internal resistance

   and a 20 hour capacity of 17 a.h. We don't have performance

   curves for the PC680 but the ratings are similar to this

   battery . . .



http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Curves/17AH_12V_Capacity_vs_Load.gif



   Gee, 50A of panel load is going whack the battery pretty

   hard in 5 minutes. Okay how about a 17A panel load. Hmmm . . .

   5 minutes of operation should leave plenty of snort to

   crank the engine. Lighter loads are still more attractive.

 	  Quote: 	
		  

I already own an Odyssey and I'm not going to toss it in the trash 

but I will meter it and report on its performance later. 

Nevertheless, I will add a second battery to feed the Aux bus and 

the dual Lightspeed ignition in the event the rest of Z-13/8 fails 

to co-operate while flying over the airplane eating PA woods at night.


	


   If that design philosophy assuages your concerns, by

   all means. My point is that these systems operate

   based on easily deduced and interpreted numbers.

   Just for grins, if you do have a capacity meter,

   fully charge your battery, do a standard preflight,

   crank the engine . . . say twice without turning

   the alternator on. Shut everything down and THEN

   do a capacity test at the discharge level appropriate

   to your endurance loads.



   If you find that the system falls short on design

   goals, perhaps you DO need a different battery . . .

   but the upgrade may have more to do with CAPACITY

   than it does with getting the engine started. Given

   that were comparing TWO 17 a.h. batteries, perhaps

   the upgrade you're anticipating would have an

   exceedingly poor return on investment.



   It concerns me that with two engine-driven power

   sources, a battery with an exemplar reputation,

   and some form of metering for battery condition

   that you're still not comfortable with the as-installed

   system. This suggests that you've not created, tested

   and are maintaining a plan-a, plan-b, plan-c approach

   to failures. This leaves you in the unhappy position

   of (1) constantly worrying; a lack of confidence

   based on lack of knowledge and (2) being ready to buy some

   new electro-whizzy because of some perceived incremental

   increase in performance described in their 4-color

   marketing brochures.



   Bob . . .

kuffel(at)cyberport.net
Guest

Posted: Mon Apr 06, 2009 2:04 pm Post subject: Odyssey Battery Alternative

Don't understand the problem with PC-680 batteries.  This is the type 

supplied by Glasair for their Sportsman kits.  No-one has reported any 

similar experience.  Glenn said his friend has two GRTs with the need for a 

keep alive clock current.  Can't find a specification on the GRT web site 

for this current but most circuits of this type use about 1 ma.  But suppose 

the current is 10 ma.  In this case if he hasn't flown in a while this load 

could significantly deplete the battery (over 10 amp-hours) in only 3 weeks. 

At least it is worth measuring to determine if this is part of the problem.



Tom Kuffel

nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelect
Guest

Posted: Mon Apr 06, 2009 5:36 pm Post subject: Odyssey Battery Alternative

At 04:29 PM 4/6/2009, you wrote:

 	  Quote: 	
		  



Don't understand the problem with PC-680 batteries.  This is the 

type supplied by Glasair for their Sportsman kits.  No-one has 

reported any similar experience.  Glenn said his friend has two GRTs 

with the need for a keep alive clock current.  Can't find a 

specification on the GRT web site for this current but most circuits 

of this type use about 1 ma.  But suppose the current is 10 ma.  In 

this case if he hasn't flown in a while this load could 

significantly deplete the battery (over 10 amp-hours) in only 3 

weeks. At least it is worth measuring to determine if this is part 

of the problem.



Tom Kuffel


	


   The thread started with an observation that one or more

   folks where having trouble getting their engine started

   after a 5 minute pre-starting load of unknown magnitude.



   An idea was proposed that a particular brand of

   battery might be a good replacement. It was advertised

   to have greater cranking capability.



   This isn't about the goodness of one battery or the

   badness of another. It's about KNOWING what the

   design goals are and then deducing why they're

   not being met. The original problem may be no more

   profound than the fact that PC680 was shot. Without

   getting the numbers, all the rest is conversation.



        Bob . . .



        ----------------------------------------)

        ( . . .  a long habit of not thinking   )

        ( a thing wrong, gives it a superficial )

        ( appearance of being right . . .       )

        (                                       )

        (                  -Thomas Paine 1776-  )

        ----------------------------------------

mwcreek(at)frontiernet.ne
Guest

Posted: Mon Apr 06, 2009 7:09 pm Post subject: Odyssey Battery Alternative

Forgive me for adding more "conversation", but 680's have performed well for

me.



I use a PC-680 on an O-540 installation.  I'm on the second 680 and both

have performed well.  I trashed the first one during the building process by

hitting it with 15 or so full discharges after leaving the master on.  Then

I overcharged it numerous times with a non-maintaining car charger. It still

started the 540 but was getting weak after two months of flying.  I put in

the second one and it just goes and goes even on cold morning starts. I have

to say it has plenty of reserve, but I haven't measured how much. 



Mike  



--

Display posts from previous:

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

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