Matronics Email Lists :: View topic - Electrical System Schematic Review

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

Electrical System Schematic Review

Matronics Email Lists Forum Index -> AeroElectric-List

View previous topic :: View next topic

Author Message

jonlaury

Joined: 06 Nov 2006
Posts: 336

Posted: Tue Jul 20, 2010 10:12 am Post subject: Electrical System Schematic Review

I would appreciate anyone's comments on my electrical schematic.

I'm unsure about the placement of the over voltage module for the Ground Power jack. I used a single post continuous duty contactor which I had and it necessitated some changes in Bob's Z-31 drawing.



Thanks

John

Z13-8Q MINE.pdf

Description:

Download

Filename:

Z13-8Q MINE.pdf

Filesize:

242.74 KB

Downloaded:

412 Time(s)

retasker(at)optonline.net
Guest

Posted: Tue Jul 20, 2010 10:43 am Post subject: Electrical System Schematic Review

For some reason I can only see page two of the PDF - cutting off some 

portion to the left of the main battery bus on your schematic.  Page one 

is blank.



Dick Tasker



jonlaury wrote:

 	  Quote: 	
		   



 I would appreciate anyone's comments on my electrical schematic.

 I'm unsure about the placement of the over voltage module for the Ground Power jack. I used a single post continuous duty contactor which I had and it necessitated some changes in Bob's Z-31 drawing.



 Thanks

 John





 Read this topic online here:



 http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=305607#305607





 Attachments:



 http://forums.matronics.com//files/z13_8q_mine_155.pdf

jonlaury

Joined: 06 Nov 2006
Posts: 336

Posted: Tue Jul 20, 2010 11:02 am Post subject: Re: Electrical System Schematic Review

I know what happened. I'll put it up again.

J

user9253

Joined: 28 Mar 2008
Posts: 1921
Location: Riley TWP Michigan

Posted: Wed Jul 21, 2010 4:25 am Post subject: Re: Electrical System Schematic Review

The crowbar over-voltage module needs to be in parallel with contactor coil, not in series as drawn.  The way that it is now and in the event of an over-voltage condition, even if the module shorts out, the circuit breaker will not trip because the contactor coil will limit the current.  Another way to look at is, if the over-voltage module is replaced with a solid piece of wire, the contactor will still function and the circuit breaker will not trip.

  Also, the diode needs to be in series with the contactor coil to prevent reverse polarity damage from the ground power.  See Bob's drawing Z-31B.

Joe

http://www.aeroelectric.com/PPS/Adobe_Architecture_Pdfs/Z31K.pdf

_________________
Joe Gores

jonlaury

Joined: 06 Nov 2006
Posts: 336

Posted: Thu Jul 22, 2010 10:08 am Post subject: Re: Electrical System Schematic Review

 	  user9253 wrote: 	
		  ...

  Also, the diode needs to be in series with the contactor coil to prevent reverse polarity damage from the ground power.  See Bob's drawing Z-31B.

Joe

http://www.aeroelectric.com/PPS/Adobe_Architecture_Pdfs/Z31K.pdf 	




Joe,



I'm doing a separate post of my schematic revisions, titled ...RevA, B, etc.



Made the correction re the OVM.



Re Diodes



Because I'm using a continuous duty contactor with one 8-32 coil post, as drawn, I asked about placement and orientation. Bob N responded 

" The banded end of the diode connects to the

"BAT" terminal of the contactor which in turn

faces incoming power from the ground power

connector." 

I thought that my schematic complied with Bob's suggestion???

Is the second diode on the wire to the switch breaker superfluous once the contactor diode is oriented/located properly?



Thanks,

John

user9253

Joined: 28 Mar 2008
Posts: 1921
Location: Riley TWP Michigan

Posted: Thu Jul 22, 2010 11:59 am Post subject: Re: Electrical System Schematic Review

 	  Quote: 	
		  Is the second diode on the wire to the switch breaker superfluous once the contactor diode is oriented/located properly? 	


John,

  Your GROUND POWER / ALT 2 contactor circuit is looking good now.  As for the diode, the one below the contactor going to the GND PWR 2 amp breaker, it is wired correctly and will protect against reverse polarity from an exterior battery.

  The other diode on the right side of the contactor does not serve any useful purpose that I can see.  It does not hurt anything, except that it is an unnecessary failure point.  If this diode was intended as a coil arc suppression diode, it is connected to the wrong contactor terminal.  It should have been connected where the O.V. module is now.  Not to worry about that, just get rid of that unnecessary diode because the O.V. module guards against voltage spikes.

  I agree that as long as the battery is not dead and the E-BUS ALT FEED switch is turned on, then the AUX Alternator should work and energize the contactor coil.

Joe

_________________
Joe Gores

jonlaury

Joined: 06 Nov 2006
Posts: 336

Posted: Fri Jul 23, 2010 8:29 am Post subject: Re: Electrical System Schematic Review

Joe, thanks.



The correction is on Rev. B that I'll post this morning.



I have one other question and then I think I've got this knocked.



From the Ebus alt feed contactor to the Ebus, there is a fusible link called for. My Ebus is fused at 30a at the battery bus and will run at about 20-24 amps and I'm using an 8AWG wire to keep temps down so the  fuse link would be a 12AWG. I think that I will put a 40a at the batt bus for the 8AWG protection and to give some head room for the Ebus. Would it be a better design to use  a 30a ANL current limiter in place of the 12AWG Fuselink?



John

nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelect
Guest

Posted: Fri Jul 23, 2010 11:12 am Post subject: Electrical System Schematic Review

At 11:29 AM 7/23/2010, you wrote:

 	  Quote: 	
		  



Joe, thanks.



The correction is on Rev. B that I'll post this morning.



I have one other question and then I think I've got this knocked.



 >From the Ebus alt feed contactor to the Ebus, there is a fusible 

 link called for. My Ebus is fused at 30a at the battery bus and 

 will run at about 20-24 amps and I'm using an 8AWG wire to keep 

 temps down so the  fuse link would be a 12AWG. I think that I will 

 put a 40a at the batt bus for the 8AWG protection and to give some 

 head room for the Ebus. Would it be a better design to use  a 30a 

 ANL current limiter in place of the 12AWG Fuselink?


	




    I thing the concept for an E-bus has run off

    into the weeds. The original idea for

    the e-bus was to craft a plan-b that offered

    an option for a system that would take you

    comfortably to airport of intended destination . . .

    battery only. When vacuum pumps started dropping

    like flies, we reasoned that e-bus loads could

    take a jump by supplementing a battery with

    an 8A engine driven power source. Even then,

    sizing of continuous operating loads during

    an alternator failure event was still LIMITED.

    A modicum of planning was necessary to craft the

    optimal plan-b.



    Your aux alternator is large enough to run

    all normal operating loads of 99% of all OBAM

    aircraft flying. Hence, the notion of segmenting

    electrical loads into "normal"  and "endurance"

    camps for the purpose optimizing battery-only

    operations is curious.



    With a 40A aux alternator one is inclined

    to run a battery until it croaks . . .

    If you're not running a battery maintenance

    program designed to maintain some required reserve

    capacity, then the whole idea of an e-bus is moot.



    Further, the notion of battery-only operations

    for a electrically dependent engine under the best

    of conditions is a scenario most system designers

    would rather not contemplate.



    I'll suggest you stand back and review the

    big picture. Consider something like Figure

    Z-12 and no e-bus. This is how hundreds of

    TC aircraft are configured to integrate robust

    alternators into the electrical system.



    Before you get deeply distracted with

    the details of what fuse or diode goes

    where, you need to Work through anticipated

    failure modes and see first how ARCHITECTURE

    mitigates those failures. Keep in mind that

    crafting a preventative maintenance plan

    unique to your needs marches hand-in-hand

    with architecture and sizing of hardware.



    I think you'll find that a Z-12 basis for

    your proposed system is simpler, easier to

    operate, and better suited to an airplane

    with an electrically dependent engine.



    Bob . . .

user9253

Joined: 28 Mar 2008
Posts: 1921
Location: Riley TWP Michigan

Posted: Fri Jul 23, 2010 1:57 pm Post subject: Re: Electrical System Schematic Review

 	  Quote: 	
		   Would it be a better design to use a 30a ANL current limiter in place of the 12AWG Fuselink? 	


Short answer is no.

The long answer is that I agree with Bob that the electrical system is much more heavy duty than most airplanes.  If you are sure that you need this redundancy for IFR over hostile terrain or whatever, then this is what I would do.  Get rid of the fuse at the battery bus and mount the E-Bus relay as close to the battery as possible and use a 14awg wire (fuselink) between the battery bus and the relay.  Put a 30amp ANL at the relay in series with 10awg to the E-bus.  I am not saying that this is the right way to do it, just the way that I would do it.  Your way will work too.  Keep in mind that it will difficult to blow a 40amp ANL fuse or even a 30 amp for that matter.  Use double insulation where the wire passes though the firewall or bulkheads and take care with the installation and a fuse will never blow, nor will there be smoke.  I am heading for OSH.

Joe

_________________
Joe Gores

jonlaury

Joined: 06 Nov 2006
Posts: 336

Posted: Sat Jul 24, 2010 10:37 am Post subject: Re: Electrical System Schematic Review

Bob and Joe,



OK,  I got kind of buried in the details and my goal became to build an absolutely bullet- proof redundant electrical system rather than one that is practical for my purposes. Also at work was a lack of confidence in my understanding of electrical theory and principle and a visceral notion that electricity is a mysterious, unpredictable serpent , so to compensate for that and to gain a level of comfort, I chose to just overbuild its cage.



After both of your responses and re-reading the purpose of Ebus, I see that somewhere along the development of my system, I came to view the Main bus as something that might “fail” and misconceived the Ebus as a back up. After discussion offline with a Glasair III builder (using Z-12) and Bob’s suggestion to “stand back and review the big picture” I can now reason that the MB has switches and fuses for every circuit and that my apprehension that, despite proper construction, it could crash altogether is simply unsupportable.



With the above in mind, Z-12 now seems elegantly appropriate for my needs and I will eliminate the Ebus altogether, per Bob’s suggestion. The one feature of my drawn architecture that deviates from Z-12 is the SB Alt B lead landing on the battery side of the MB contactor. I perceive that this will allow me to use the Generic Ford Regulator over the B&C SB-1 and eliminate the MB contactor as a single point of failure in the charging circuit. I seem to remember Bob recommending a mechanical lock out of the SB alt, if not using the SB-1?? 



Z-12 w- SB ALT contactor is attached.

Z12 w-SB ALT contactor.pdf

Description:

Download

Filename:

Z12 w-SB ALT contactor.pdf

Filesize:

452.4 KB

Downloaded:

406 Time(s)

nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelect
Guest

Posted: Sat Jul 24, 2010 12:10 pm Post subject: Electrical System Schematic Review

At 01:37 PM 7/24/2010, you wrote:

 	  Quote: 	
		  



Bob and Joe,



OK,  I got kind of buried in the details and my 

goal became to build an absolutely bullet- proof 

redundant electrical system rather than one that is practical for my purposes.


	


    I hope you don't feel that this has been a "wasted" exercise.

    The elegant solution is like a fine wine. Not only are the

    choices of simple-ideas large and varied, the time that it

    takes to hypothesize, assemble and consider the results doesn't

    happen like magic. In fact, one must be wary of new designs

    offered by anyone in any discipline until that caution is

    displaced by understanding.



    I'm going into production on the 9024 series devices after

    perhaps a year of mulling over the options . . . and I've

    been doing this for a long time. The B&C starter was over

    6 years in development. I can probably recall many more

    examples of how the roots of many products run deep in

    man-years of preparation.



 	  Quote: 	
		  With the above in mind, Z-12 now seems elegantly 

appropriate for my needs and I will eliminate 

the Ebus altogether, per Bob’s suggestion. The 

one feature of my drawn architecture that 

deviates from Z-12 is the SB Alt B lead landing 

on the battery side of the MB contactor. I 

perceive that this will allow me to use the 

Generic Ford Regulator over the B&C SB-1 and 

eliminate the MB contactor as a single point of 

failure in the charging circuit. I seem to 

remember Bob recommending a mechanical lock out 

of the SB alt, if not using the SB-1??


	


    Not sure where that might have come from. Note that Z-12

    as published is illustrative and demonstrative of a minimalist

    approach to adding robust aux alternators to a TC aircraft. Note

    that unlike the rest of the z-figures, Z-12 shows breakers on

    the bus as opposed to fuse blocks. A Z-12 for new design where

    crowbar ov protection is proposed might lean toward fuse blocks

    but take both B-leads to fat wires under the cowl through

    current limiters. Of course, the field supply leads still need

    breakers . . . run a 20 pair of 18AWG feeders protected with

    22AWG fusible links to their respective alternator control switches.



    This might be a Z11-1/2 where you simply add a second alternator

    that needs only one more switch (field supply) on the panel.

    Eliminate the e-bus. Run ALL electrically dependent engine

    loads from the battery bus.



    In further "stirring of simple-ideas" I note that another

    feature of the e-bus is a plan-b for dealing with a

    battery contactor failure. These are rare and can

    probably become still more rare if fitted with

    power a management module to reduce operating temperature.

    Even so, we could consider tying your aux alternator b-lead

    to the battery side of the contactor with a Schottky diode

    to isolate the always-hot, fat wire between battery and

    alternator. In this case, you'd also need to power the

    aux alternator field from the battery bus. This variant

    would cover the failed-contactor scenario.



    Let me ponder this some more. Take a whack at implementing

    this using your current CAD skills. By the way, good work

    with the CAD drawings.



    I'm pretty certain that we're boiling the options down

    toward the essence of an elegant solution. The

    40A aux alternator offers a Z-12 like architecture

    that accommodates more demanding engine support

    loads.



    Bob . . .



 	  Quote: 	
		  Z-12 w- SB ALT contactor is attached.





Read this topic online here:



http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=306153#306153





Attachments:



http://forums.matronics.com//files/z12_w_sb_alt_contactor_208.pdf



Checked by AVG - www.avg.com

- Release Date: 07/24/10 01:36:00


	




   Bob . . .

Phil White

Joined: 10 Jan 2006
Posts: 45
Location: Downers Grove, IL

Posted: Sun Jul 25, 2010 3:23 am Post subject: Electrical System Schematic Review

Jon:	Your solutions appear similar to my system, and the Schematic is beautiful!  I see there are many Notes referred to on the schematic.  Are the notes available? 

	(I'm still under construction, and don't have your documentation skills.)



Phil

RV10 w/Mazda 20B electrically dependent engine installed

________________________________________________________

Bob and Joe,

"snip"

With the above in mind, Z-12 now seems elegantly appropriate for my needs and I

will eliminate the Ebus altogether, per Bobs suggestion. The one feature of my

drawn architecture that deviates from Z-12 is the SB Alt B lead landing on the

battery side of the MB contactor. I perceive that this will allow me to use

the Generic Ford Regulator over the B&C SB-1 and eliminate the MB contactor as

a single point of failure in the charging circuit. I seem to remember Bob recommending

a mechanical lock out of the SB alt, if not using the SB-1?? 



Z-12 w- SB ALT contactor is attached.

nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelect
Guest

Posted: Sun Jul 25, 2010 4:16 am Post subject: Electrical System Schematic Review

At 06:23 AM 7/25/2010, you wrote:

 	  Quote: 	
		  



Jon:    Your solutions appear similar to my system, and the 

Schematic is beautiful!  I see there are many Notes referred to on 

the schematic.  Are the notes available?         (I'm still under 

construction, and don't have your documentation skills.)



Phil


	


    Jon was willing and able to exploit the CAD drawings

    published at:



http://www.aeroelectric.com/PPS/ACAD_Architecture_Dwgs/



    and repeated as ordinary .pdf drawings at:



http://www.aeroelectric.com/PPS/Adobe_Architecture_Pdfs/



    I might remind List members who were referred to

    the AeroElectric-List from other associations that

    there is an AeroElectric website at



http://aeroelectric.com/



    with some 500 Megabytes of articles, photos,

    and drawings including a complete compilation

    of sample system architectures extracted from

    the back of the book . . .



http://aeroelectric.com/R12A/AppZ_12A4.pdf

   Bob . . .

jonlaury

Joined: 06 Nov 2006
Posts: 336

Posted: Sun Jul 25, 2010 10:30 am Post subject: Re: Electrical System Schematic Review

[/quote]

    I hope you don't feel that this has been a "wasted" exercise.



  Not at all. In the course of building my plane, I have spent hours, weeks, years even, in developing ideas that ended up in the trash. But they are just the steps that I had to take to get to where I am.



    



 	  Quote: 	
		  

....

  A Z-12 for new design where

    crowbar ov protection is proposed might lean toward fuse blocks

    but take both B-leads to fat wires under the cowl through

    current limiters. Of course, the field supply leads still need

    breakers . . . run a 20 pair of 18AWG feeders protected with

    22AWG fusible links to their respective alternator control switches.



Done in my schematic



    This might be a Z11-1/2 where you simply add a second alternator

    that needs only one more switch (field supply) on the panel.

    Eliminate the e-bus. Run ALL electrically dependent engine

    loads from the battery bus.



Knee jerk reaction is the all-eggs-in-one-basket apprehension. Granted the failure modes of the battery/bus seem awfully remote, but what harm is there in having an essential engine complement on the main bus so that it can run from a self-excited alternator with the Main contactor open?



    In further "stirring of simple-ideas" I note that another

    feature of the e-bus is a plan-b for dealing with a

    battery contactor failure. These are rare and can

    probably become still more rare if fitted with

    power a management module to reduce operating temperature.

    Even so, we could consider tying your aux alternator b-lead

    to the battery side of the contactor with a Schottky diode

    to isolate the always-hot, fat wire between battery and

    alternator. In this case, you'd also need to power the

    aux alternator field from the battery bus. This variant

    would cover the failed-contactor scenario.



In my system this seems like a moot exercise because of the redundant SB Alt/GP contactor. But for a system that isn't installing a GPJ, the Schottky variant on the B lead is a nice solution.



    Let me ponder this some more. Take a whack at implementing

    this using your current CAD skills. By the way, good work

    with the CAD drawings.



Thanks and here's a " Z11.5" Draft



    I'm pretty certain that we're boiling the options down

    toward the essence of an elegant solution. The

    40A aux alternator offers a Z-12 like architecture

    that accommodates more demanding engine support

    loads.



    Bob . . .



 	  Quote: 	
		  Z-12 w- SB ALT contactor is attached.





Read this topic online here:



http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=306153#306153





Attachments:



http://forums.matronics.com//files/z12_w_sb_alt_contactor_208.pdf



Checked by AVG - www.avg.com

- Release Date: 07/24/10 01:36:00



	




   Bob . . .

Z11.5 Draft.pdf

Description:

Download

Filename:

Z11.5 Draft.pdf

Filesize:

446.02 KB

Downloaded:

389 Time(s)

nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelect
Guest

Posted: Sun Jul 25, 2010 12:04 pm Post subject: Electrical System Schematic Review

At 01:31 PM 7/25/2010, you wrote:

 	  Quote: 	
		  



	


     I hope you don't feel that this has been a "wasted" exercise.



   Not at all. In the course of building my plane, I have spent 

 hours, weeks, years even, in developing ideas that ended up in the 

 trash. But they are just the steps that I had to take to get to where I am.


[/quote]

   Great.



   Take a look at the drawing I posted at:



http://www.aeroelectric.com/Laury/



   There's a .pdf version there too for folks that want

   to watch/participate in what's going on.



   The advent of 9024 production offers a "switched"

   alternative to the "crowbar" ov system which makes

   it more fuse-friendly. The fusible link fed circuit

   breaker goes away.



   I've drafted an architecture that might become a

   new z-figure. It sort of addresses the problems

   I was having with the abortive Z-13/20 drawing

   I published a few years ago . . . and later

   decided it was too much of a cluge.



   The proposed architecture retains the "two layer"

   power generation system (Like Z-13) that turns the

   battery bus into a very robust as well as capable

   power source. All circuit breakers go away.



   If a builder can accommodate a relatively

   large aux alternator, then the need for an

   e-bus goes away too.



   Let's stir this stew pot of simple-ideas for awhile

   and see if it doesn't come closer to the elegant

   solution for your project.

   Bob . . .

jonlaury

Joined: 06 Nov 2006
Posts: 336

Posted: Sun Jul 25, 2010 11:15 pm Post subject: Re: Electrical System Schematic Review

Z-Laury...I like it!

I need to get up to speed on the 9024 OVM and what it is capable of.

I already have an LR-3 that I was planning to use on the 60a alt. 



This architecture is so simple that I hate to kluge it up, but I want a GPJ so I will insert  my GP /SB alt B lead contactor schematic and eliminate the SB alt B lead diode.

Why is the 9024 more fuse friendly and why does it obviate the need for an alt field CB?

 Are you still seeing all engine essential power coming from the battery bus?



Ironic that this evolution started with my wanting to use Z-13/20 and you informed me that you had pulled that Z-figure from the AEC book. 



Cheers,

John

nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelect
Guest

Posted: Mon Jul 26, 2010 2:36 pm Post subject: Electrical System Schematic Review

At 02:15 AM 7/26/2010, you wrote:

 	  Quote: 	
		  



Z-Laury...I like it!

I need to get up to speed on the 9024 OVM and what it is capable of.


	


   See:



http://www.aeroelectric.com/Catalog/AEC/9024/



 	  Quote: 	
		  I already have an LR-3 that I was planning to use on the 60a alt.


	


   Hmmmm . . . okay, the LR3 has crowbar ov protection so you'll

   need to configure for the panel breaker . . .



 	  Quote: 	
		  This architecture is so simple that I hate to kluge it up, but I 

want a GPJ so I will insert  my GP /SB alt B lead contactor 

schematic and eliminate the SB alt B lead diode.


	


    Would you plan to close two switches to bring

    the aux alternator on line? You need one switch

    to control the aux alternator field supply. If

    You double-up on the ground power contactor

    functionality, then selecting the aux alternator

    requires an feature that closes that contactor

    too. Let me ponder this a bit.



 	  Quote: 	
		  Why is the 9024 more fuse friendly and why does it obviate the need 

for an alt field CB?


	


    Because it doesn't "crowbar" it "breaks". If you simply

    switch off the alternator, then there's no risk to nuisance

    tripping a field supply fuse so crew accessible reset

    is unnecessary. This is a throwback to ov protection

    of yesteryear (the very first product I qualified for

    use on a TC aircraft was an OV relay in 1975 or thereabouts).



    The crowbar configuration came about as a parts reduction

    scheme that was readily adaptable to aircraft that already

    used circuit breakers. It got sticky when those slightly

    demented OBAM aircraft guys renewed the romance with

    fuses.



    While the 9024 is designed to drive (ugh!) relays, it's

    broad applicability as a contactor power controller, ABMM,

    LVWarn and OVProtection, device renewed some interest in

    relays . . . this was further enhanced by the availability

    of automotive grade relays that are inexpensive while

    being also robust.



    In a sense, incorporation of microprocessors into

    a single, multi-application accessory has re-opened

    the books on 'older' technologies that were (and

    still are) on the hit list for new designs in some

    venues. But my grandpa would remind me that for all

    the pneumatic nail and brad drivers I now possess,

    sometimes the best way to drive some nails is with

    a hammer!



 	  Quote: 	
		    Are you still seeing all engine essential power coming from the battery bus?


	


    Yes.



 	  Quote: 	
		  Ironic that this evolution started with my wanting to use Z-13/20 

and you informed me that you had pulled that Z-figure from the AEC book.


	


    Yeah . . . see what can happen when one breaks

    a fixation on a bad idea and starts with a clean

    slate?



    Bob . . .

jonlaury

Joined: 06 Nov 2006
Posts: 336

Posted: Mon Jul 26, 2010 5:24 pm Post subject: Re: Electrical System Schematic Review

 	  Quote: 	
		  Would you plan to close two switches to bring

the aux alternator on line? You need one switch

to control the aux alternator field supply. If

You double-up on the ground power contactor

functionality, then selecting the aux alternator

requires an feature that closes that contactor

too. Let me ponder this a bit. 	




In the 9th post of this thread, beginning "Bob and Joe..." I attached Z-12 w/SB Alt contactor. I would wire the two contactors through a DPST as drawn with a 9024 instead of the OVM module



 	  Quote: 	
		  Are you still seeing all engine essential power coming from the battery bus?



Yes. 	




I was tapping power from the Ebus and Batt bus to diode bridges to drive my single EFI ECU, and on another circuit the EFI Injectors. It seems that nothing changes with engine essentials all on the battery bus. The redundancy of power sources is just happening upstream of the batt bus and I still use two DPST switches feeding the diode bridges, w/ ECU and Injector legs on each switch to eliminate a single point of failure, i.e. the switch.



I'm feeling very comfortable with this scheme. 



J

Display posts from previous:

	Matronics Email Lists Forum Index -> AeroElectric-List	All times are GMT - 8 Hours
Page 1 of 1

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