X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com X-SpamCatcher-Score: 30 [X] Return-Path: Sender: To: lml@lancaironline.net Date: Thu, 10 May 2007 11:15:19 -0400 Message-ID: X-Original-Return-Path: Received: from smtp102.sbc.mail.mud.yahoo.com ([68.142.198.201] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 5.1.8) with SMTP id 2035968 for lml@lancaironline.net; Thu, 10 May 2007 10:33:41 -0400 Received-SPF: none receiver=logan.com; client-ip=68.142.198.201; envelope-from=whiskeyb@sbcglobal.net Received: (qmail 93936 invoked from network); 10 May 2007 14:32:58 -0000 DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=s1024; d=sbcglobal.net; h=Received:X-YMail-OSG:Message-ID:From:To:References:Subject:Date:MIME-Version:Content-Type:X-Priority:X-MSMail-Priority:X-Mailer:X-MimeOLE; b=LMDkQkUICCgj8Kt14x07P71B8BDzjDtsxjQEmtC9QVpEucM36BJ9Z6ExatAIOfs0P4e6ihOEjmqrKsXY6QVzSqBNSUd0esRFuo1/kDVe63jc51YkW87CymybogtoDN/2FXtVqr6UvEERWg5pTDGeCcOucs8vs2Xye760eiq6Cew= ; Received: from unknown (HELO PhiPounder) (whiskeyb@sbcglobal.net@75.26.167.243 with login) by smtp102.sbc.mail.mud.yahoo.com with SMTP; 10 May 2007 14:32:57 -0000 X-YMail-OSG: 7S1wxxYVM1k4nMah0Kust8r7ifxnMNHT2I_jx1Gnv.1ZVjwKySt8RN2Xe7T1Su6PdWvXUocrXLQ5GTsgJ8mbpYRAcyusjMWEbXIcOD0T0NCQNY0tLyA- X-Original-Message-ID: <003f01c7930f$db03cb80$6601a8c0@PhiPounder> From: "Wally Bestgen" X-Original-To: "Lancair Mailing List" References: Subject: Re: [LML] Re: IVPT fuel system X-Original-Date: Thu, 10 May 2007 07:31:09 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_003C_01C792D5.2DD6A700" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.3028 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.3028 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_003C_01C792D5.2DD6A700 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hamid, You are correct. It does not preclude mechanical failure of the = solenoid. I does provide and additional layer of safety over the a = system that does not have the fault detector.=20 Wally ----- Original Message -----=20 From: Hamid A. Wasti=20 To: lml@lancaironline.net=20 Sent: Wednesday, May 09, 2007 8:26 AM Subject: [LML] Re: IVPT fuel system Wally Bestgen wrote:=20 Ultimately the only change I have to the system is to add a current = fault detector that measures the resistance of the vent solenoid. In the = event the solenoid fails and the resistance drops to "0" an annunciator = light is illuminunated.=20 The the "0 resistance" detector is a fuse/breaker. The resistance = falling to 0 is a lot less likely than the resistance going to infinity = (open circuit). I suspect that is what your new device is actually = detecting. However, in the best case, such a system only detects that the coil = still has the right resistance and is being energized. It does not = detect the position of the plunger or the state of the vent opening, = both of which can be different than expected due to a number of = potential failures. Be careful that you do not get lulled into a false = sense of security with such a system -- all it is detecting is the state = of the coil, NOT the state of the vent. Regards, Hamid -- For archives and unsub = http://mail.lancaironline.net:81/lists/lml/List.html ------=_NextPart_000_003C_01C792D5.2DD6A700 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Hamid,
 
You are correct.  It does not = preclude=20 mechanical failure of the solenoid.  I does provide and additional = layer of=20 safety over the a system that does not have the fault=20 detector. 
 
Wally
----- Original Message -----
From:=20 Hamid A.=20 Wasti
Sent: Wednesday, May 09, 2007 = 8:26=20 AM
Subject: [LML] Re: IVPT fuel = system

Wally Bestgen wrote:=20
Ultimately the only change I have = to the system=20 is to add a current fault detector that measures the resistance of = the vent=20 solenoid. In the event the solenoid fails and the resistance drops = to "0" an=20 annunciator light is illuminunated. =
The the "0=20 resistance" detector is a fuse/breaker.  The resistance falling = to 0 is a=20 lot less likely than the resistance going to infinity (open = circuit).  I=20 suspect that is what your new device is actually = detecting.

However, in=20 the best case, such a system only detects that the coil still has the = right=20 resistance and is being energized.  It does not detect the = position of=20 the plunger or the state of the vent opening, both of which can be = different=20 than expected due to a number of potential failures.  Be careful = that you=20 do not get lulled into a false sense of security with such a system -- = all it=20 is detecting is the state of the coil, NOT the state of the=20 vent.

Regards,

Hamid

--

For archives and unsub =
http://mail.lancaironline.net:81/lists/lml/List.html
------=_NextPart_000_003C_01C792D5.2DD6A700--