The Cyber-Spy.Com Usenet Archive Feeds Directly
From The Open And Publicly Available Newsgroup
This Group And Thousands Of Others Are Available
On Most IS NNTP News Servers On Port 119.
Cyber-Spy.Com Is NOT Responsible For Any Topic,
Opinions Or Content Posted To This Or Any Other
Newsgroup. This Web Archive Of The Newsgroup And
Posts Are For Informational Purposes Only.
From: "Tarver Engineering"
References: <email@example.com> <firstname.lastname@example.org> <email@example.com> <firstname.lastname@example.org> <email@example.com> <_F1l9.30$VI5.firstname.lastname@example.org> <email@example.com> <firstname.lastname@example.org> <email@example.com> <firstname.lastname@example.org> <email@example.com>
Subject: Re: (Avionics) How can this circuit produce an "inductive surge"?
Date: Sat, 28 Sep 2002 19:02:40 -0700
X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000
"Peter Gottlieb" wrote in message
> "Tarver Engineering" wrote in message
> > > Oh, I thought you were designing the power supply and/or protection.
> > > adequate protection still a poor assumption to make? I'm not really
> > > where you're coming from here.
> > The airplane is already designed and built.
> > For the power supplies I design the input to, the transients are
> Ah, I *thought* we were going in circles.
The fact that I design in a way such as to eliminate transients in no way
should lead to an assumption that all others do the same.
> > > I would think an isolated power supply would give the best protection.
> > > way it only cares about the input bus voltage and not noise between
> > +
> > > or - lead and ground. Proper design would survive the environment
> > > for (you mentioned some spec), whether this included 600 Volt spikes,
> > > reverse polarity, or whatever.
> > Sure, but you can't know that for an existing airplane.
> > In fact, the manufacturer seems to disagree with you.
> Well, maybe my kind of engineering is different, but where I come from,
> something is supposed to be able to handle a given quality of raw power
> input it had better be able to demonstrably do so or it was back to the
> drawing board.
That is the basic function of RTCA DO-160, but that is no guarantee that the
entire airplane meets the spec.
> When I was at APC working on UPS systems the spec said the inverters had
> handle *any* load. I learned quickly to understand what that meant when
> VP of engineering brought in his table saw to test our new 1200 VA unit.
It would seem your specs are gibberish.
> There may very well be commercial acceptance test specs and that is all
> and good, but the real test is whether the avionics device is robust in
> real world, especially when the real world is a nasty place. Regardless
> what the plane manufacturers say, if a device is properly designed then it
> will withstand the airplane environment. There may be other reasons for
> them to make their procedures as they are that are perfectly valid, but on
> this specific point, in the throretical sense, what I say is accurate as
> is a matter of definition. In a practical sense, knowing the nasty spikes
> can exist on starting, one would be a fool to leave avionics on during
Leaving the avionics bus off during starting would be the best way and
shutting the avionics bus off at shutdown would be a good way to increase
the probability that the avionics bus is off during a start.
> But I digress. I got lost in the fog that this thread is becomming.
It is the crosspost.
Go Back To The Cyber-Spy.Com
Usenet Web Archive Index Of
The sci.electronics.design Newsgroup