Matronics Email Lists :: View topic - Some Thoughts on Z101

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

Some Thoughts on Z101
Goto page 1, 2 Next

Matronics Email Lists Forum Index -> AeroElectric-List

View previous topic :: View next topic

Author Message

Eric Page

Joined: 15 Feb 2017
Posts: 245

Posted: Wed Jan 27, 2021 10:53 am Post subject: Some Thoughts on Z101

I'm starting to sneak up on wiring my Kitfox project, so I've been looking over Z101 in detail.  Take a look at this idea to simplify the Brown-Out Booster and AUX BUS Normal Feed path, and tell me if I'm out to lunch:



Z101, for reference: https://tinyurl.com/1120mgeh



1. Delete the AUX BUS normal feed path from the bridge rectifier.



2. Remove the Brown-Out Booster input feed from the Engine Start pushbutton switch, and instead connect it directly to the Battery Contactor with a short-as-practical 14AWG wire.



3. Remove the output of the Brown-Out Booster from the normally-closed contact of the AUX BUS Alternate Feed Relay, and instead connect it to the AUX BUS normal feed point that was previously supplied by the bridge rectifier, again with a short-as-practical 14AWG wire.



Since the DC-to-DC boost topology (see attached image) offers no barrier to forward current flow, it can pass normal feed current for the AUX BUS even when it isn't needed for boost duty.  Its rectifier will prevent backfeed from the AUX BUS to the MAIN BUS in the event that the AUX BUS Alternate Feed Relay is closed.  If the Brown-Out Booster's output is set to 12V, then its controller IC will simply stop switching any time its output voltage exceeds that value.  During engine start, the controller IC will already be "awake" and will start switching the instant its input sags to one diode drop above 12V.



A few issues that I'm still mulling over:



1. This proposal assumes that the Brown-Out Booster is tested to ensure that its inductor and rectifier can continuously pass full running current for the AUX BUS, and any later additions to the AUX BUS will have to be considered with this limitation in mind.



2. Is it acceptable -- or even a good idea -- to connect a Brown-Out Booster directly to the Battery Contactor with no fuse, as if it were integral to the AUX BUS?



3. If the answer to #2 is no, then does it make sense to fuse the Brown-Out Booster/AUX BUS Normal Feed, and if so, at what value?  This is complicated by the fact that Booster input current increases faster than output current, and it also increases as input voltage decreases.



Thoughts?

Simplified Boost Topology.jpg

Description:

Simplified Boost Topology

Filesize:

25.74 KB

Viewed:

10583 Time(s)

user9253

Joined: 28 Mar 2008
Posts: 1922
Location: Riley TWP Michigan

Posted: Wed Jan 27, 2021 3:29 pm Post subject: Re: Some Thoughts on Z101

Eric, what advantage does your proposal have over Z-101?

Why eliminate the normal diode feed path to the aux bus?

You can rewire the brownout booster whether the diode is there or not.

It is a bad idea to have two fuses in series.  Z-101 does not fuse the aux bus.

Is a brown out booster really necessary?  Doesn't your EFIS have an internal backup battery?

My radio recovers in a few seconds after engine cranking.

My transponder takes longer to establish its GPS location.  But so what?

Why even supply a whole bus with brownout protection?

Why is a separate aux bus needed?

Just connect one or two loads to a brownout booster using dual diodes.

Consider the attached electrical drawing.  Just the relay can be energized for ground operations.

In the unlikely event that the main contactor fails in flight, the relay can be energized.

With a single bus, there is no need to remember what loads are on what bus.

If it is desired to conserve the battery, just shut off unneeded loads.

Contactor Parallel Relay.jpg

Description:

Filesize:

88.23 KB

Viewed:

10569 Time(s)

_________________
Joe Gores

nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelect
Guest

Posted: Wed Jan 27, 2021 6:54 pm Post subject: Some Thoughts on Z101

 	  Quote: 	
		  

 Thoughts? 	


   Can you elaborate on your design goals?



   The original goal was to craft a tinker-toy/leggo

   style architecture offering a variety of mix/match

   features. Each feature enjoyed two feed paths.

   The presence of no feature was dependent on

   configuration of other features (except for the

   brownout booster which goes away if its target

   bus is not installed).



   All busses are hot any time the main bus is

   hot irrespective of other switch positions.



   Busses wrapped around the main bus may

   be selectively powered up independent

   of the main bus.



   A full-up system is managed with only 3

   toggle switches.



   Re brownout booster: I'm pondering a plan-d . . .

   or are we up to 'e'? There are dozens of suitable

   step up devices on the market but I have no knowledge

   of their 'spool up' times nor can I personally

   vouch for their specifications without putting

   the device under test on the bench and doing

   some measurements.



   I think I have a way to craft a brown-out booster

   of KNOWN performance thus avoiding the risks

   for incorporating the Chinese unknowns. Watch

   this space.



 

   Bob . . .



   Un impeachable logic: George Carlin asked, "If black boxes

   survive crashes, why don't they make the whole airplane

   out of that stuff?"

nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelect
Guest

Posted: Wed Jan 27, 2021 6:57 pm Post subject: Some Thoughts on Z101

 	  Quote: 	
		  



 Attachments: 



  http://forums.matronics.com//files/simplified_boost_topology_619.jpg 

 	


    A full schematic of the proposed boost

    system would make it easier to 'grok'.



 

   Bob . . .



   Un impeachable logic: George Carlin asked, "If black boxes

   survive crashes, why don't they make the whole airplane

   out of that stuff?"

cluros(at)gmail.com
Guest

Posted: Wed Jan 27, 2021 7:23 pm Post subject: Some Thoughts on Z101

Bob I think a clearance delivery bus with brownout protection is an important design goal for any IFR OBAM aircraft. The ability to get the clearance, program it, and then start the engine rather than doing it all with the engine running is almost a necessity in my mind.



I may have enough equipment here that you could unload the testing portion onto me. If this interests you please get in touch and I will order the parts and assemble and test a system to your specs.

On Wed, Jan 27, 2021 at 7:02 PM Robert L. Nuckolls, III <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com (nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com)> wrote:



 	  Quote: 	
		     	  Quote: 	
		  



 Attachments: 



  http://forums.matronics.com//files/simplified_boost_topology_619.jpg 

 	


    A full schematic of the proposed boost

    system would make it easier to 'grok'.



 

   Bob . . .



   Un impeachable logic: George Carlin asked, "If black boxes

   survive crashes, why don't they make the whole airplane

   out of that stuff?"

Voyager

Joined: 30 Jun 2020
Posts: 77

Posted: Thu Jan 28, 2021 5:26 am Post subject: Some Thoughts on Z101

When I was flying IFR regularly in my younger days, I rarely found this to be necessary and only at large airports like Philly, Boston, etc.  At my home field, ELM, it would take the engine longer to warm up than it took me to get my IFR clearance and taxi clearance.  So, I fired up the engine and then used the warm-up time to contact clearance delivery and ground and begin taxi

cluros(at)gmail.com
Guest

Posted: Thu Jan 28, 2021 10:38 am Post subject: Some Thoughts on Z101

Matthew I suspect your younger days were a long time ago . Were you programming routes into a navigation system? Setting up SIDs?



On Thu, Jan 28, 2021 at 5:32 AM Matthew S. Whiting <m.whiting(at)frontier.com (m.whiting(at)frontier.com)> wrote:



 	  Quote: 	
		  When I was flying IFR regularly in my younger days, I rarely found this to be necessary and only at large airports like Philly, Boston, etc.  At my home field, ELM, it would take the engine longer to warm up than it took me to get my IFR clearance and taxi clearance.  So, I fired up the engine and then used the warm-up time to contact clearance delivery and ground and begin taxi.



At larger airports where you may have to wait 5-10 minutes for clearance, having one radio on a separate bus makes sense.  Much depends on where you fly more often.

Matt



Sent from my iPad



 	  Quote: 	
		  On Jan 27, 2021, at 10:27 PM, Sebastien <cluros(at)gmail.com (cluros(at)gmail.com)> wrote:



Bob I think a clearance delivery bus with brownout protection is an important design goal for any IFR OBAM aircraft. The ability to get the clearance, program it, and then start the engine rather than doing it all with the engine running is almost a necessity in my mind.



I may have enough equipment here that you could unload the testing portion onto me. If this interests you please get in touch and I will order the parts and assemble and test a system to your specs.

On Wed, Jan 27, 2021 at 7:02 PM Robert L. Nuckolls, III <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com (nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com)> wrote:



 	  Quote: 	
		     	  Quote: 	
		  



 Attachments: 



  http://forums.matronics.com//files/simplified_boost_topology_619.jpg 

 	


    A full schematic of the proposed boost

    system would make it easier to 'grok'.



 

   Bob . . .



   Un impeachable logic: George Carlin asked, "If black boxes

   survive crashes, why don't they make the whole airplane

   out of that stuff?"

   

	


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

Voyager

Joined: 30 Jun 2020
Posts: 77

Posted: Thu Jan 28, 2021 11:38 am Post subject: Some Thoughts on Z101

I learned to fly in a 150 whose radio could either comm or nav, but not both at the same time.  😂



Most of my instrument flying (other than training in a PA-180) was in my C-182 that had only a Garmin 150 GPS.  So, all procedures were essentially flown manually including SIDS and STARs.  My 182 did not even have an A/P so I got fairly proficient at single pilot IFR hand flown.

I plan to put a full Garmin digital panel in the S-21 I am currently building.  IFR with today’s avionics is stupid easy.  If you haven’t hand flown an NDB approach in moderate turbulence, you really aren’t an instrument pilot.  😂. I actually had to do that on my instrument checkride.

Matt



Sent from my iPad



 	  Quote: 	
		  On Jan 28, 2021, at 2:06 PM, Sebastien <cluros(at)gmail.com> wrote:



Matthew I suspect your younger days were a long time ago . Were you programming routes into a navigation system? Setting up SIDs?



On Thu, Jan 28, 2021 at 5:32 AM Matthew S. Whiting <m.whiting(at)frontier.com (m.whiting(at)frontier.com)> wrote:



 	  Quote: 	
		  When I was flying IFR regularly in my younger days, I rarely found this to be necessary and only at large airports like Philly, Boston, etc.  At my home field, ELM, it would take the engine longer to warm up than it took me to get my IFR clearance and taxi clearance.  So, I fired up the engine and then used the warm-up time to contact clearance delivery and ground and begin taxi.



At larger airports where you may have to wait 5-10 minutes for clearance, having one radio on a separate bus makes sense.  Much depends on where you fly more often.

Matt



Sent from my iPad



 	  Quote: 	
		  On Jan 27, 2021, at 10:27 PM, Sebastien <cluros(at)gmail.com (cluros(at)gmail.com)> wrote:



Bob I think a clearance delivery bus with brownout protection is an important design goal for any IFR OBAM aircraft. The ability to get the clearance, program it, and then start the engine rather than doing it all with the engine running is almost a necessity in my mind.



I may have enough equipment here that you could unload the testing portion onto me. If this interests you please get in touch and I will order the parts and assemble and test a system to your specs.

On Wed, Jan 27, 2021 at 7:02 PM Robert L. Nuckolls, III <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com (nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com)> wrote:



 	  Quote: 	
		     	  Quote: 	
		  



 Attachments: 



  http://forums.matronics.com//files/simplified_boost_topology_619.jpg 

 	


    A full schematic of the proposed boost

    system would make it easier to 'grok'.



 

   Bob . . .



   Un impeachable logic: George Carlin asked, "If black boxes

   survive crashes, why don't they make the whole airplane

   out of that stuff?"

   

	


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

cluros(at)gmail.com
Guest

Posted: Thu Jan 28, 2021 11:54 am Post subject: Some Thoughts on Z101

If you put a Garmin navigator in it, you'll want that brownout booster.



On Thu, Jan 28, 2021 at 11:45 AM Matthew S. Whiting <m.whiting(at)frontier.com (m.whiting(at)frontier.com)> wrote:



 	  Quote: 	
		  I learned to fly in a 150 whose radio could either comm or nav, but not both at the same time.  😂



Most of my instrument flying (other than training in a PA-180) was in my C-182 that had only a Garmin 150 GPS.  So, all procedures were essentially flown manually including SIDS and STARs.  My 182 did not even have an A/P so I got fairly proficient at single pilot IFR hand flown.

I plan to put a full Garmin digital panel in the S-21 I am currently building.  IFR with today’s avionics is stupid easy.  If you haven’t hand flown an NDB approach in moderate turbulence, you really aren’t an instrument pilot.  😂. I actually had to do that on my instrument checkride.

Matt



Sent from my iPad



 	  Quote: 	
		  On Jan 28, 2021, at 2:06 PM, Sebastien <cluros(at)gmail.com (cluros(at)gmail.com)> wrote:



Matthew I suspect your younger days were a long time ago . Were you programming routes into a navigation system? Setting up SIDs?



On Thu, Jan 28, 2021 at 5:32 AM Matthew S. Whiting <m.whiting(at)frontier.com (m.whiting(at)frontier.com)> wrote:



 	  Quote: 	
		  When I was flying IFR regularly in my younger days, I rarely found this to be necessary and only at large airports like Philly, Boston, etc.  At my home field, ELM, it would take the engine longer to warm up than it took me to get my IFR clearance and taxi clearance.  So, I fired up the engine and then used the warm-up time to contact clearance delivery and ground and begin taxi.



At larger airports where you may have to wait 5-10 minutes for clearance, having one radio on a separate bus makes sense.  Much depends on where you fly more often.

Matt



Sent from my iPad



 	  Quote: 	
		  On Jan 27, 2021, at 10:27 PM, Sebastien <cluros(at)gmail.com (cluros(at)gmail.com)> wrote:



Bob I think a clearance delivery bus with brownout protection is an important design goal for any IFR OBAM aircraft. The ability to get the clearance, program it, and then start the engine rather than doing it all with the engine running is almost a necessity in my mind.



I may have enough equipment here that you could unload the testing portion onto me. If this interests you please get in touch and I will order the parts and assemble and test a system to your specs.

On Wed, Jan 27, 2021 at 7:02 PM Robert L. Nuckolls, III <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com (nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com)> wrote:



 	  Quote: 	
		     	  Quote: 	
		  



 Attachments: 



  http://forums.matronics.com//files/simplified_boost_topology_619.jpg 

 	


    A full schematic of the proposed boost

    system would make it easier to 'grok'.



 

   Bob . . .



   Un impeachable logic: George Carlin asked, "If black boxes

   survive crashes, why don't they make the whole airplane

   out of that stuff?"

   

	


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

rick(at)beebe.org
Guest

Posted: Thu Jan 28, 2021 1:06 pm Post subject: Some Thoughts on Z101

Yes. My G3X Touch screen survives engine start but the GTN 750     reboots. I need to figure out a brownout booster too.

     

     When I was getting my instrument rating I had a Piper Warrior that I     upgraded with a GNS-430. I specifically removed the ADF from that     plane so they wouldn't make me fly any NDB approaches on the     checkride. 

     

     --Rick

     

     On 1/28/2021 2:52 PM, Sebastien wrote:

     

      	  Quote: 	
		                If you put a Garmin navigator in it, you'll want         that brownout booster.

       

                On Thu, Jan 28, 2021 at 11:45           AM Matthew S. Whiting <m.whiting(at)frontier.com (m.whiting(at)frontier.com)>           wrote:

         

          	  Quote: 	
		             

             I plan to put a full Garmin digital panel in the S-21 I               am currently building.  IFR with today’s avionics is               stupid easy.  If you haven’t hand flown an NDB approach in               moderate turbulence, you really aren’t an instrument               pilot.  😂. I actually had to do that on my instrument               checkride.

Kellym

Joined: 10 Jan 2006
Posts: 1705
Location: Sun Lakes AZ

Posted: Thu Jan 28, 2021 1:28 pm Post subject: Some Thoughts on Z101

The two most common radios for training aircraft in the '70s, at least 

before Cessna bought ARC, were the Escort 110 from Narco, and the King 

KX145. Both used a single shared receiver for nav and com reception.

The fancier radios like the KX170B were refered to something like a 1 

and 1/2 because they had one transmitter and two receivers, so you could 

listen to com freq and keep nav signal at same time. And Matt, flying an 

NDB was no big deal if you had learned the tricks of the trade. Flying 

colored airways was a bigger deal because you were tracking often 50 nm 

off one beacon before getting the next. Back then I flew IFR with one 

digital nav com and a manually tuned ADF, no transponder, no autopilot 

and AN Gyros powered by venturis etc. So you had to do identifying turns 

for the controller if picked up anywhere but departing an airport. 

Controllers had to do more work too. No strip printers, you had to call 

Center and have them issue the clearance, write it on a strip, then 

issue to the aircraft. Moving maps and stored procedures do make it much 

easier. Thankfully the old AN approaches disappeared a few years before 

I started flying.

Kelly



On 1/28/2021 12:37 PM, Matthew S. Whiting wrote:

 	  Quote: 	
		   I learned to fly in a 150 whose radio could either comm or nav, but not 

 both at the same time.  😂

 

 Most of my instrument flying (other than training in a PA-180) was in my 

 C-182 that had only a Garmin 150 GPS.  So, all procedures were 

 essentially flown manually including SIDS and STARs.  My 182 did not 

 even have an A/P so I got fairly proficient at single pilot IFR hand flown.

 

 I plan to put a full Garmin digital panel in the S-21 I am currently 

 building.  IFR with today’s avionics is stupid easy.  If you haven’t 

 hand flown an NDB approach in moderate turbulence, you really aren’t an 

 instrument pilot.  😂. I actually had to do that on my instrument checkride.

 

 Matt

 

 Sent from my iPad

 

> On Jan 28, 2021, at 2:06 PM, Sebastien <cluros(at)gmail.com> wrote:

>

> 

> Matthew I suspect your younger days were a long time ago . Were you 

> programming routes into a navigation system? Setting up SIDs?

>

> On Thu, Jan 28, 2021 at 5:32 AM Matthew S. Whiting 

> <m.whiting(at)frontier.com <mailto:m.whiting(at)frontier.com>> wrote:

>

>     When I was flying IFR regularly in my younger days, I rarely found

>     this to be necessary and only at large airports like Philly,

>     Boston, etc.  At my home field, ELM, it would take the engine

>     longer to warm up than it took me to get my IFR clearance and taxi

>     clearance.  So, I fired up the engine and then used the warm-up

>     time to contact clearance delivery and ground and begin taxi.

>

>     At larger airports where you may have to wait 5-10 minutes for

>     clearance, having one radio on a separate bus makes sense.  Much

>     depends on where you fly more often.

>

>     Matt

>

>     Sent from my iPad

>

>>     On Jan 27, 2021, at 10:27 PM, Sebastien <cluros(at)gmail.com

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

>>

>>     

>>     Bob I think a clearance delivery bus with brownout protection is

>>     an important design goal for any IFR OBAM aircraft. The ability

>>     to get the clearance, program it, and then start the engine

>>     rather than doing it all with the engine running is almost a

>>     necessity in my mind.

>>

>>     I may have enough equipment here that you could unload the

>>     testing portion onto me. If this interests you please get in

>>     touch and I will order the parts and assemble and test a system

>>     to your specs.

>>

>>     On Wed, Jan 27, 2021 at 7:02 PM Robert L. Nuckolls, III

>>     <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com

>>     <mailto:nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com>> wrote:

>>

>>>

>>>

>>>         Attachments:

>>>

>>>         http://forums.matronics.com//files/simplified_boost_topology_619.jpg

>>>         <http://forums.matronics.com//files/simplified_boost_topology_619.jpg>

>>>

>>

>>            A full schematic of the proposed boost

>>            system would make it easier to 'grok'.

>>

>>         __

>>

>>         __   Bob . . .

>>

>>           Un impeachable logic: George Carlin asked, "If black boxes

>>           survive crashes, why don't they make the whole airplane

>>           out of that stuff?"

>>

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

>

_________________
Kelly McMullen
A&P/IA, EAA Tech Counselor # 5286
KCHD

Ceengland

Joined: 11 Oct 2020
Posts: 391
Location: MS

Posted: Thu Jan 28, 2021 2:12 pm Post subject: Some Thoughts on Z101

I posted here a few months ago about my       brownout solution on my GRT EFIS. The GRT, like most flight       critical electronics these days, has multiple diode-isolated       inputs. I just tapped the power feed wire to the EFIS, used it to       also power a small 4A boost converter (small enough to fit in a       pill bottle) that was set to step up voltage to ~11.5V (minimum       boost to reliably keep the EFIS online). The booster output feeds       into one of the extra power inputs on the EFIS. During cranking,       the booster will keep voltage into the spare power terminal at       12V; in normal operation, it's powered and its output is the same       as bus voltage. Slight parasitic draw during operation, but       extremely simple. One really cheap device & two wires.

       

       Charlie

       

       On 1/28/2021 3:04 PM, Rick Beebe wrote:

     

      	  Quote: 	
		                Yes. My G3X Touch screen survives engine start but the GTN 750       reboots. I need to figure out a brownout booster too.

       

       When I was getting my instrument rating I had a Piper Warrior that       I upgraded with a GNS-430. I specifically removed the ADF from       that plane so they wouldn't make me fly any NDB approaches on the       checkride. 

       

       --Rick

       

       On 1/28/2021 2:52 PM, Sebastien         wrote:

       

        	  Quote: 	
		                    If you put a Garmin navigator in it, you'll want           that brownout booster.

         

                    On Thu, Jan 28, 2021 at             11:45 AM Matthew S. Whiting <m.whiting(at)frontier.com (m.whiting(at)frontier.com)>             wrote:

           

            	  Quote: 	
		               

               I plan to put a full Garmin digital panel in the S-21                 I am currently building.  IFR with today’s avionics is                 stupid easy.  If you haven’t hand flown an NDB approach                 in moderate turbulence, you really aren’t an instrument                 pilot.  😂. I actually had to do that on my instrument                 checkride.

               

             

           	
         

       	
       

     	
     

     	          		Virus-free. www.avast.com 		 	 [url=#DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2] [/url]

_________________
Charlie

Eric Page

Joined: 15 Feb 2017
Posts: 245

Posted: Thu Jan 28, 2021 6:25 pm Post subject: Re: Some Thoughts on Z101

Thanks, fellas.  I knew my thinking was a bit muddy and this was the best place for effective filtering.  I'll try to answer your questions as best I can.



 	  user9253 wrote: 	
		  Eric, what advantage does your proposal have over Z-101? 	


A bit of simplification (one less AUX BUS feed path) and the Brown-Out Booster continuously powered.



 	  Quote: 	
		  Why eliminate the normal diode feed path to the aux bus? 	


Not eliminated; replaced with the booster's internal rectifier.  Electrons still come from the same place, but are routed differently.



 	  Quote: 	
		  You can rewire the brownout booster whether the diode is there or not. 	


Indeed, but you would end up with duplicate normal feed paths: one through the diode bridge and one through the booster.



 	  Quote: 	
		  It is a bad idea to have two fuses in series.  Z-101 does not fuse the aux bus. 	


Yes, I agree.  I forgot that the appliances on the AUX BUS would be individually fused.



 	  Quote: 	
		  Is a brown out booster really necessary?  Doesn't your EFIS have an internal backup battery? 	


Internal, no.  Dynon sells a separate backup battery of undisclosed chemistry, which creates a testing/maintenance burden.  I would like to wire the plane such that the EFIS and a few other items share a separate bus (AUX BUS?) that is redundantly powered.  The booster solves the reboot-on-engine-start problem.  With those two features, Dynon's $175 battery isn't needed.



 	  Quote: 	
		  Why even supply a whole bus with brownout protection?

Why is a separate aux bus needed?

Just connect one or two loads to a brownout booster using dual diodes. 	


OK, I'm beginning to see the wisdom of your questions.  I plan to power the EFIS, GPS antenna, comm radio, landing light and Hobbs (minimum/emergency VFR equipment) from the AUX BUS.  Given that the EFIS, and perhaps the GPS antenna, are the only things I need to protect against brown-out, I could leave Z101 alone and just feed them from the AUX BUS through the booster, much as Charlie described above.



Cheers,



Eric

Last edited by Eric Page on Wed Feb 03, 2021 9:17 am; edited 1 time in total

prestonkavanagh

Joined: 27 Nov 2018
Posts: 16
Location: Tarpon Springs

Posted: Fri Jan 29, 2021 2:19 pm Post subject: Re: Some Thoughts on Z101

This has turned into a thread on alternative ways of providing a brownout bus.  As discussed in the past, we don't necessarily need one.  Accepting that my Garmin GPS-Comm might cutout on startup, and that there are situations where this would be inconvenient, in my Z101 design I'm including a booster (see attached photos).  I built two small boxes and both work.  Now I pick one and decide whether to brown-out protect a circuit or add a small brownout bus.  Yes, I should add a diode.  Other comments?  Skip this complication entirely?

boost2.PNG

Description:

Filesize:

867.39 KB

Viewed:

10440 Time(s)

boost1.PNG

Description:

Filesize:

953.04 KB

Viewed:

10440 Time(s)

_________________
PBK3
PA-12, BD-4, RV6a, gliders, Rutan canards

Ceengland

Joined: 11 Oct 2020
Posts: 391
Location: MS

Posted: Fri Jan 29, 2021 3:05 pm Post subject: Some Thoughts on Z101

On Fri, Jan 29, 2021 at 4:25 PM prestonkavanagh <preston.kavanagh(at)gmail.com (preston.kavanagh(at)gmail.com)> wrote:



 	  Quote: 	
		  --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "prestonkavanagh" <preston.kavanagh(at)gmail.com (preston.kavanagh(at)gmail.com)>

 

 This has turned into a thread on alternative ways of providing a brownout bus.  As discussed in the past, we don't necessarily need one.  Accepting that my Garmin GPS-Comm might cutout on startup, and that there are situations where this would be inconvenient, in my Z101 design I'm including a booster (see attached photos).  I built two small boxes and both work.  Now I pick one and decide whether to brown-out protect a circuit or add a small brownout bus.  Yes, I should add a diode.  Other comments?  Skip this complication entirely?

 

 --------

 PBK3

 PA-12, BD-4, RV6a, gliders

 

	
Have you tested the 'dual' version for proper boost operation? The data sheet hints that it is a buck converter; not boost.

As to whether to include brownout: If there's no delay, or the delay in bootup of your installed devices isn't inconvenient, then don't install one. I had hoped that a new battery would solve my issue, but it didn't. I installed one because my older EFIS equipment requires several minutes to fully boot, and often will 'lock up' during cranking, requiring me to shut off the entire airframe to enable a re-start of the EFIS equipment. Livable in winter, but in summer, it just wastes fuel to sit idling so long. (Almost all my flying is from uncontrolled fields, so clearance delivery isn't a factor for me.)

Charlie

_________________
Charlie

Eric Page

Joined: 15 Feb 2017
Posts: 245

Posted: Sat Jan 30, 2021 8:46 am Post subject: Re: Some Thoughts on Z101

 	  Ceengland wrote: 	
		  Have you tested the 'dual' version for proper boost operation? The data sheet hints that it is a buck converter; not boost. 	


It's buck-boost; note the two inductors.  The LM2577 does boost and the LM2596 does buck.



https://www.ti.com/lit/ds/symlink/lm2577.pdf



https://www.ti.com/lit/ds/symlink/lm2596.pdf

dj_theis

Joined: 28 Aug 2017
Posts: 56
Location: Minnesota

Posted: Tue Feb 02, 2021 6:13 pm Post subject: Re: Some Thoughts on Z101

 	  Quote: 	
		   Re brownout booster: I'm pondering a plan-d . . .

or are we up to 'e'? There are dozens of suitable

step up devices on the market but I have no knowledge

of their 'spool up' times nor can I personally

vouch for their specifications without putting

the device under test on the bench and doing

some measurements. 	




I purchased a couple of these a while back from Amazon.



https://www.amazon.com/ANMBEST-LTC1871-Converter-Adjustable-Voltmeter/dp/B08CMKGRZQ/ref=sr_1_1?dchild=1&keywords=ANMBEST+2PCS+LTC1871&qid=1612318310&s=electronics&sr=1-1



Adjustable output and alleged 6amp continuous output.



I ran a quick test with a bench supply (using a GRT Sport EX EFIS as the only load).  The GRT only draws about 0.5 amps so it's not much of a load but likely all I might need.



I captured two waveforms.  The first with simply turning off my very dated "BK Precision, bench supply.  Turning off the supply left the output voltage to decay with the internal caps bleeding down.  Hardly a simulation of an engine starting.



The second might be slightly closer to a cranking environment, where I rapidly turned the voltage control knob down.



For what it's worth.  I like the thought of using one that has a known design and components, as Eric is suggesting.  I'll continue to test this unit but who knows how long it will last.



Dan Theis

voltage control change in bench supply with GRT SPort EX.pdf

Description:

Download

Filename:

voltage control change in bench supply with GRT SPort EX.pdf

Filesize:

25.01 KB

Downloaded:

325 Time(s)

Bench supply power down with GRT Sport EX.pdf

Description:

Download

Filename:

Bench supply power down with GRT Sport EX.pdf

Filesize:

24.29 KB

Downloaded:

316 Time(s)

_________________
Dan Theis
Scratch building Sonex #1362
Still working on the Revmaster Alternator improvement

Eric Page

Joined: 15 Feb 2017
Posts: 245

Posted: Wed Feb 03, 2021 9:23 am Post subject: Re: Some Thoughts on Z101

 	  nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelect wrote: 	
		  Can you elaborate on your design goals? 	


- Redundant electrical supply for the engine (auto conversion with ECU and electronic ignition)

- Failure of one alternator or regulator cannot cause AOG

- Redundant electrical supply for minimum/emergency VFR equipment (EFIS, GPS, comm, landing light, Hobbs)

- Brown-out-proof EFIS installation



 	  Quote: 	
		  Re brownout booster: I'm pondering a plan-d . . . or are we up to 'e'? There are dozens of suitable step up devices on the market but I have no knowledge of their 'spool up' times nor can I personally vouch for their specifications without putting the device under test on the bench and doing some measurements.



I think I have a way to craft a brown-out booster of KNOWN performance thus avoiding the risks for incorporating the Chinese unknowns. Watch this space.



A full schematic of the proposed boost system would make it easier to 'grok'. 	


A schematic for the booster I've been fiddling with is attached.  It uses TI's LM3481: https://tinyurl.com/yy9twn9t+



It will grunt 7A all day.  It takes about 12ms for the output to come up into a 2A load when it's powered up from cold, and if it's already powered, output never falls more than a few mV below 12V when input is cut from 14V to 10V.



It seems to work well but it's never going to be a drop-in, jellybean solution; it's all SMD, including fine-pitch and leadless components.



Thanks,



Eric

Brown-Out Booster (Rev B).pdf

Description:

Download

Filename:

Brown-Out Booster (Rev B).pdf

Filesize:

23.07 KB

Downloaded:

278 Time(s)

Eric Page

Joined: 15 Feb 2017
Posts: 245

Posted: Thu Feb 11, 2021 10:14 am Post subject: Re: Some Thoughts on Z101

Bob -- was there more to be said on this topic?  I answered your questions above, but the thread wandered then slipped below the noise floor...

wsimpso1

Joined: 04 Nov 2018
Posts: 33
Location: Saline MI

Posted: Mon Aug 09, 2021 6:03 am Post subject: Re: Some Thoughts on Z101

Hmm,



I just read through this whole thread. The OP explained what he was 

thinking of doing based upon Z101, and asked if there were issues with his approach. 



What followed was questioning the OP on his motives, suggestions that the reboot might not be lengthy, and thread drift. No one responded to his query about his suggested mods to do this with less hardware and fuss. 



I too find his query to be interesting, and I am still interested in the pros 

and cons of his proposed mods.  If anyone sees any issues the lesser experienced ones on this forum could benefit from, please address the original post. 



Billski

Display posts from previous:

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

Jump to:

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