Matronics Email Lists Forum Index Matronics Email Lists
Web Forum Interface to the Matronics Email Lists
 
 Get Email Distribution Too!Get Email Distribution Too!    FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups   RegisterRegister 
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

Strange alternator behavior at Startup (Mickey and Bob N.)

 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Matronics Email Lists Forum Index -> AeroElectric-List
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
nuckollsr(at)cox.net
Guest





PostPosted: Sun Feb 26, 2006 7:28 pm    Post subject: Strange alternator behavior at Startup (Mickey and Bob N.) Reply with quote

At 12:37 PM 2/26/2006 -0800, you wrote:

Quote:


Dear Bob N.:

I have no Idea what you are talking about again and why its relavant,
but God Bless you.

Proof is for math problems and courts. Understanding is what real
teachers
offer. Engineers are dependent upon understanding for responsible conduct
of their craft.

Quote:


**
(BOB,CALL TRANSPO, TALK TO ENGINEERS:1800-TRANSPO/800-872-6776)
**

If they have understanding to offer, the block diagrams, schematics,
test results, etc are in order. That's what I offer and I expect no
less. Every simple idea I've had to offer was explained at length,
often illustrated and in many cases based on lessons-learned from
the past 40 years of cooking (and burning a few fingers) in this
particular kitchen.

Quote:

<snip>

>>
>> As far as control of I-VR alternators, it would be wonderful
to use
>> and trust the IGN wire. We could put a crow-bar on the CB to the
>> IGN lead. However you can't depend on it (apparently from
>> historical & empirical data). That's why a pullable CB on the B-
>> lead, to positively isolate the alternator, independent of
anything is
>> suggested. Another way to achieve the same isolation is the crow
>> bar and over voltage relay on the B-lead. That works also but its
>> heavy, costly, complicated and potentially can cause nuisance
>> trips. In defense of the crow-bar it is automatic. The
pullable CB
>> needs pilot action. The choice is the builders. As Bob N. says if
>> you can't take the small chance of an OV, than use an External
>> Regulator and OV module of some kind. if for no other reason
>> it is simple. However there is no guarantee that will work 100%
>> There's no 100% system.

> . . . and nobody has ever claimed there was. For Part 25
airplanes
>we're chartered to do the fault trees with probabilities
applied to
>each branch. When just one of those numbers is assumed, the
result
>suffers from a garbage-in-garbage out syndrome. That's why I
>have come to believe that they add little value in
determining our
>future field experience. I can show you dozens of carefully
calculated
>predictions of golden operations in fielded systems that don't
>even come close. That's why failure tolerance is so much
easier to
>embrace that hoped-for failure proof.

**
(BOB, I have an EXPERIMENTAL AIRCRAFT; Don't give a RIP about Part 25
or 23)
**


I wasn't suggesting you should. It was an ILLUSTRATION of just how
much we've come to depend on tools (and faith in the talent of
others) that started out with high ideals but failed in the
marketplace. All the analysis in the world does not replace
the repeatable experiment.

Unfortunately, there is so much faith in the up-front, computer
aided analysis that we've totally divested ourselves of any kind
of skunk works. At the same time, we're a bit dismayed that customer
aircraft have become IR&D tools for fixing problems that analysis
failed to reveal.

You seem to think I'm trying to convince you of something . . . or sell
you something. The only reason I offer you anything is as a courtesy
from one engineer to another . . . but gee, without all the alphabet
soup
after my name, perhaps my biggest failing is knowing the right kind of
words to use. I'm only trying to share my experience and observations
based on that experience. The only folks who's approval I MUST have
are those who send me money and expect a fair value in return.
Everything
else is the fun of considering simple-ideas . . . . and I DO enjoy it.
I'm sorry if it's upsetting for you. I AM distressed that you don't
seem to
grasp what I'm driving at . . . a serious failing on my part as a
teacher. Hmmmm . . . did you buy a copy of the 'Connection from me? Do
you want your money back?

Quote:
>I'm working on an article that will illustrate the pitfalls of
>accepting the bang-for-the-buck bullets -OR- the four-color
>brochures at face value. Soon . . .
**
(BOB, What? U lost me (again), call Transpo, they'll help your
UNDERSTANDING)
**

If that's what you did, then are you then a spokesperson for Transpo
or have you developed an independent but supporting professional
opinion you can share? Have you seen schematics, design philosophies,
parts selection criteria? Would you/they share that with us? I get
access
to this stuff when I approve products for my boss, it's called
preliminary
and critical design reviews. But since you're going experimental, do you
consider such tools superfluous, perhaps a waste of time? Is it no
longer
necessary that we understand how things work? Just field the pitch
over the
counter at OSH and plunk down the credit card? I may have to ask your
forgiveness. I consider my OBAM aircraft customers just as deserving
of the best-I-know-how-to-do as my TC aircraft customers.

Tell you what. I'm about done with the trade study on the MC33092A.
The task is see if there's some way we can adapt this marvelous
piece of technology into a modern replacement for all the external
regulators flying. Look over the data sheet and craft your own trade
study. If it's at all suited, how can we adapt it to this task?
Are there attractive alternatives? Are all the bang-for-the-buck-bullets
at the front of the data supported by explanation from within and
and at least supported if not confirmed by your independent analysis?
How do the features cited add value? Are any of the features nothing
more than chrome on the bumpers and fox tails on the antennas?
I've discovered some interesting points of design in the MC33022A
that offer interesting hypothesis on behaviors of failed alternators
cited recently on the List. It's been an enlightening exercise. When
yours
is done, send me a .pdf and I'll put it up on AeroElectric.com along
with my own.

You've tossed in tons of cabbages and tomatoes which I've attempted
to field with thoughtful, illustrative answers. May I suggest this
friendly competition. Let the List vote on the work product. Looser
sends the winner a copy of his favorite book.

If you 'dust' me, I'll be pleased to send you a copy of
"The Professional Amateur" by T.A. Boyd. It's a biography of
Charles F. Kettering - a scientist worthy of much respect and
emulation . . . one of my personal heros.

Bob . . .

< What is so wonderful about scientific truth...is that >
< the authority which determines whether there can be >
< debate or not does not reside in some fraternity of >
< scientists; nor is it divine. The authority rests >
< with experiment. >
< --Lawrence M. Krauss >


- The Matronics AeroElectric-List Email Forum -
 

Use the List Feature Navigator to browse the many List utilities available such as the Email Subscriptions page, Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ, Photoshare, and much more:

http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List
Back to top
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Matronics Email Lists Forum Index -> AeroElectric-List All times are GMT - 8 Hours
Page 1 of 1

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


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group