Received-SPF: pass
 receiver=logan.com; client-ip=75.180.132.123; envelope-from=echristley@nc.rr.com
Message-ID: <4A2AD030.10804@nc.rr.com>
Date: Sat, 06 Jun 2009 16:23:12 -0400
From: Ernest Christley <echristley@nc.rr.com>
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.19 (X11/20090105)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Rotary motors in aircraft <flyrotary@lancaironline.net>
Subject: Re: [FlyRotary] Re: Battery Isolation diodes
References: <list-3672829@logan.com>
In-Reply-To: <list-3672829@logan.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit

Ed Anderson wrote:
>
> Thanks, Tracy
>
> I was unaware (never thought about it) of the association – perhaps 
> not having an isolation diode is one reason I never had any “Noise 
> Problem” with the EC2 {:>)
>
> Thanks for the information
>
> Ed
>
When wiring up the diode, it should be fairly simple to drop in a large 
value mylar capacitor to conduct the noise. My experience with 
electrolytics is that they can be poorly made and leak. The mylars would 
be more robust in the environmental extremes of an airplane.

In any case, I thought the diode was just for a backup. The switch would 
stay in the same position it has always occupied, so noise would be 
absorbed by the battery as it always has. The EC2 would have to be on 
the battery side of the switch, which would make it even more noise 
isolated when hidden behind the diode.

-- 

http://www.ernest.isa-geek.org