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-19 Function
Goto page 1, 2, 3 Next

Matronics Email Lists Forum Index -> AeroElectric-List

View previous topic :: View next topic

Author Message

jmjones2000(at)mindspring
Guest

Posted: Sat Aug 16, 2014 12:12 pm Post subject: Z-19 Function

I am using Z-19 to wire my electrically dependent IO-360.  I am using Robert Paisley's EFII system.  This system has 2 ECUs and 2 IGN coils. The system requires that both ECUs and both IGN coils are powered all the time.  It also has 2 fuel pumps.  Does the Z-19 system use the Low Voltage Monitor Module to switch on the Engine Battery Bus in the case of a low voltage condition?  If I am reading this correctly, I will need to modify the system to have continuous 12V power.  What is the best way to do this?  I think that I will also need to use another 4-diode bridge rectifier for use with the Coils and extra ECU.

Thanks in advance for the help and tips with the system.



Justin

jluckey(at)pacbell.net
Guest

Posted: Sat Aug 16, 2014 9:18 pm Post subject: Z-19 Function

Justin,

You may want to consider this design for automatic "fail-over"/ redundant power for an electrically-dependent engine.

 -Jeff

 

     On Saturday, August 16, 2014 1:22 PM, Justin Jones <jmjones2000(at)mindspring.com> wrote:

  

  



 --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Justin Jones <jmjones2000(at)mindspring.com (jmjones2000(at)mindspring.com)>



I am using Z-19 to wire my electrically dependent IO-360.  I am  using Robert Paisley's EFII system.  This system has 2 ECUs and 2 IGN coils. The system requires that both ECUs and both IGN coils are powered all the time.  It also has 2 fuel pumps.  Does the Z-19 system use the Low Voltage Monitor Module to switch on the Engine Battery Bus in the case of a low voltage condition?  If I am reading this correctly, I will need to modify the system to have continuous 12V power.  What is the best way to do this?  I think that I will also need to use another 4-diode bridge rectifier for use with the Coils and extra ECU.

Thanks in advance for the help and tips with the system.



Justin

http://www.matronics.com/Navigato=               - MATRONICS WEB FORUMS=                    &n--> http://ww=======================

PowDist01a.pdf

Description:

Download

Filename:

PowDist01a.pdf

Filesize:

39.33 KB

Downloaded:

292 Time(s)

jluckey(at)pacbell.net
Guest

Posted: Sat Aug 16, 2014 10:05 pm Post subject: Z-19 Function

I was unable to view the attachment on the prior posting - perhaps the PDF got corrupted in the upload.  



So, I am re-posting this message w/ a new attachment.

Hope it works this time,

-Jeff



 

     On Saturday, August 16, 2014 10:34 PM, Jeff Luckey <jluckey(at)pacbell.net> wrote:

  

  



 Justin,

You may want to consider this design for automatic "fail-over"/ redundant power for an electrically-dependent  engine.

 -Jeff

 

     On Saturday, August 16, 2014 1:22 PM, Justin Jones <jmjones2000(at)mindspring.com> wrote:

  

  



 --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Justin Jones <jmjones2000(at)mindspring.com (jmjones2000(at)mindspring.com)>



I am using Z-19 to wire my electrically dependent IO-360.  I am  using Robert Paisley's EFII system.  This system has 2 ECUs and 2 IGN coils. The system requires that both ECUs and both IGN coils are powered all the time.  It also has 2 fuel pumps.  Does the Z-19 system use the Low Voltage Monitor Module to switch on the Engine Battery Bus in the case of a low voltage condition?  If I am reading this correctly, I will need to modify the system to have continuous 12V power.  What is the best way to do this?  I think that I will also need to use another 4-diode bridge rectifier for use with the Coils and extra ECU.

Thanks in advance for the help and tips with the system.



Justin

 http://www.matronics.com/Navigato=               - MATRONICS WEB FORUMS=                    &n--> http://ww=======================

PowDist01a.pdf

Description:

Download

Filename:

PowDist01a.pdf

Filesize:

39.33 KB

Downloaded:

272 Time(s)

uuccio(at)gmail.com
Guest

Posted: Sun Aug 17, 2014 8:56 am Post subject: Z-19 Function

Worked for me both times. 



Do not archive 



 	  Quote: 	
		   On 17 Aug 2014, at 08:04, Jeff Luckey <jluckey(at)pacbell.net> wrote:

 

 I was unable to view the attachment on the prior posting - perhaps the PDF got corrupted in the upload.

nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelect
Guest

Posted: Sun Aug 17, 2014 12:03 pm Post subject: Z-19 Function

The system requires that both ECUs and both IGN coils are powered all the time . . .



   Okay, suppose one of these four items doesn't get power

   while the other three do . . . what happens?



   Suppose half of the system ECU and IGN get a momentary

   power interruption, what happens?



   Suppose there's complete interruption of power to all

   engine support which is 'fixed' in a few seconds,

   what happens?



   The legacy design philosophy we've applied to all

   systems intended for use in unforgiving environments

   is the failure mode effects analysis. FMEA looks at

   every component of the system and asks:



  How can this part fail?

  If it does fail, how will I become aware of it?

  If not immediately noticed or annunciated by warning system, is it pre-flight detectable?

  If it does fail, how is probable outcome of  the flight affected?

  If it is necessary for comfortable continuation of flight, what are my alternatives?



   Here's my personal notions that go to the topic

   of system reliability



  Nuckolls' first law of airplane systems design sez: "Things break"   The second: "Systems shall be designed so that when things break, no immediate hazard is created."   The third: "Failure tolerant design dictates that items needed for comfortable termination of flight are backed up with Plan-B alternatives."   The forth: "Upgrading the quality, reliability, longevity, or capability of a part shall be because you're tired of replacing it or want some new operating feature, not because it damned near got you killed."



   Before you march off to craft a never fails power

   source(s) . . . it seems prudent to ASSUME there

   WILL be failures . . . and craft a system that is

   comfortably tolerant of such failures.



   Your query to the List cited an imperative for everything

   that supports engine operations to be powered at all

   times . . . if this is strictly true, then are you

   sure that you want to install it on your airplane?



 



 

   Bob . . .    [quote][b]

nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelect
Guest

Posted: Sun Aug 17, 2014 12:08 pm Post subject: Z-19 Function

At 03:02 PM 8/17/2014, you wrote:

 	  Quote: 	
		  The system requires that both ECUs and both IGN coils are powered 

all the time . . .


	


   Is there a down-loadable installation manual

   on this system?



   Bob . . .

jmjones2000(at)mindspring
Guest

Posted: Sun Aug 17, 2014 7:26 pm Post subject: Z-19 Function

Here is the link to the downloadable instruction manual. http://flyefii.com/customer_projects/EFII_Ignition_Instruction_sheet_rev9-13.pdf



There is a Dual ECU addendum at the end of the instructions that deal with the installation of the dual ECUs.  Through numerous emails that I have exchanged with Robert, I have learned that there the entire system (both ECUs and IGN coils) draws 2.4 amps.  I have also learned that a single 10A breaker feeds both coils.  I would think the 4-diode rectifier with power from the engine battery bus and the main battery bus would solve the single-point of failure issue with a single power source. The system requires 5 breakers.  2- 5A breakers for the ECUs, 1- 10A breaker for the IGN Coils, and 2- 10A breakers for the fuel pumps (one each). 

The reason for installing the electrically dependent system is for the performance gains and the flexibility of using MOGAS.  The system draws very little current, and WHEN the alternator fails (and it will at some point), the pilot will be notified (low voltage and low amperage warnings).  At this point the pilot must shed the loads to protect the remaining battery power.  The EFII system will run as low as 6 volts.  I feel that with a dual battery system and a way to isolate the batteries from each other during flight, a higher level of safety is achieved.  The pilot would simply isolate the batteries and shut off all items that are drawing a load from that battery bus.  When and if the primary battery’s voltage gets too low, the pilot simply switches to the other battery and lands as soon as POSSIBLE.

The challenge is to engineer a reliable and redundant 12V system that will allow for safe and reliable operation regardless of individual component, complete bus, or even power source failure.

Any thoughts and tips are much appreciated. I have some experience in 12VDC systems but am by no means an engineer.

Thanks again for the help!

Justin



On Aug 17, 2014, at 12:02 PM, Robert L. Nuckolls, III <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com (nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com)> wrote:

 	  Quote: 	
		    The system requires that both ECUs and both IGN coils are powered all the time . . .



   Okay, suppose one of these four items doesn't get power

   while the other three do . . . what happens?



   Suppose half of the system ECU and IGN get a momentary

   power interruption, what happens?



   Suppose there's complete interruption of power to all

   engine support which is 'fixed' in a few seconds,

   what happens?



   The legacy design philosophy we've applied to all

   systems intended for use in unforgiving environments

   is the failure mode effects analysis. FMEA looks at

   every component of the system and asks:



  How can this part fail?

  If it does fail, how will I become aware of it?

  If not immediately noticed or annunciated by warning system, is it pre-flight detectable?

  If it does fail, how is probable outcome of  the flight affected?

  If it is necessary for comfortable continuation of flight, what are my alternatives?



   Here's my personal notions that go to the topic

   of system reliability



  Nuckolls' first law of airplane systems design sez: "Things break"   The second: "Systems shall be designed so that when things break, no immediate hazard is created."   The third: "Failure tolerant design dictates that items needed for comfortable termination of flight are backed up with Plan-B alternatives."   The forth: "Upgrading the quality, reliability, longevity, or capability of a part shall be because you're tired of replacing it or want some new operating feature, not because it damned near got you killed."



   Before you march off to craft a never fails power

   source(s) . . . it seems prudent to ASSUME there

   WILL be failures . . . and craft a system that is

   comfortably tolerant of such failures.



   Your query to the List cited an imperative for everything

   that supports engine operations to be powered at all

   times . . . if this is strictly true, then are you

   sure that you want to install it on your airplane?



 



 

   Bob . . .     	  Quote: 	
		  



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

href="http://forums.matronics.com/">http://forums.matronics.com

href="http://www.matronics.com/contribution">http://www.matronics.com/contribution

jluckey(at)pacbell.net
Guest

Posted: Sun Aug 17, 2014 8:08 pm Post subject: Z-19 Function

Justin,



...  I have also learned that a single 10A breaker feeds  both coils.  I would think the 4-diode rectifier with power from the  engine battery bus and the main battery bus would solve the single-point  of failure issue with a single power source...Without looking a schematic it is difficult to get a clear picture of what you are describing but a single breaker for both coils?  Is that not the definition of a single point of failure?

...  I  feel that with a dual battery system and a way to isolate the batteries  from each other during flight, a higher level of safety is achieved. 

Agree.



...  The pilot would simply isolate the batteries and shut off all items  that are drawing a load from that battery bus.  ....



The drawing that I posted yesterday does the isolation you are talking about but it does so automatically without any interruption of current flow and requires no pilot interaction.



The  challenge is to engineer a reliable and redundant 12V system that will  allow for safe and reliable operation regardless of individual  component, complete bus, or even power source failure.



This wheel has been invented many times over.  Between Bob N's Z drawing(s) and the one I posted, you should be able accomplish your goals.

-Jeff



 

     On Sunday, August 17, 2014 8:37 PM, Justin Jones <jmjones2000(at)mindspring.com> wrote:  

   Here is the link to the downloadable instruction manual. http://flyefii.com/customer_projects/EFII_Ignition_Instruction_sheet_rev9-13.pdf

There is a Dual ECU addendum at the end of the instructions that deal with the installation of the dual ECUs.  Through numerous emails that I have exchanged with Robert, I have learned that there the entire system (both ECUs and IGN coils) draws 2.4 amps.  I have also learned that a single 10A breaker feeds both coils.  I would think the 4-diode rectifier with power from the engine battery bus and the main battery bus would solve the single-point of failure issue with a single power source. The system requires 5 breakers.  2- 5A  breakers for the ECUs, 1- 10A breaker for the IGN Coils, and 2- 10A breakers for the fuel pumps (one each). 



The reason for installing the electrically dependent system is for the performance gains and the flexibility of using MOGAS.  The system draws very little current, and WHEN the alternator fails (and it will at some point), the pilot will be notified (low voltage and low amperage warnings).  At this point the pilot must shed the loads to protect the remaining battery power.  The EFII system will run as low as 6 volts.  I feel that with a dual battery system and a way to isolate the batteries from each other during flight, a higher level of safety is achieved.  The pilot would simply isolate the batteries and shut off all items that are drawing a load from that battery bus.  When and if the primary batteryâ€™s  voltage gets too low, the pilot simply switches to the other battery and lands as soon as POSSIBLE.



The challenge is to engineer a reliable and redundant 12V system that will allow for safe and reliable operation regardless of individual component, complete bus, or even power source failure.



Any thoughts and tips are much appreciated. I have some experience in 12VDC systems but am by no means an engineer.



Thanks again for the help!



Justin



On Aug 17, 2014, at 12:02 PM, Robert L. Nuckolls, III <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com (nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com)> wrote:

 	  Quote: 	
		    The system requires that both ECUs and both IGN coils are powered all the time . . .   Okay, suppose one of these four items doesn't get power   while the other three do . . . what happens?   Suppose half of the system ECU and IGN get a momentary   power interruption, what happens?   Suppose there's complete interruption of power to all   engine support which is 'fixed' in a few seconds,   what happens?   The legacy design philosophy we've applied to all   systems intended for use in unforgiving environments   is the failure mode effects analysis. FMEA looks at   every component of the system and asks:  How can this part fail?  If it does fail, how will I become aware of it?  If not immediately noticed or annunciated by warning system, is it pre-flight detectable?  If it does fail, how is probable outcome of  the flight affected?  If it is necessary for comfortable continuation of flight, what are my alternatives?   Here's my personal notions that go to the topic   of system reliability  Nuckolls' first law of airplane systems design sez: "Things break"   The second: "Systems shall be designed so that when things break, no immediate hazard is created."   The third: "Failure tolerant design dictates that items needed for comfortable termination of flight are backed up with Plan-B alternatives."   The forth: "Upgrading the quality, reliability, longevity, or capability of a part shall be because you're tired of replacing it or want some new operating feature, not because it damned near got you killed."   Before you march off to craft a never fails power   source(s) . . . it seems prudent to ASSUME there   WILL be failures . . . and craft a system that is   comfortably tolerant of such failures.   Your query to the List cited an imperative for everything   that supports engine operations to be powered at all   times . . . if this is strictly true, then are you   sure that you want to install it on your airplane?     Bob . . .    

 	  Quote: 	
		  


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

href="http://forums.matronics.com/">http://forums.matronics.com

href="http://www.matronics.com/contribution">http://www.matronics.com/contribution


	


	




  	  Quote: 	
		    --> 	




  

 

  

 

 [quote][b]

nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelect
Guest

Posted: Sun Aug 17, 2014 9:41 pm Post subject: Z-19 Function

At 10:25 PM 8/17/2014, you wrote:

  	  Quote: 	
		  Here is the link to the downloadable instruction manual.  http://flyefii.com/customer_projects/EFII_Ignition_Instruction_sheet_rev9-13.pdf 	


    This seems to cover ignition . . . is there another

    manual for the fuel injection?



 



 

 

   Bob . . .    [quote][b]

jmjones2000(at)mindspring
Guest

Posted: Sun Aug 17, 2014 9:51 pm Post subject: Z-19 Function

Also see the following manual.

http://flyefii.com/customer_projects/EFII_Installation_Manual_rev9-13.pdf

On Aug 17, 2014, at 12:07 PM, Robert L. Nuckolls, III <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com (nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com)> wrote:

[quote]--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com (nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com)>



At 03:02 PM 8/17/2014, you wrote:

 	  Quote: 	
		  The system requires that both ECUs and both IGN coils are powered all the time . . .

	


  Is there a down-loadable installation manual

  on this system?



  Bob . . .          - The   --> http://www.m            &n            -                         &nbs  --> http://www.matronics.com/co=================



[b]

ribrdb(at)gmail.com
Guest

Posted: Sun Aug 17, 2014 9:54 pm Post subject: Z-19 Function

nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com (nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com)> wrote:[quote]   At 10:25 PM 8/17/2014, you wrote:

  	  Quote: 	
		  Here is the link to the downloadable instruction manual.  http://flyefii.com/customer_projects/EFII_Ignition_Instruction_sheet_rev9-13.pdf 	


 Â Â  This seems to cover ignition . . . is there another

 Â Â  manual for the fuel injection?



 



 

 

 Â  Bob . . .     	  Quote: 	
		  



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

tp://forums.matronics.com

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



	


[b]

jmjones2000(at)mindspring
Guest

Posted: Sun Aug 17, 2014 10:04 pm Post subject: Z-19 Function

sorry… try this one 



 http://flyefii.com/customer_projects/EFII_Installation_Manual_rev9-13.pdf





On Aug 17, 2014, at 9:40 PM, Robert L. Nuckolls, III <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com (nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com)> wrote:

 	  Quote: 	
		    At 10:25 PM 8/17/2014, you wrote:

  	  Quote: 	
		  Here is the link to the downloadable instruction manual.  http://flyefii.com/customer_projects/EFII_Ignition_Instruction_sheet_rev9-13.pdf 	


    This seems to cover ignition . . . is there another

    manual for the fuel injection?



 



 

 

   Bob . . .     	  Quote: 	
		  



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

href="http://forums.matronics.com/">http://forums.matronics.com

href="http://www.matronics.com/contribution">http://www.matronics.com/contribution



	


	


 [quote][b]

jmjones2000(at)mindspring
Guest

Posted: Mon Aug 18, 2014 2:21 am Post subject: Z-19 Function

Thanks fit the input Jeff. I appreciate it. I like the way redundancy in the system you drew. 

You are correct that a single 10A breaker for both coils is a single point of failure and I don't like it. If a 4-diode rectifier were used with an input from both battery buses, it would solve the issue. Then a single breaker would be powering it them from 2 different power sources. 



 



On Aug 17, 2014, at 20:06, Jeff Luckey <jluckey(at)pacbell.net (jluckey(at)pacbell.net)> wrote:

[quote]Justin,



...  I have also learned that a single 10A breaker feeds  both coils.  I would think the 4-diode rectifier with power from the  engine battery bus and the main battery bus would solve the single-point  of failure issue with a single power source...Without looking a schematic it is difficult to get a clear picture of what you are describing but a single breaker for both coils?  Is that not the definition of a single point of failure?

...  I  feel that with a dual battery system and a way to isolate the batteries  from each other during flight, a higher level of safety is achieved. 

Agree.



...  The pilot would simply isolate the batteries and shut off all items  that are drawing a load from that battery bus.  ....



The drawing that I posted yesterday does the isolation you are talking about but it does so automatically without any interruption of current flow and requires no pilot interaction.



The  challenge is to engineer a reliable and redundant 12V system that will  allow for safe and reliable operation regardless of individual  component, complete bus, or even power source failure.



This wheel has been invented many times over.  Between Bob N's Z drawing(s) and the one I posted, you should be able accomplish your goals.

-Jeff



 

     On Sunday, August 17, 2014 8:37 PM, Justin Jones <jmjones2000(at)mindspring.com (jmjones2000(at)mindspring.com)> wrote:  

   Here is the link to the downloadable instruction manual. http://flyefii.com/customer_projects/EFII_Ignition_Instruction_sheet_rev9-13.pdf

There is a Dual ECU addendum at the end of the instructions that deal with the installation of the dual ECUs.  Through numerous emails that I have exchanged with Robert, I have learned that there the entire system (both ECUs and IGN coils) draws 2.4 amps.  I have also learned that a single 10A breaker feeds both coils.  I would think the 4-diode rectifier with power from the engine battery bus and the main battery bus would solve the single-point of failure issue with a single power source. The system requires 5 breakers.  2- 5A  breakers for the ECUs, 1- 10A breaker for the IGN Coils, and 2- 10A breakers for the fuel pumps (one each). 



The reason for installing the electrically dependent system is for the performance gains and the flexibility of using MOGAS.  The system draws very little current, and WHEN the alternator fails (and it will at some point), the pilot will be notified (low voltage and low amperage warnings).  At this point the pilot must shed the loads to protect the remaining battery power.  The EFII system will run as low as 6 volts.  I feel that with a dual battery system and a way to isolate the batteries from each other during flight, a higher level of safety is achieved.  The pilot would simply isolate the batteries and shut off all items that are drawing a load from that battery bus.  When and if the primary batteryâ€™s  voltage gets too low, the pilot simply switches to the other battery and lands as soon as POSSIBLE.



The challenge is to engineer a reliable and redundant 12V system that will allow for safe and reliable operation regardless of individual component, complete bus, or even power source failure.



Any thoughts and tips are much appreciated. I have some experience in 12VDC systems but am by no means an engineer.



Thanks again for the help!



Justin



On Aug 17, 2014, at 12:02 PM, Robert L. Nuckolls, III <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com (nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com)> wrote:

 	  Quote: 	
		    The system requires that both ECUs and both IGN coils are powered all the time . . .   Okay, suppose one of these four items doesn't get power   while the other three do . . . what happens?   Suppose half of the system ECU and IGN get a momentary   power interruption, what happens?   Suppose there's complete interruption of power to all   engine support which is 'fixed' in a few seconds,   what happens?   The legacy design philosophy we've applied to all   systems intended for use in unforgiving environments   is the failure mode effects analysis. FMEA looks at   every component of the system and asks:  How can this part fail?  If it does fail, how will I become aware of it?  If not immediately noticed or annunciated by warning system, is it pre-flight detectable?  If it does fail, how is probable outcome of  the flight affected?  If it is necessary for comfortable continuation of flight, what are my alternatives?   Here's my personal notions that go to the topic   of system reliability  Nuckolls' first law of airplane systems design sez: "Things break"   The second: "Systems shall be designed so that when things break, no immediate hazard is created."   The third: "Failure tolerant design dictates that items needed for comfortable termination of flight are backed up with Plan-B alternatives."   The forth: "Upgrading the quality, reliability, longevity, or capability of a part shall be because you're tired of replacing it or want some new operating feature, not because it damned near got you killed."   Before you march off to craft a never fails power   source(s) . . . it seems prudent to ASSUME there   WILL be failures . . . and craft a system that is   comfortably tolerant of such failures.   Your query to the List cited an imperative for everything   that supports engine operations to be powered at all   times . . . if this is strictly true, then are you   sure that you want to install it on your airplane?     Bob . . .    

 	  Quote: 	
		  



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

href="http://forums.matronics.com/">http://forums.matronics.com

href="http://www.matronics.com/contribution">http://www.matronics.com/contribution



	


	




  	  Quote: 	
		    --> 	


[url=http://www.matroni========  </font></b></pre></div><br style=]  [/url]

[url=http://www.matroni========  </font></b></pre></div><br style=] [/url]

[url=http://www.matroni========  </font></b></pre></div><br style=]  [/url]

[url=http://www.matroni========  </font></b></pre></div><br style=] [/url]

[url=http://www.matroni========  </font></b></pre></div><br style=] [/url] 	  Quote: 	
		  [b]



===================================

courier new,courier">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List

===================================

cs.com

===================================

matronics.com/contribution

===================================



	
[/b]



[b]

jmjones2000(at)mindspring
Guest

Posted: Mon Aug 18, 2014 2:38 am Post subject: Z-19 Function

I guess I should have said that 2 single breakers would be powering the coils from 2 different power sources.



On Aug 18, 2014, at 2:19 AM, Justin Jones <jmjones2000(at)mindspring.com (jmjones2000(at)mindspring.com)> wrote:

[quote]Thanks fit the input Jeff. I appreciate it. I like the way redundancy in the system you drew. 

You are correct that a single 10A breaker for both coils is a single point of failure and I don't like it. If a 4-diode rectifier were used with an input from both battery buses, it would solve the issue. Then a single breaker would be powering it them from 2 different power sources. 





On Aug 17, 2014, at 20:06, Jeff Luckey <jluckey(at)pacbell.net (jluckey(at)pacbell.net)> wrote:

 	  Quote: 	
		  Justin,



...  I have also learned that a single 10A breaker feeds  both coils.  I would think the 4-diode rectifier with power from the  engine battery bus and the main battery bus would solve the single-point  of failure issue with a single power source...Without looking a schematic it is difficult to get a clear picture of what you are describing but a single breaker for both coils?  Is that not the definition of a single point of failure?

...  I  feel that with a dual battery system and a way to isolate the batteries  from each other during flight, a higher level of safety is achieved. 

Agree.



...  The pilot would simply isolate the batteries and shut off all items  that are drawing a load from that battery bus.  ...



The drawing that I posted yesterday does the isolation you are talking about but it does so automatically without any interruption of current flow and requires no pilot interaction.



The  challenge is to engineer a reliable and redundant 12V system that will  allow for safe and reliable operation regardless of individual  component, complete bus, or even power source failure.



This wheel has been invented many times over.  Between Bob N's Z drawing(s) and the one I posted, you should be able accomplish your goals.

-Jeff



 

     On Sunday, August 17, 2014 8:37 PM, Justin Jones <jmjones2000(at)mindspring.com (jmjones2000(at)mindspring.com)> wrote:  

   Here is the link to the downloadable instruction manual. http://flyefii.com/customer_projects/EFII_Ignition_Instruction_sheet_rev9-13.pdf

There is a Dual ECU addendum at the end of the instructions that deal with the installation of the dual ECUs.  Through numerous emails that I have exchanged with Robert, I have learned that there the entire system (both ECUs and IGN coils) draws 2.4 amps.  I have also learned that a single 10A breaker feeds both coils.  I would think the 4-diode rectifier with power from the engine battery bus and the main battery bus would solve the single-point of failure issue with a single power source. The system requires 5 breakers.  2- 5A  breakers for the ECUs, 1- 10A breaker for the IGN Coils, and 2- 10A breakers for the fuel pumps (one each). 



The reason for installing the electrically dependent system is for the performance gains and the flexibility of using MOGAS.  The system draws very little current, and WHEN the alternator fails (and it will at some point), the pilot will be notified (low voltage and low amperage warnings).  At this point the pilot must shed the loads to protect the remaining battery power.  The EFII system will run as low as 6 volts.  I feel that with a dual battery system and a way to isolate the batteries from each other during flight, a higher level of safety is achieved.  The pilot would simply isolate the batteries and shut off all items that are drawing a load from that battery bus.  When and if the primary battery’s  voltage gets too low, the pilot simply switches to the other battery and lands as soon as POSSIBLE.



The challenge is to engineer a reliable and redundant 12V system that will allow for safe and reliable operation regardless of individual component, complete bus, or even power source failure.



Any thoughts and tips are much appreciated. I have some experience in 12VDC systems but am by no means an engineer.



Thanks again for the help!



Justin



On Aug 17, 2014, at 12:02 PM, Robert L. Nuckolls, III <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com (nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com)> wrote:

 	  Quote: 	
		    The system requires that both ECUs and both IGN coils are powered all the time . . .   Okay, suppose one of these four items doesn't get power   while the other three do . . . what happens?   Suppose half of the system ECU and IGN get a momentary   power interruption, what happens?   Suppose there's complete interruption of power to all   engine support which is 'fixed' in a few seconds,   what happens?   The legacy design philosophy we've applied to all   systems intended for use in unforgiving environments   is the failure mode effects analysis. FMEA looks at   every component of the system and asks:  How can this part fail?  If it does fail, how will I become aware of it?  If not immediately noticed or annunciated by warning system, is it pre-flight detectable?  If it does fail, how is probable outcome of  the flight affected?  If it is necessary for comfortable continuation of flight, what are my alternatives?   Here's my personal notions that go to the topic   of system reliability  Nuckolls' first law of airplane systems design sez: "Things break"   The second: "Systems shall be designed so that when things break, no immediate hazard is created."   The third: "Failure tolerant design dictates that items needed for comfortable termination of flight are backed up with Plan-B alternatives."   The forth: "Upgrading the quality, reliability, longevity, or capability of a part shall be because you're tired of replacing it or want some new operating feature, not because it damned near got you killed."   Before you march off to craft a never fails power   source(s) . . . it seems prudent to ASSUME there   WILL be failures . . . and craft a system that is   comfortably tolerant of such failures.   Your query to the List cited an imperative for everything   that supports engine operations to be powered at all   times . . . if this is strictly true, then are you   sure that you want to install it on your airplane?     Bob . . .    

 	  Quote: 	
		  



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

href="http://forums.matronics.com/">http://forums.matronics.com

href="http://www.matronics.com/contribution">http://www.matronics.com/contribution



	


	




  	  Quote: 	
		    --> 	


[url=http://www.matroni========  </font></b></pre></div><br style=]  [/url]

[url=http://www.matroni========  </font></b></pre></div><br style=] [/url]

[url=http://www.matroni========  </font></b></pre></div><br style=]  [/url]

[url=http://www.matroni========  </font></b></pre></div><br style=] [/url]

[url=http://www.matroni========  </font></b></pre></div><br style=] [/url] 	  Quote: 	
		  [b]



==========

courier new,courier">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List

==========

cs.com

==========

matronics.com/contribution

==========



	
[/b]





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

href="http://forums.matronics.com/">http://forums.matronics.com

href="http://www.matronics.com/contribution">http://www.matronics.com/contribution



	


[b]

nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelect
Guest

Posted: Mon Aug 18, 2014 6:00 am Post subject: Z-19 Function

At 12:53 AM 8/18/2014, you wrote:



  	  Quote: 	
		    http://www.flyefii.com/customer_projects/EFII_Installation_Manual_rev9-13.pdf 	


    Hmmmm . . . These systems probably perform as advertised . . .

    but the supplier has not served their customer well in

    terms of system integration data. In particular, their treatment

    of electrical systems architecture and failure modes is

    sketchy to non-existent. The word 'fail' appears three

    times . . . not in the context of a system integrator's

    work instruction or pilot's operating manual . . . but of

    a marketing brochure. 



    I went back into the series of Justin's postings . . . the first

    one showed up in February of this year. It seems that by the

    time he first came to the List, drawings were made, parts bought,

    holes drilled and a lot of decisions already under the bridge

    were being 'fine tuned'.



    I am not pleased to note that this project is probably way

    too complex for reasons not well defined. If the supplier

    of this system has offered nothing more than the documents

    cited, then he is . . . well. Suffice it to say that

    if I walked into some airframe OEM attempting to sell this

    hardware on no better data . . . I wouldn't get past the

    purchasing agents.



    Just because our airplanes are relatively unregulated and

    'experimental' does not relieve any supplier of a duty

    to reduce costs and risk. This is especially true when the product is

    being offered to a non-professional marketplace.



    I have often opined here on the List that every electrical

    system . . . ESPECIALLY one with the potential for complexity

    as this one . . . should start with the bus-by-bus load analysis.

    This exercise starts the thinking processes that guide hardware

    sizing and architecture decisions that go to the elegant (read

    frugal) design.



    I've been struggling with a task for a client to refine

    requirements documents on a system that has already been

    built. It DOES function as advertised . . . but its schematic

    has the appearance of a bucket full of parts stirred

    vigorously with a paint mixer until desired functionality was

    achieved.



    The problem I'm wrestling with is whether or not I want

    to continue to pursue the task for the client. Once the

    documentation is completed, do I want to sign the

    author's signature line? Doing so would add my own

    credential to an activity which (in my never humble

    opinion) does not serve the end-user well for cost of

    ownership and mitigation of risk.



    Justin's project presents a similar conundrum. I'm recalling

    a conversation with a builder about 20 years ago who said,

    "I shielded all the wires and installed filters here, there,

    and a few over there . . . what else do I need?"



    I asked, "Gee, do you have a noise problem?"



    "Oh no . . . I haven't flown the airplane yet."



    Justin has not been well served by his suppliers

    and is struggling with issues that should have

    been put to bed before he made his decision to

    purchase the system.



    It's not clear to what advice we can offer that

    would markedly refine a system that's already

    built.



    Justin, 



    One thing I gleaned from the data package: 

    With the exception of fuel injectors, the two systems

    are entirely redundant. Should one of the systems

    become unusable for any reason, including loss of

    power, then the other system can be pressed into

    service with no significant loss of engine performance.



    The manufacturer's citation of breaker sizes tells

    us NOTHING about this system's energy needs. You

    would do well to approach them with questions

    that go to ENERGY that moves through each breaker

    and under what conditions.



    I apologize for pushing this off on you . . . but

    these guys need to understand the problems THEIR

    customers are wrestling with. I could write and ask

    for the same data . . . but I would not be surprised

    if they don't really know the answers. This study

    needs to start with a customer . . . and you're

    the only one I know.



    If inquiring minds seek to be helpful, then

    it's something we need to know. If their answers

    seem less than confident, suggest that they contact

    me . . . or better yet, join the AeroElectric-List.

    There is no better opportunity for teaching 

    responsible consumerism than to carry out our

    conversations with the supplier in open forum.



 

   Bob . . .    [quote][b]

kenryan

Joined: 20 Oct 2009
Posts: 426

Posted: Mon Aug 18, 2014 9:11 am Post subject: Z-19 Function

Justin,



Have you considered using Robert's Bus Manager? It allows for two batteries, isolated for charging. Either or both batteries can be used for starting, and there is great redundancy for power to the essential bus. Also, it will monitor fuel pressure and automatically switch to the auxiliary pump if pressure is lost.

  



KenÂ 



On Sun, Aug 17, 2014 at 7:25 PM, Justin Jones <jmjones2000(at)mindspring.com (jmjones2000(at)mindspring.com)> wrote:

  [quote]Here is the link to the downloadable instruction manual.Â http://flyefii.com/customer_projects/EFII_Ignition_Instruction_sheet_rev9-13.pdf  



There is a Dual ECU addendum at the end of the instructions that deal with the installation of the dual ECUs. Â Through numerous emails that I have exchanged with Robert, I have learned that there the entire system (both ECUs and IGN coils) draws 2.4 amps. Â I have also learned that a single 10A breaker feeds both coils. Â I would think the 4-diode rectifier with power from the engine battery bus and the main battery bus would solve the single-point of failure issue with a single power source. The system requires 5 breakers. Â 2- 5A breakers for the ECUs, 1- 10A breaker for the IGN Coils, and 2- 10A breakers for the fuel pumps (one each).Â 

  



The reason for installing the electrically dependent system is for the performance gains and the flexibility of using MOGAS. Â The system draws very little current, and WHEN the alternator fails (and it will at some point), the pilot will be notified (low voltage and low amperage warnings). Â At this point the pilot must shed the loads to protect the remaining battery power. Â The EFII system will run as low as 6 volts. Â I feel that with a dual battery system and a way to isolate the batteries from each other during flight, a higher level of safety is achieved. Â The pilot would simply isolate the batteries and shut off all items that are drawing a load from that battery bus. Â When and if the primary batteryâ€™s voltage gets too low, the pilot simply switches to the other battery and lands as soon as POSSIBLE.

  



The challenge is to engineer a reliable and redundant 12V system that will allow for safe and reliable operation regardless of individual component, complete bus, or even power source failure.

  



Any thoughts and tips are much appreciated. I have some experience in 12VDC systems but am by no means an engineer.

Thanks again for the help!

Justin

  

On Aug 17, 2014, at 12:02 PM, Robert L. Nuckolls, III <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com (nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com)> wrote:



 	  Quote: 	
		      The system requires that both ECUs and both IGN coils are powered all the time . . .



 Â  Okay, suppose one of these four items doesn't get power

 Â  while the other three do . . . what happens?



 Â  Suppose half of the system ECU and IGN get a momentary

 Â  power interruption, what happens?



 Â  Suppose there's complete interruption of power to all

 Â  engine support which is 'fixed' in a few seconds,

 Â  what happens?



 Â  The legacy design philosophy we've applied to all

 Â  systems intended for use in unforgiving environments

 Â  is the failure mode effects analysis. FMEA looks at

 Â  every component of the system and asks:



  How can this part fail?

  If it does fail, how will I become aware of it?

  If not immediately noticed or annunciated by warning system, is it pre-flight detectable?

  If it does fail, how is probable outcome of  the flight affected?

  If it is necessary for comfortable continuation of flight, what are my alternatives?



 Â  Here's my personal notions that go to the topic

 Â  of system reliability



  Nuckolls' first law of airplane systems design sez: "Things break" Â  The second: "Systems shall be designed so that when things break, no immediate hazard is created." Â  The third: "Failure tolerant design dictates that items needed for comfortable termination of flight are backed up with Plan-B alternatives." Â  The forth: "Upgrading the quality, reliability, longevity, or capability of a part shall be because you're tired of replacing it or want some new operating feature, not because it damned near got you killed."



 Â  Before you march off to craft a never fails power

 Â  source(s) . . . it seems prudent to ASSUME there

 Â  WILL be failures . . . and craft a system that is

 Â  comfortably tolerant of such failures.



 Â  Your query to the List cited an imperative for everything

 Â  that supports engine operations to be powered at all

 Â  times . . . if this is strictly true, then are you

 Â  sure that you want to install it on your airplane?



 



 

 Â  Bob . . .     	  Quote: 	
		  



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

href="http://forums.matronics.com/">http://forums.matronics.com

href="http://www.matronics.com/contribution">http://www.matronics.com/contribution



	






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

tp://forums.matronics.com

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



	
[b]

jmjones2000(at)mindspring
Guest

Posted: Mon Aug 18, 2014 9:36 am Post subject: Z-19 Function

Bob,



I appreciate your help and opinion with this matter.  I will approach Robert about this and find out the specifics of the electrical demands of his system.  I have heard great things about his customer service and the folks using his system in their running aircraft have nothing but great things to say about it and him.  He is a very knowledgable A&P and has deep knowledge of his system.

Thank you again.

Justin 



On Aug 18, 2014, at 5:59 AM, Robert L. Nuckolls, III <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com (nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com)> wrote:

[quote]  At 12:53 AM 8/18/2014, you wrote:



  	  Quote: 	
		    http://www.flyefii.com/customer_projects/EFII_Installation_Manual_rev9-13.pdf 	


    Hmmmm . . . These systems probably perform as advertised . . .

    but the supplier has not served their customer well in

    terms of system integration data. In particular, their treatment

    of electrical systems architecture and failure modes is

    sketchy to non-existent. The word 'fail' appears three

    times . . . not in the context of a system integrator's

    work instruction or pilot's operating manual . . . but of

    a marketing brochure. 



    I went back into the series of Justin's postings . . . the first

    one showed up in February of this year. It seems that by the

    time he first came to the List, drawings were made, parts bought,

    holes drilled and a lot of decisions already under the bridge

    were being 'fine tuned'.



    I am not pleased to note that this project is probably way

    too complex for reasons not well defined. If the supplier

    of this system has offered nothing more than the documents

    cited, then he is . . . well. Suffice it to say that

    if I walked into some airframe OEM attempting to sell this

    hardware on no better data . . . I wouldn't get past the

    purchasing agents.



    Just because our airplanes are relatively unregulated and

    'experimental' does not relieve any supplier of a duty

    to reduce costs and risk. This is especially true when the product is

    being offered to a non-professional marketplace.



    I have often opined here on the List that every electrical

    system . . . ESPECIALLY one with the potential for complexity

    as this one . . . should start with the bus-by-bus load analysis.

    This exercise starts the thinking processes that guide hardware

    sizing and architecture decisions that go to the elegant (read

    frugal) design.



    I've been struggling with a task for a client to refine

    requirements documents on a system that has already been

    built. It DOES function as advertised . . . but its schematic

    has the appearance of a bucket full of parts stirred

    vigorously with a paint mixer until desired functionality was

    achieved.



    The problem I'm wrestling with is whether or not I want

    to continue to pursue the task for the client. Once the

    documentation is completed, do I want to sign the

    author's signature line? Doing so would add my own

    credential to an activity which (in my never humble

    opinion) does not serve the end-user well for cost of

    ownership and mitigation of risk.



    Justin's project presents a similar conundrum. I'm recalling

    a conversation with a builder about 20 years ago who said,

    "I shielded all the wires and installed filters here, there,

    and a few over there . . . what else do I need?"



    I asked, "Gee, do you have a noise problem?"



    "Oh no . . . I haven't flown the airplane yet."



    Justin has not been well served by his suppliers

    and is struggling with issues that should have

    been put to bed before he made his decision to

    purchase the system.



    It's not clear to what advice we can offer that

    would markedly refine a system that's already

    built.



    Justin, 



    One thing I gleaned from the data package: 

    With the exception of fuel injectors, the two systems

    are entirely redundant. Should one of the systems

    become unusable for any reason, including loss of

    power, then the other system can be pressed into

    service with no significant loss of engine performance.



    The manufacturer's citation of breaker sizes tells

    us NOTHING about this system's energy needs. You

    would do well to approach them with questions

    that go to ENERGY that moves through each breaker

    and under what conditions.



    I apologize for pushing this off on you . . . but

    these guys need to understand the problems THEIR

    customers are wrestling with. I could write and ask

    for the same data . . . but I would not be surprised

    if they don't really know the answers. This study

    needs to start with a customer . . . and you're

    the only one I know.



    If inquiring minds seek to be helpful, then

    it's something we need to know. If their answers

    seem less than confident, suggest that they contact

    me . . . or better yet, join the AeroElectric-List.

    There is no better opportunity for teaching 

    responsible consumerism than to carry out our

    conversations with the supplier in open forum.



 

   Bob . . .     	  Quote: 	
		  

	


[b]

jmjones2000(at)mindspring
Guest

Posted: Mon Aug 18, 2014 9:42 am Post subject: Z-19 Function

Ken,



I have considered using it.  I am left wondering if his system has the same functions of Bob’s Z-19 diagram, and his other diagrams for electrically dependent engines.  If it does (and it seems to) it seems that it would be an added cost for no good reason.

Here is the link to the Bus Manager Installation instructions.   http://flyefii.com/bus_manager/Bus_Manager_Installation_Instructions.pdf

Maybe Bob can weigh in on the Bus Manager?





Thanks

Justin



On Aug 18, 2014, at 9:09 AM, Ken Ryan <keninalaska(at)gmail.com (keninalaska(at)gmail.com)> wrote:

[quote]Justin,



Have you considered using Robert's Bus Manager? It allows for two batteries, isolated for charging. Either or both batteries can be used for starting, and there is great redundancy for power to the essential bus. Also, it will monitor fuel pressure and automatically switch to the auxiliary pump if pressure is lost.

  



Ken 



On Sun, Aug 17, 2014 at 7:25 PM, Justin Jones <jmjones2000(at)mindspring.com (jmjones2000(at)mindspring.com)> wrote:

   	  Quote: 	
		  Here is the link to the downloadable instruction manual. http://flyefii.com/customer_projects/EFII_Ignition_Instruction_sheet_rev9-13.pdf  



There is a Dual ECU addendum at the end of the instructions that deal with the installation of the dual ECUs.  Through numerous emails that I have exchanged with Robert, I have learned that there the entire system (both ECUs and IGN coils) draws 2.4 amps.  I have also learned that a single 10A breaker feeds both coils.  I would think the 4-diode rectifier with power from the engine battery bus and the main battery bus would solve the single-point of failure issue with a single power source. The system requires 5 breakers.  2- 5A breakers for the ECUs, 1- 10A breaker for the IGN Coils, and 2- 10A breakers for the fuel pumps (one each). 

  



The reason for installing the electrically dependent system is for the performance gains and the flexibility of using MOGAS.  The system draws very little current, and WHEN the alternator fails (and it will at some point), the pilot will be notified (low voltage and low amperage warnings).  At this point the pilot must shed the loads to protect the remaining battery power.  The EFII system will run as low as 6 volts.  I feel that with a dual battery system and a way to isolate the batteries from each other during flight, a higher level of safety is achieved.  The pilot would simply isolate the batteries and shut off all items that are drawing a load from that battery bus.  When and if the primary battery’s voltage gets too low, the pilot simply switches to the other battery and lands as soon as POSSIBLE.

  



The challenge is to engineer a reliable and redundant 12V system that will allow for safe and reliable operation regardless of individual component, complete bus, or even power source failure.

  



Any thoughts and tips are much appreciated. I have some experience in 12VDC systems but am by no means an engineer.

Thanks again for the help!

Justin

  

On Aug 17, 2014, at 12:02 PM, Robert L. Nuckolls, III <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com (nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com)> wrote:



 	  Quote: 	
		      The system requires that both ECUs and both IGN coils are powered all the time . . .



   Okay, suppose one of these four items doesn't get power

   while the other three do . . . what happens?



   Suppose half of the system ECU and IGN get a momentary

   power interruption, what happens?



   Suppose there's complete interruption of power to all

   engine support which is 'fixed' in a few seconds,

   what happens?



   The legacy design philosophy we've applied to all

   systems intended for use in unforgiving environments

   is the failure mode effects analysis. FMEA looks at

   every component of the system and asks:



  How can this part fail?

  If it does fail, how will I become aware of it?

  If not immediately noticed or annunciated by warning system, is it pre-flight detectable?

  If it does fail, how is probable outcome of  the flight affected?

  If it is necessary for comfortable continuation of flight, what are my alternatives?



   Here's my personal notions that go to the topic

   of system reliability



  Nuckolls' first law of airplane systems design sez: "Things break"   The second: "Systems shall be designed so that when things break, no immediate hazard is created."   The third: "Failure tolerant design dictates that items needed for comfortable termination of flight are backed up with Plan-B alternatives."   The forth: "Upgrading the quality, reliability, longevity, or capability of a part shall be because you're tired of replacing it or want some new operating feature, not because it damned near got you killed."



   Before you march off to craft a never fails power

   source(s) . . . it seems prudent to ASSUME there

   WILL be failures . . . and craft a system that is

   comfortably tolerant of such failures.



   Your query to the List cited an imperative for everything

   that supports engine operations to be powered at all

   times . . . if this is strictly true, then are you

   sure that you want to install it on your airplane?



 



 

   Bob . . .     	  Quote: 	
		  



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

href="http://forums.matronics.com/">http://forums.matronics.com

href="http://www.matronics.com/contribution">http://www.matronics.com/contribution



	






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

tp://forums.matronics.com

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



	




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

href="http://forums.matronics.com/">http://forums.matronics.com

href="http://www.matronics.com/contribution">http://www.matronics.com/contribution



	
[b]

jluckey(at)pacbell.net
Guest

Posted: Mon Aug 18, 2014 10:50 am Post subject: Z-19 Function

Justin,

Someone mentioned the Bus Manager product. I am not privy to its design but that same functionality is provided in the system design that I posted, except for the fuel pump management.

-Jeff

 

     On Monday, August 18, 2014 10:56 AM, Justin Jones <jmjones2000(at)mindspring.com> wrote:

  

  



 Bob,



I appreciate your help and opinion with this matter.  I will approach Robert about this and find out the  specifics of the electrical demands of his system.  I have heard great things about his customer service and the folks using his system in their running aircraft have nothing but great things to say about it and him.  He is a very knowledgable A&P and has deep knowledge of his system.

Thank you again.

Justin 



On Aug 18, 2014, at 5:59 AM, Robert L. Nuckolls, III <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com (nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com)> wrote:

[quote]  At 12:53 AM 8/18/2014, you wrote:



  	  Quote: 	
		    http://www.flyefii.com/customer_projects/EFII_Installation_Manual_rev9-13.pdf 	


    Hmmmm . . . These systems probably perform as advertised . . .

    but the supplier has not served their customer well in

    terms of system integration data. In particular, their treatment

    of electrical systems architecture and failure modes is

    sketchy to non-existent. The word 'fail' appears three

    times . . . not in the context of a system integrator's

    work instruction or pilot's operating manual . . . but of

    a marketing brochure. 



    I went back into the series of Justin's postings . . . the first

    one showed up in February of this year. It seems that by the

    time he first came to the List, drawings were made, parts bought,

    holes drilled and a lot of decisions already under the bridge

    were being 'fine tuned'.



    I am not pleased to note that this project is probably way

    too complex for reasons not well defined. If the supplier

    of this system has offered nothing more than the documents

    cited, then he is . . . well. Suffice it to say that

    if I walked into some airframe OEM attempting to sell this

    hardware on no better data . . . I wouldn't get past the

    purchasing agents.



    Just because our airplanes are relatively unregulated and

    'experimental' does not relieve any supplier of a duty

    to reduce costs and risk. This is especially true when the product is

    being offered to a non-professional marketplace.



    I have often opined here on the List that every electrical

    system . . . ESPECIALLY one with the potential for complexity

    as this one . . . should start with the bus-by-bus load analysis.

    This exercise starts the thinking processes that guide hardware

    sizing and architecture decisions that go to the elegant (read

    frugal) design.



    I've been struggling with a task for a client to refine

    requirements documents on a system that has already been

    built. It DOES function as advertised . . . but its schematic

    has the appearance of a bucket full of parts stirred

    vigorously with a paint mixer until desired functionality was

    achieved.



    The problem I'm wrestling with is whether or not I want

    to continue to pursue the task for the client. Once the

    documentation is completed, do I want to sign the

    author's signature line? Doing so would add my own

    credential to an activity which (in my never humble

    opinion) does not serve the end-user well for cost of

    ownership and mitigation of risk.



    Justin's project presents a similar conundrum. I'm recalling

    a conversation with a builder about 20 years ago who said,

    "I shielded all the wires and installed filters here, there,

    and a few over there . . . what else do I need?"



    I asked, "Gee, do you have a noise problem?"



    "Oh no . . . I haven't flown the airplane yet."



    Justin has not been well served by his suppliers

    and is struggling with issues that should have

    been put to bed before he made his decision to

    purchase the system.



    It's not clear to what advice we can offer that

    would markedly refine a system that's already

    built.



    Justin, 



    One thing I gleaned from the data package: 

    With the exception of fuel injectors, the two systems

    are entirely redundant. Should one of the systems

    become unusable for any reason, including loss of

    power, then the other system can be pressed into

    service with no significant loss of engine performance.



    The manufacturer's citation of breaker sizes tells

    us NOTHING about this system's energy needs. You

    would do well to approach them with questions

    that go to ENERGY that moves through each breaker

    and under what conditions.



    I apologize for pushing this off on you . . . but

    these guys need to understand the problems THEIR

    customers are wrestling with. I could write and ask

    for the same data . . . but I would not be surprised

    if they don't really know the answers. This study

    needs to start with a customer . . . and you're

    the only one I know.



    If inquiring minds seek to be helpful, then

    it's something we need to know. If their answers

    seem less than confident, suggest that they contact

    me . . . or better yet, join the AeroElectric-List.

    There is no better opportunity for teaching 

    responsible consumerism than to carry out our

    conversations with the supplier in open forum.



    Bob . . .    

 	  Quote: 	
		  



	
[/b][b]

nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelect
Guest

Posted: Mon Aug 18, 2014 2:26 pm Post subject: Z-19 Function

At 01:49 PM 8/18/2014, you wrote:

 	  Quote: 	
		  Justin,



Someone mentioned the Bus Manager product. I am not privy to its 

design but that same functionality is provided in the system design 

that I posted, except for the fuel pump management.



-Jeff


	


   This might well be marching off in the wrong direction.

   Given what I understand about the engine accessories

   now, it's not clear that this installation's optimum

   configuration would not be well served with Z-13/8 or

   at worst, Z-12 with a 20A s/b alternator and one

   battery.



   Z-19 was tailored to engines that could not conveniently

   drive two alternators.



   Bob . . .

Display posts from previous:

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