|
Matronics Email Lists Web Forum Interface to the Matronics Email Lists
|
View previous topic :: View next topic |
Author |
Message |
nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelect Guest
|
Posted: Mon Oct 12, 2009 4:00 pm Post subject: Diodes vs. Bi-Directional Zeners for Contactors |
|
|
At 01:00 PM 10/12/2009, you wrote:
Quote: |
<colyncase(at)earthlink.net>
Bob,
I agree with you about being prepared for any contactor to fail and
not to be overly concerned about that. A failure that results in
not being able to operate the contactor should not in itself be a
hazard to flight.
However, a failure that results in smoke, although in other ways
benign, is undesirable.
|
The fact that you've identified a potential for smoke
suggests a point of concern in your failure mode
effects analysis . . .
Quote: | I would be interested in what happens to the coil circuit as a
function of the failure mode of the suppression device. If it
fails open, so what, you lost some suppression. If it fails closed
I think you get a dead short on the coil circuit, in other words
the wire that goes to your starter key and to ground.
|
Okay, now what?
Quote: | On my airplane, I don't have that circuit fused, reasoning that the
coil itself is going to melt down before the wire does. but if you
put a device in parallel with the coil and it shorts, then depending
on the characteristics of the device you've got smoke in the cockpit.
|
We've never fused that circuit in a whole lot
of airplanes . . . generally, such prophylactics
are set aside when risks are perceived to be
insignificant . . . like 10 to the minus 6
failures per flight hour or better. Given a demonstrated
history that confirms that analysis then perhaps
we can benefit from lessons-learned shared our brethren
on the TC side of the house.
Quote: | So either you have to choose a device which you are pretty sure is
going to fail open, or you need to fuse that circuit, right? (I
don't see a fuse shown in the diagrams in the appendix).
|
Yup, you've read the schematics correctly. But if you
find that philosophy, suite of design goals and
demonstrated service histories uncomfortable,
please don't fly an airplane that offers you any
discomfort. Fuses are cheap.
Bob . . .
---------------------------------------
( . . . a long habit of not thinking )
( a thing wrong, gives it a superficial )
( appearance of being right . . . )
( )
( -Thomas Paine 1776- )
---------------------------------------
| - The Matronics AeroElectric-List Email Forum - | | Use the List Feature Navigator to browse the many List utilities available such as the Email Subscriptions page, Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ, Photoshare, and much more:
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List |
|
|
|
Back to top |
|
|
nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelect Guest
|
Posted: Tue Oct 13, 2009 12:24 pm Post subject: Diodes vs. Bi-Directional Zeners for Contactors |
|
|
At 11:58 AM 10/13/2009, you wrote:
Quote: |
TYCO's document at
http://relays.tycoelectronics.com/appnotes/app_pdfs/13c3311.pdf
says, "It is the velocity of the armature that is most affected by
coil suppression. If the suppressor provides a conducting path, thus
allowing the stored energy in the relay's magnetic circuit to decay
slowly, the armature motion will be retarded and the armature may
even temporarily reverse direction."
TYCO's document seemed credible until the above paragraph.
|
<snip>
Quote: | I agree with Bob. The TYCO article is BS.
|
Very astute observations sir. And they
agree with my own . . . along with conditions
I measured on the bench. Drop-out
delay is strongly influenced by current
decay in the coil when the armature is
seated. Contact spreading velocity is a
function of BOTH coil current AND
the AIR-GAP in the magnetic path once the
armature becomes unseated. An air gap in
any magnetic pathway has a huge effect. Reverse
direction? Yeah, right.
So once you allow coil current to fall
just enough to unseat the armature, the rate
at which the armature accelerates is more
strongly influenced by the air-gap than
by decay in magnetic field. I WAS able to
detect perhaps 2 or 3% increase in spreading
velocity for "fancy" versus "hammer-n-tongs"
coil suppression . . . too small to be
significant terms of service life.
I also used a fast 'scope to observe differences
in arcing during the contact break without
and then with various coil suppression techniques.
Yes, there were differences. So small and so
variable that I couldn't hang my hat on coil
suppression as having any observable effect
on service life of the CONTACTORS and LARGE
RELAYS under investigation.
These simple-ideas can be observed and
combinational effects duplicated . . . as
well they should be. It's the repeatable
experiment that determines whether you
have a souffle, scrambled-eggs and cheese,
or garbage.
Your attention to detail sir is commendable.
Bob . . .
| - The Matronics AeroElectric-List Email Forum - | | Use the List Feature Navigator to browse the many List utilities available such as the Email Subscriptions page, Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ, Photoshare, and much more:
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List |
|
|
|
Back to top |
|
|
|
|
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
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
|