AeroElectric-Archive.digest.vol-dy
January 23, 2005 - February 03, 2005
> >higher pulse on BUS.
> >
> >So some of us feel the need for the "Transorb" to keep the BUS voltages
> >clamped while the OVP can act. The transorb acts not in 5 MS but in 1/2
> >pico
> >second 10,000+ times faster and faster than any damage can start.
> >
> >If the failure is a failed hi voltage alternator the transorb clamps the
> >voltage while the OVP acts. Both arte needed in the safest system.
> >
> >If this does not answer your concerns ask more as everyone benefits from
> >such a "conversation"
> >
> >Paul
> >
> >----- Original Message -----
> >From: "Vincent Welch" <welchvincent(at)hotmail.com>
> >To:
> >Subject: AeroElectric-List: Load Dump Question
> >
> >
> >
> > >
> > > Hey guys, I have been watching this "Battle Of The Titans" with great
> > > interest. I have a question from one a bit lower down the food
chain:)
> > >
> > > It has always been my understanding that the purpose of the OV circuit
> >was
> > > to protect my avionics from a runaway alternator. The alternator or
> > > regulator has already failed and the voltage is climbing. The crowbar
> >opens
> > > the circuit to limit prevent damage to my expensive avionics. The
> > > alternator/regulator has already failed, its trash, so I open the
B-lead
> > > under load, I get a load dump event. So what? Why do I care about
> >trying
> > > to protect the alternator now?
> > >
> > > I can understand limiting the crowbar circuit current and adding a
> >resistor
> > > sounds like a simple easy solution to that problem.
> > >
> > > What am I missing here? Please further educate me.
> > >
> > > Vince
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Paul Messinger" <paulm(at)olypen.com> |
| Subject: | Open letter to the list |
I have been a follower of the Aeroelectric Connection for 10+ years.
Bob has contributed more to experimental aviation electrical systems design
etc ( in my opinion) than ALL the rest of those pundits who would try to
educate builders in electrical systems design.
Many of us are in awe of how much Bob produces and still has time for a Job,
not to mention the width and depth of his knowledge.
But, I and other equally experienced electrical and electronic engineers
have some concerns with some of the positions and recommendations of the
Aeroelectric connection web site as well as this list.
I firmly believe that alternate solutions exist and should be given a fair
and unbiased discussion as there are always more than one good solution to
most every problem. While its great to have firm opinions not all of us
agree with each other and a well done technical vs. opinion discussion is
helpful.
These discussions should end with agreement that the others opinion has
passed technical merit and is a reasonable alternative. Today most of the
time its "my or no way" or lets overwhelm the discussion with verbose
responses until the discussion is overwhelmed with factoids not always
relevant.
During the past few years I have noticed that, on occasion, some one posts
an alternate solution and is slapped down with a comment like "why would you
want to do that" etc. The result is that person typically decides not to
follow up and others decide not to voice their alternant opinions in fear of
being slapped at. I do not think the response was intended to be harsh, just
a request for basis of that position but it comes across much harder and the
result is much discussion is suppressed.
Its now gotten to the point that many different positions are not even being
posted. I know as many post to me privately to get my opinion.
I have come up with a list of subjects and concerns where I and my
associates disagree with the "official" position of Aeroelectric Connection
in that there are pros and cons that might suggest that at least some of the
time a different concept is preferred.
This list will be a separate post soon.
With the greatest admiration and respect to Bob.
Paul
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Jerry2DT(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Load Dump Question |
Paul,
I'm sure you're right, Van's would not sell a bad
alternator....intentionally that is. However, there are any number of bad flap
motors are there from
Van's, and those weren't intentionally sold defective either. My .02..
BTW, how's your health, feeling better?
Jerry Cochran
In a message dated 1/22/2005 11:59:35 P.M. Pacific Standard Time,
aeroelectric-list-digest(at)matronics.com writes:
Personally I have never seen any real proof of what was the true cause. I
have real trouble believing Van would sell substandard alternators. ALL
standard alternator internal regulators are protected against worst case
load dump.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Paul Messinger" <paulm(at)olypen.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Load Dump Question |
My nagging question is "what is the real cause of the failure" I plan on
calling Vans tomorrow and see what they say. Bad alternators is quite
different from inability to handle load dump and/or its Bob's OVP that is
the problem.
Feeling better but still very tired after 6-7 weeks of bad times.
I have not forgotten your list nor the Dyno test/inspection.
Paul
----- Original Message -----
From: <Jerry2DT(at)aol.com>
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Re: Load Dump Question
>
>
> Paul,
>
> I'm sure you're right, Van's would not sell a bad
> alternator....intentionally that is. However, there are any number of bad
flap motors are there from
> Van's, and those weren't intentionally sold defective either. My .02..
>
> BTW, how's your health, feeling better?
>
> Jerry Cochran
>
> In a message dated 1/22/2005 11:59:35 P.M. Pacific Standard Time,
> aeroelectric-list-digest(at)matronics.com writes:
>
>
> Personally I have never seen any real proof of what was the true cause. I
> have real trouble believing Van would sell substandard alternators. ALL
> standard alternator internal regulators are protected against worst case
> load dump.
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | luckymacy(at)comcast.net (lucky) |
| Subject: | Re: Load Dump Question |
Sorry I hadn't paying attention to this topic. My system is done.
But in a sentence or two, if I have Van's 60 amp, internally regulated alternator,
why would I want to consider three parallel transorbs and where would I install
them and how would I know they are doing something for me?
thx,
lucky
-------------- Original message --------------
>
> I have found sharp transients on the bus independent of the alternator load
> dump.
>
> Bob has not been able to find any so we disagree. A single 1.5k transorb
> will clamp any present as well as clamp the OVP trigger while the OVP is in
> process of clamping the overvoltage. Of coure while the altertnator is
> connected and you have an alternator load dump transorb that will do the
> job.
>
> A single transorb is under $1 and extra insurance and may or may not bee
> needed as these transients i have found may not occur in your system.
>
> Remember that all alternators inter or external regulated exibit load dumps
> so its best to have a transorb of hi capacity like the Whackjack which is a
> convient package of 3 1.5K transorbs in parallel. These devices load share
> well so normally matching is not needed but at least 3 are needed for a
> 60amp alternator.
>
> Paul
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Vincent Welch"
> To:
> Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Load Dump Question
>
>
>
> >
> > OK, I'm almost with you Paul. If I place a transorb (say, the Whackjack)
> on
> > the alternator side of the B-Lead contactor, doesn't that clamp the entire
> > line from alternator, through contactor, to the bus? If the battery is
> > taken offline accidently isn't the bus still clamped through that
> transorb?
> > If the B-Lead contactor opens due to the OVP trip won't the bus voltage be
> > stabilized by the battery? If all of these things are true, why do we
> need
> > a second transorb on the bus side?
> >
> > If I do need a second transorb on the bus side, is another Whackjack
> > acceptable or should I use something else? If so, what?
> >
> > Vince
> >
> > >From: "Paul Messinger"
> > >Reply-To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
> > >To:
> > >Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Load Dump Question
> > >Date: Sat, 22 Jan 2005 14:26:53 -0800
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >As I recall the original start of this thread was early last year when
> > >there
> > >were failures of Van's rebuilt alternators. Bob and others questioned the
> > >quality of the rebuilt regulator in the Van's alternator.
> > >
> > >Personally I have never seen any real proof of what was the true cause. I
> > >have real trouble believing Van would sell substandard alternators. ALL
> > >standard alternator internal regulators are protected against worst case
> > >load dump.
> > >
> > >Any way You are correct that in the case of a real alternator regulator
> HI
> > >voltage failure, the only solution is to cut the "B" lead and "so what"
> if
> > >that causes an isolated load dump that the alternator cannot take.
> > >
> > >However if the alternator is working fine and the battery is disconnected
> > >the resulting load dump is distributed to the bus and can cause harm
> > >depending on what is on the bus and how big the load dump is.
> > >
> > >There are a couple of solutions to this. First a transorb big enough to
> > >clamp the load dump hi voltage. This has nothing directly to do with any
> > >OVP
> > >device present.
> > >
> > >However Bob's crow bar OVP will trigger with the above load dump and this
> > >results in the hi current during its operation that some of us object to.
> A
> > >simple addition of a small value series resistor fixes that.
> > >
> > >If the load dump is a result of the "B" lead opening the load dump issue
> is
> > >contained to the alternator where you may or may not damage the
> alternator
> > >internal regulator. A transorb on the alternator side of the "B" lead
> > >contactor will protect the alternator if the regulator is not up to the
> > >task. This is a second transorb as one needs to be on the Bus side also.
> > >
> > >If the load dump is a result of disconnecting a charging battery the load
> > >dump is delivered to the aircraft bus and potential damage can result to
> > >your avionics. Its likely the OVP will trip but not in time in all cases
> to
> > >prevent a short hi voltage pulse on the BUS. The OVP takes some time to
> > >start clamping (5-10MS?) and much longer (50-100ms) to disconnect the
> > >alternator thru the "B" lead contactor. Even 5 ms is long with a 60V or
> > >higher pulse on BUS.
> > >
> > >So some of us feel the need for the "Transorb" to keep the BUS voltages
> > >clamped while the OVP can act. The transorb acts not in 5 MS but in 1/2
> > >pico
> > >second 10,000+ times faster and faster than any damage can start.
> > >
> > >If the failure is a failed hi voltage alternator the transorb clamps the
> > >voltage while the OVP acts. Both arte needed in the safest system.
> > >
> > >If this does not answer your concerns ask more as everyone benefits from
> > >such a "conversation"
> > >
> > >Paul
> > >
> > >----- Original Message -----
> > >From: "Vincent Welch"
> > >To:
> > >Subject: AeroElectric-List: Load Dump Question
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > Hey guys, I have been watching this "Battle Of The Titans" with great
> > > > interest. I have a question from one a bit lower down the food
> chain:)
> > > >
> > > > It has always been my understanding that the purpose of the OV circuit
> > >was
> > > > to protect my avionics from a runaway alternator. The alternator or
> > > > regulator has already failed and the voltage is climbing. The crowbar
> > >opens
> > > > the circuit to limit prevent damage to my expensive avionics. The
> > > > alternator/regulator has already failed, its trash, so I open the
> B-lead
> > > > under load, I get a load dump event. So what? Why do I care about
> > >trying
> > > > to protect the alternator now?
> > > >
> > > > I can understand limiting the crowbar circuit current and adding a
> > >resistor
> > > > sounds like a simple easy solution to that problem.
> > > >
> > > > What am I missing here? Please further educate me.
> > > >
> > > > Vince
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
Sorry I hadn't paying attention to this topic. My system is done.
But in a sentence or two, if I have Van's 60 amp, internally regulated alternator,
why would I want to consider three parallel transorbs and where would I install
them and how would I know they are doing something for me?
thx,
lucky
-------------- Original message --------------
-- AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Paul Messinger"
I have found sharp transients on the bus independent of the alternator load
dump.
Bob has not been able to find any so we disagree. A single 1.5k transorb
will clamp any present as well as clamp the OVP trigger while the OVP is in
process of clamping the overvoltage. Of coure while the altertnator is
connected and you have an alternator load dump transorb that will do the
job.
A single transorb is under $1 and extra insurance and may or may not bee
needed as these transients i have found may not occur in your system.
Remember that all alternators inter or external regulated exibit load dumps
so its best to have a transor
b of hi capacity like the Whackjack which is a
convient package of 3 1.5K transorbs in parallel. These devices load share
well so normally matching is not needed but at least 3 are needed for a
60amp alternator.
Paul
----- Original Message -----
From: "Vincent Welch" <WELCHVINCENT(at)HOTMAIL.COM>
To:
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Load Dump Question
-- AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Vincent Welch"
OK, I'm almost with you Paul. If I place a transorb (say, the Whackjack)
on
the alternator side of the B-Lead contactor, doesn't that clamp the entire
line from alternator, through contactor, to the bus? If the battery is
taken offline accidently isn't the bus still clamped through that
transorb?
If the B-Lead contactor opens due to the OVP trip won't the bus voltage be
stabilized by the battery? If all of these things are true, why do we
need
a second transorb on the bus side?
If I do need a second transorb on the bus side, is another Whackjack
acceptable or should I use something else? If so, what?
Vince
From: "Paul Messinger" <PAULM(at)OLYPEN.COM>
Reply-To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
To:
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Load Dump Question
Date: Sat, 22 Jan 2005 14:26:53 -0800
-- AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Paul Messinger"
As I recall the original start of this thread was early last year when
there
were failures of Van's rebuilt alternators. Bob and others questioned the
quality of the rebuilt regulator in the Van's alternator.
Personally I have never seen any real proof of what was the true cause. I
have real trouble believing Van would sell substandard alternators. ALL
standard alternator internal regulators are protected against worst case
load dump.
Any way You are correct that in the case of a real alternator regulator
HI
voltage failure, the only solution is to cut the "B" lead and "so what"
if
that causes an isolated load dump that the alternator cannot take.
However if the alternator is working fine and the battery is disconnected
the resulting load dump is distributed
to the bus and can cause harm
depending on what is on the bus and how big the load dump is.
There are a couple of solutions to this. First a transorb big enough to
clamp the load dump hi voltage. This has nothing directly to do with any
OVP
device present.
However Bob's crow bar OVP will trigger with the above load dump and this
results in the hi current during its operation that some of us object to.
A
simple addition of a small value series resistor fixes that.
If the load dump is a result of the "B" lead opening the load dump issue
is
contained to the alternator where you may or may not damage the
alternator
internal regulator. A transorb on the alternator side of the "B" lead
contactor will protect the alternator if the regulator is not up to the
task. This is a second transorb as one needs to be on the Bus side also.
If the load dump is a result of disconnecting a charging battery the load
dump is delivered to the aircraft bus and potential damage can result to
your avionics. Its likely the OVP will trip but not in time in all cases
to
prevent a short hi voltage pulse on the BUS. The OVP takes some time to
start clamping (5-10MS?) and much longer (50-100ms) to disconnect the
alternator thru the "B" lead contactor. Even 5 ms is long with a 60V or
higher pulse on BUS.
So some of us feel the need for the "Transorb" to keep the BUS voltages
clamped while the OVP can act. The transorb acts not in 5 MS but in 1/2
&
gt;pico
second 10,000+ times faster and faster than any damage can start.
If the failure is a failed hi voltage alternator the transorb clamps the
voltage while the OVP acts. Both arte needed in the safest system.
If this does not answer your concerns ask more as everyone benefits from
such a "conversation"
Paul
----- Original Message -----
From: "Vincent Welch" <WELCHVINCENT(at)HOTMAIL.COM>
To:
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Load Dump Question
-- AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Vincent Welch"
Hey guys, I have been watching this "Battle
Of The Titans" with great
interest. I have a question from one a bit lower down the food
chain:)
It has always been my understanding that the purpose of the OV circuit
was
to protect my avionics from a runaway alternator. The alternator or
regulator has already failed and the voltage is climbing. The crowbar
opens
the circuit to limit prevent damage to my expensive avionics. The
alternator/regulator has already failed, its trash, so I open the
B-lead
under load, I get a load dump event. So what? Why do I care about
trying
to protect the alternator now?
I can understand limiting the crowbar circuit current and adding a
resistor
sounds like a simple easy solution to that problem.
What am I missing here? Please further educate me.
Vince
com/FAQ/AeroElectric-List.htm
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Leo J. Corbalis" <leocorbalis(at)sbcglobal.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Pilot stick grip priority options rev B |
Use a 1N4004 and it will never fail. I replaced many 1N4001 that the penny
squeezing manufacturer used. You have no excuse. If you have a REALLY BIG HI
CURRENT COIL then go to 400 volt 5 amp diodes.
Leo Corbalis
----- Original Message -----
From: "Mark Banus" <mbanus(at)hotmail.com>
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Pilot stick grip priority options rev B
>
> Bob,
> I am about to start building your circuit for pilot priority. I
intend to use 1N4001 diodes and a T9AP5D52-12 relay. Is there a more
appropriate relay for this application?
>
> Thanks
> Mark Banus
> Glasair S II S FT
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Mr. Pilot Peter" <pdavidson(at)familynet.net> |
| Subject: | Narco CS-3B Indicator Pinout |
I'm trying to find a pinout diagram for a Narco CS-3B Course Selecor/
indicator.
I already tried Narco. They say it's too old.
-Peter
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Bill Schlatterer" <billschlatterer(at)sbcglobal.net> |
| Subject: | Load Dump Question |
Following this thread intently but not quite up to speed on transorbs.
Could someone give me a short explanation as to how they work and where they
can be generally used for protection purposes. Assuming that the WhackJack
is a large transorb, it seems like a simple thing that might be overkill
with the B&C set up for IR alternators but what's $29 for peace of mind?
I note that Bob has added one on the Z13a diagram on the IR alternator
itself. Is this substantially different than the WhackJack?
Thanks in advance
Bill Schlatterer
7a QB/fuse/panel
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of Paul
Messinger
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Load Dump Question
I have found sharp transients on the bus independent of the alternator load
dump.
Bob has not been able to find any so we disagree. A single 1.5k transorb
will clamp any present as well as clamp the OVP trigger while the OVP is in
process of clamping the overvoltage. Of coure while the altertnator is
connected and you have an alternator load dump transorb that will do the
job.
A single transorb is under $1 and extra insurance and may or may not bee
needed as these transients i have found may not occur in your system.
Remember that all alternators inter or external regulated exibit load dumps
so its best to have a transorb of hi capacity like the Whackjack which is a
convient package of 3 1.5K transorbs in parallel. These devices load share
well so normally matching is not needed but at least 3 are needed for a
60amp alternator.
Paul
----- Original Message -----
From: "Vincent Welch" <welchvincent(at)hotmail.com>
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Load Dump Question
>
> OK, I'm almost with you Paul. If I place a transorb (say, the Whackjack)
on
> the alternator side of the B-Lead contactor, doesn't that clamp the entire
> line from alternator, through contactor, to the bus? If the battery is
> taken offline accidently isn't the bus still clamped through that
transorb?
> If the B-Lead contactor opens due to the OVP trip won't the bus voltage be
> stabilized by the battery? If all of these things are true, why do we
need
> a second transorb on the bus side?
>
> If I do need a second transorb on the bus side, is another Whackjack
> acceptable or should I use something else? If so, what?
>
> Vince
>
> >From: "Paul Messinger" <paulm(at)olypen.com>
> >Reply-To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
> >To:
> >Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Load Dump Question
> >Date: Sat, 22 Jan 2005 14:26:53 -0800
> >
> >
> >
> >As I recall the original start of this thread was early last year when
> >there
> >were failures of Van's rebuilt alternators. Bob and others questioned the
> >quality of the rebuilt regulator in the Van's alternator.
> >
> >Personally I have never seen any real proof of what was the true cause. I
> >have real trouble believing Van would sell substandard alternators. ALL
> >standard alternator internal regulators are protected against worst case
> >load dump.
> >
> >Any way You are correct that in the case of a real alternator regulator
HI
> >voltage failure, the only solution is to cut the "B" lead and "so what"
if
> >that causes an isolated load dump that the alternator cannot take.
> >
> >However if the alternator is working fine and the battery is disconnected
> >the resulting load dump is distributed to the bus and can cause harm
> >depending on what is on the bus and how big the load dump is.
> >
> >There are a couple of solutions to this. First a transorb big enough to
> >clamp the load dump hi voltage. This has nothing directly to do with any
> >OVP
> >device present.
> >
> >However Bob's crow bar OVP will trigger with the above load dump and this
> >results in the hi current during its operation that some of us object to.
A
> >simple addition of a small value series resistor fixes that.
> >
> >If the load dump is a result of the "B" lead opening the load dump issue
is
> >contained to the alternator where you may or may not damage the
alternator
> >internal regulator. A transorb on the alternator side of the "B" lead
> >contactor will protect the alternator if the regulator is not up to the
> >task. This is a second transorb as one needs to be on the Bus side also.
> >
> >If the load dump is a result of disconnecting a charging battery the load
> >dump is delivered to the aircraft bus and potential damage can result to
> >your avionics. Its likely the OVP will trip but not in time in all cases
to
> >prevent a short hi voltage pulse on the BUS. The OVP takes some time to
> >start clamping (5-10MS?) and much longer (50-100ms) to disconnect the
> >alternator thru the "B" lead contactor. Even 5 ms is long with a 60V or
> >higher pulse on BUS.
> >
> >So some of us feel the need for the "Transorb" to keep the BUS voltages
> >clamped while the OVP can act. The transorb acts not in 5 MS but in 1/2
> >pico
> >second 10,000+ times faster and faster than any damage can start.
> >
> >If the failure is a failed hi voltage alternator the transorb clamps the
> >voltage while the OVP acts. Both arte needed in the safest system.
> >
> >If this does not answer your concerns ask more as everyone benefits from
> >such a "conversation"
> >
> >Paul
> >
> >----- Original Message -----
> >From: "Vincent Welch" <welchvincent(at)hotmail.com>
> >To:
> >Subject: AeroElectric-List: Load Dump Question
> >
> >
> >
> > >
> > > Hey guys, I have been watching this "Battle Of The Titans" with great
> > > interest. I have a question from one a bit lower down the food
chain:)
> > >
> > > It has always been my understanding that the purpose of the OV circuit
> >was
> > > to protect my avionics from a runaway alternator. The alternator or
> > > regulator has already failed and the voltage is climbing. The crowbar
> >opens
> > > the circuit to limit prevent damage to my expensive avionics. The
> > > alternator/regulator has already failed, its trash, so I open the
B-lead
> > > under load, I get a load dump event. So what? Why do I care about
> >trying
> > > to protect the alternator now?
> > >
> > > I can understand limiting the crowbar circuit current and adding a
> >resistor
> > > sounds like a simple easy solution to that problem.
> > >
> > > What am I missing here? Please further educate me.
> > >
> > > Vince
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Eric M. Jones" <emjones(at)charter.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Load Dump Question |
>But in a sentence or two, if I have Van's 60 amp, internally regulated
alternator,
>why would I want to consider three parallel transorbs and where would I
install
>them....
The three parallel transorbs are used because 1.5kW devices are a little
easier to get than the 5 kW parts, they provide some redundancy perhaps, and
they have a little less overshoot to transients. It mounts near the
alternator and tees off the B-lead.
None of these issues is really critical. Bob's solution is fine.
>>how would I know they are doing something ......?
Well, the fire extinguisher in my Jeep has successfully prevented a
fire....so far.
Load dump is not an imaginary issue. This is a real phenomena that becomes
more important as more electronics is stuffed into your airplane. The result
of not squashing the problem is that your avionics repairman buys a new
Lexus every year.
Regards,
Eric M. Jones
www.PerihelionDesign.com
113 Brentwood Drive
Southbridge MA 01550-2705
Phone (508) 764-2072
Email: emjones(at)charter.net
"I tried being reasonable--I didn't like it!"
--Clint Eastwood
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Paul Messinger" <paulm(at)olypen.com> |
| Subject: | Points for discussion |
I and my associates have a few issues with some of the apparent positions
and solutions that have been presented here on this forum and the following
listed topics will be posted one issue at a time to stimulate discussion.
In no particular order. The posted subjects will not necessarly be in the
following order.
A. Batteries: Testing/usage/quality
B. OVP: Shorting/opening/limited current
C. Transorbs: Needed?/usage/etc
D. Fault interruption: Fuses/CB/Solid state
E. Battery capacity vs fuel duration: How much and why
F. Switches: Contact types etc/solid state
G. Avionics master: Needed yes/no and why
H. Alternator load meter: Only or battery also needed
I. Unstitched battery buses: needed and why or why not.
J. KISS in the cockpit: Keep it simple, minimize pilot actions
K. All electric aircraft design approach: just mags or auto conversion
L. Schematics for design: Full or just concepts
M. Spread sheet load analysis: advantages and limitatons.
N-Z Open to other topics. Note load dump seems to be well discussed and thus
not included here as it will be discussed in depth with the forthcomming lab
testing.
Paul
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <b.nuckolls(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Narco CS-3B Indicator Pinout |
>
>
>I'm trying to find a pinout diagram for a Narco CS-3B Course Selecor/
>indicator.
>I already tried Narco. They say it's too old.
>-Peter
Sorry, that item is not in my data base.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <b.nuckolls(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Load Dump Question |
>
>My nagging question is "what is the real cause of the failure" I plan on
>calling Vans tomorrow and see what they say. Bad alternators is quite
>different from inability to handle load dump and/or its Bob's OVP that is
>the problem.
Van's won't have a clue. The BIG question to ask is whether
their alternators are factory new or rebuilds. If rebuilds,
do they have any first-hand knowledge of regulators used
in the rebuild process?
I've never said nor intended to imply that Van's ever
sold a "bad" alternator. As we all know, there are good,
better, best solutions to most every design decision and
many folks are not particularly interested or driven to
understand the finer details of the process.
Van's has reacted in a very predictable and honorable
way in making their recommendations: If a particular
situation was detrimental to the use of our product,
we recommend you use it the way WE have used it
successfully for years. But at the same time, if
Van's were selling less-than-the-best-we-know-how-to-do,
it's doubtful that it was a conscious decision on
their part to short change anyone.
It's hard to argue with perceived success. If we're
to be HELPFUL, then designing and publishing the repeatable
experiment along with the results is the way you make
the best decisions. If anyone throws rocks without
such data, I'll be the first to defend the target.
>Feeling better but still very tired after 6-7 weeks of bad times.
We've had our hands full here too for the past several
months. Visited my dad in Medicine Lodge, KS today. He's
out of the hospital, home and getting stronger but
forever tethered to an oxygen concentrator. Makes him
very easy to locate. He's always within 50' of the
machine! Dee was in the hospital two weeks ago for
several days but is 90% recovered and hit the road
today to visit a good friend in Sallisaw, OK. I've got
two projects on the bench for RAC (The last of the
RAC skunkworks operations is now in my basement!).
Got 50% of the ice storm damage cut up and stacked.
My son (professional tree trimmer) is coming down
next weekend to clear the one big branch that didn't
come down . . . it's the one that extends right over
the house. He thinks he's going to shinny up
the thing and take it down in pieces. I don't think
I'll watch . . . he probably thinks the same thing
about me when I wire up house circuits in a hot-box.
Each to his own . . .
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Harold Kovac" <kayce(at)sysmatrix.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Open letter to the list |
I second your observation, He is a great service to all in aviation.
Harold
----- Original Message -----
From: Paul Messinger
To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Sunday, January 23, 2005 5:11 PM
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Open letter to the list
I have been a follower of the Aeroelectric Connection for 10+ years.
Bob has contributed more to experimental aviation electrical systems design
etc ( in my opinion) than ALL the rest of those pundits who would try to
educate builders in electrical systems design.
Many of us are in awe of how much Bob produces and still has time for a Job,
not to mention the width and depth of his knowledge.
But, I and other equally experienced electrical and electronic engineers
have some concerns with some of the positions and recommendations of the
Aeroelectric connection web site as well as this list.
I firmly believe that alternate solutions exist and should be given a fair
and unbiased discussion as there are always more than one good solution to
most every problem. While its great to have firm opinions not all of us
agree with each other and a well done technical vs. opinion discussion is
helpful.
These discussions should end with agreement that the others opinion has
passed technical merit and is a reasonable alternative. Today most of the
time its "my or no way" or lets overwhelm the discussion with verbose
responses until the discussion is overwhelmed with factoids not always
relevant.
During the past few years I have noticed that, on occasion, some one posts
an alternate solution and is slapped down with a comment like "why would you
want to do that" etc. The result is that person typically decides not to
follow up and others decide not to voice their alternant opinions in fear of
being slapped at. I do not think the response was intended to be harsh, just
a request for basis of that position but it comes across much harder and the
result is much discussion is suppressed.
Its now gotten to the point that many different positions are not even being
posted. I know as many post to me privately to get my opinion.
I have come up with a list of subjects and concerns where I and my
associates disagree with the "official" position of Aeroelectric Connection
in that there are pros and cons that might suggest that at least some of the
time a different concept is preferred.
This list will be a separate post soon.
With the greatest admiration and respect to Bob.
Paul
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Tim Olson <Tim(at)MyRV10.com> |
| Subject: | AMP CPC connectors and Pins |
Hi all,
I'm getting ready to buy some AMP CPC connectors just as connectors at
the wing root for my pitot, landing, Nav, Strobe, and stall warning
connections, so that I can wire the wings, and connect the connector
at the time I join the wings to the fuse.
In looking at the CPC varieties, I want to make sure I get the
appropriate style and pin type. I'm looking at Digikey's
online catalog starting at page 244.
I was planning on Series 1 sealed plastic connectors, since the contacts
can handle 13A, and I have nothing that will draw that much.
The real question is the pins. I have choices like:
*Selective Gold with 30u gold on Electrical engagement area over
50u nickel on entire contact.
*15u gold in the mating area over 50u nickel.
*Selective gold with 30u gold on electrical engagement areas with
10u on the remainder over 50u nickel.
(The "u" I'm assuming is microns...it's really kind-of a backwards u)
My guess is the last one is best, because it's all covered in gold.
Correct?
Then, I already own a crimper that does the standard crimping of these
connectors, where the two tabs on the tail make "m" shaped crimps.
BUT, I see that they make nice, screw machined crimp connectors that
seem to be similar to the D-sub pins that I'm about to buy,along
with the required crimper. Would these be better, and would they
crimp with the same crimper used on the D-sub pins? Digikey does
list a couple of crimpers like the Pro-Crimper II with dies for
$145.50 for series 1 contacts. I don't know if this is better than
what I own though. I have a nice ratcheting crimper for AMP pins.
Then, to throw a bigger twist in, there are some MIL-C-5015 connectors
and contacts that I can buy instead, but they even list their own
"certi-crimp" crimper. I don't know if they're really something
special, or just overkill on price due to being "Mil-Spec".
Anyway, any guidance the connector experts can give would be
appreciated. Not that I just want to go the cheapest, but it
is kind of looking like I could just go with the series 1
connectors, series 1 standard "m" crimp pins, and call it good.
I just to date have no experience with the nice machined pins,
and have never really had to choose the plating on the pins before.
Thanks in advance for any help!
Tim
--
Tim Olson -- RV-10 #170
Tim(at)MyRV10.com
Wing Kit - Almost Complete
QB Fuse - Coming soon!
'77 Sundowner - Flying
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Brian Lloyd <brianl(at)lloyd.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Hall effect sensor |
Glen Matejcek wrote:
>
> Hi All-
>
> A short while ago, someone (Bob, I believe) made the suggestion to run both
> the main and stby alt B leads through the same Hall effect sensor. Seems
> like a pretty nifty idea, but something just came to mind. The
> installation instructions for the SD-8 call for the leads from the SD-8 all
> the way to the battery to be a twisted pair. How close can the ground wire
> be to the Hall effect sensor before it starts to influence the sensor vs.
> the need to maintain the twisted pair for noise suppression?
Twist the pairs together but split them as they pass through the
hall-effect sensor. Pass the ground lead outside.
--
Brian Lloyd 6501 Red Hook Plaza
brianl(at)lloyd.com Suite 201
http://www.lloyd.com St. Thomas, VI 00802
+1.340.998.9447 (voice) +1.270.912.0788 (fax)
There is a time to laud one's country and a time to protest.
A good citizen is prepared to do either as the need arises.
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | turning off an internally regulated |
alternator
alternator
| From: | "Nightingale Michael" <NightingaleMichaelV(at)JohnDeere.com> |
According to the FAQ's on AERO SPORT POWER home page.
*Does the 40amp internally regulated alternator you provide on your O-360 have
a switchable lead for the alternator field ?
Yes, this switch allows you to shut off the alternator without pulling the main
output circuit breaker
http://www.aerosportpower.com/f_a_q_'s.htm
Michael V. Nightingale
@ DEERE & Co. Computer Center
400 19th ST
MOLINE, IL. 61265
309-314-6806 cell NightingaleMichaelV(at)JohnDeere.com
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of Paul
Messinger
Subject: AeroElectric-List: turning off an internally regulated
alternator
> then there's nothing at risk for turning
> the main alternator OFF and aux alternator ON during runup to
> check your ignition system(s).
ALL the Jap internally regulated alternators INCL ND (that I have looked at
and that is quite a few but no where all types and ND alone has several
different designs) cannot be turned off once turned on and running.
Toggle the alt ON OFF connection all you want but the internal regulator is
LATCHED on.
IS vans ND different??
Its possible to disconnect the "B" lead using the CB but that is
disconnecting not turning off the alternator.
Paul
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: AMP CPC connectors and Pins |
| From: | "John Schroeder" <jschroeder(at)perigee.net> |
Tim -
The machined pins you can buy from B&C and other places can be used in
both the DSubs and the AMP CPC Type II connectors. We have used a few
DSubs to connect to equipment and some wire-to-wire connections. But we
switched to CPC Type II's for 24-20 AWG wires connecting to wires because
the difficulty tightening the Dsubs was too hard in cramped spaces. We
just de-pinned the DSubs and inserted the wires/pins into the Type II's.
For AWG 18 and a couple of 16's, we used gold plated pins in Type I CPC's.
If you need to put AWG 22-20 wires into a Type I because you have the
space, be sure to get some pins that are sized for those wire gauges. And
the open barrel crimper die is different for the smaller pins. I don't
know much about the types of gold plated pins, but you get much more long
term reliability out of the gold ones (50 de-mates vs. 500 de-mates - as I
read somewhere). All of the avionics shops use gold plated pins for
warranty considerations.
We also used a lot of Molex Mini-Fit Juniors for connections because you
can get them in 2,3,6 ... pin configurations and the have a latch lock.
Much better than the regular Molex connectors. Their pins are 9 amp and we
used 18 AWG on down to 24 (trim actuators, indicators, etc.). Be sure to
get a pin remover if you go this way. Also, the open barrel crimper works
on these, but get the smaller pins as well as the the larger pins.
I'd buy the machined pins and crimper from B&C. We tried another brand of
screw machined pins for some of the CPc's and they do not work nearly as
well. They seem to come out of the B&C crimper with a bit of a bend where
the crimp is made.
Hope this helps.
John
> I'm getting ready to buy some AMP CPC connectors just as connectors at
> the wing root for my pitot, landing, Nav, Strobe, and stall warning
> connections, so that I can wire the wings, and connect the connector
> at the time I join the wings to the fuse.
>
> In looking at the CPC varieties, I want to make sure I get the
> appropriate style and pin type. I'm looking at Digikey's
> online catalog starting at page 244.
>
> I was planning on Series 1 sealed plastic connectors, since the contacts
> can handle 13A, and I have nothing that will draw that much.
>
> Then, I already own a crimper that does the standard crimping of these
> connectors, where the two tabs on the tail make "m" shaped crimps.
> BUT, I see that they make nice, screw machined crimp connectors that
> seem to be similar to the D-sub pins that I'm about to buy,along
> with the required crimper. Would these be better, and would they
> crimp with the same crimper used on the D-sub pins? Digikey does
> list a couple of crimpers like the Pro-Crimper II with dies for
> $145.50 for series 1 contacts. I don't know if this is better than
> what I own though. I have a nice ratcheting crimper for AMP pins.
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Tim Olson <Tim(at)MyRV10.com> |
| Subject: | Re: AMP CPC connectors and Pins |
Thanks again John, you're very helpful.
I do have a follow-up though. Today I'm having good luck figuring
out the pins for the most part. I also checked on my OD specs for
the wires to buy the proper pins.
The follow-up is what open-barrel crimper do you suggest? I looked
at mine this a.m. and found it was just a cheap one, not a nice
ratcheting one. For around $150 you can get an AMP Pro Crimper II
with the proper dies, but I'm hoping for something a little more
affordable that will still do a good job. Mine isn't too far off
from the BCT-1, B-Crimp from B&C.
As for the Type I vs Type II, I just went with Type I because I
have the space and the pins are larger for more current capacity.
A couple of 9-pins for the Autopilot servo wires, and a couple of
16-pins for the misc. wires. That should cover anything except
if I go with strobe power that's not at the wingtips, I'm not
going to run those with the rest of the wires. Same with any
RF cables.
Thanks for the tip on the Molex Mini-Fit's....I'll save that for future
reference so I don't have to ask later!
Tim
John Schroeder wrote:
>
> Tim -
>
> The machined pins you can buy from B&C and other places can be used in
> both the DSubs and the AMP CPC Type II connectors. We have used a few
> DSubs to connect to equipment and some wire-to-wire connections. But we
> switched to CPC Type II's for 24-20 AWG wires connecting to wires because
> the difficulty tightening the Dsubs was too hard in cramped spaces. We
> just de-pinned the DSubs and inserted the wires/pins into the Type II's.
> For AWG 18 and a couple of 16's, we used gold plated pins in Type I CPC's.
> If you need to put AWG 22-20 wires into a Type I because you have the
> space, be sure to get some pins that are sized for those wire gauges. And
> the open barrel crimper die is different for the smaller pins. I don't
> know much about the types of gold plated pins, but you get much more long
> term reliability out of the gold ones (50 de-mates vs. 500 de-mates - as I
> read somewhere). All of the avionics shops use gold plated pins for
> warranty considerations.
>
> We also used a lot of Molex Mini-Fit Juniors for connections because you
> can get them in 2,3,6 ... pin configurations and the have a latch lock.
> Much better than the regular Molex connectors. Their pins are 9 amp and we
> used 18 AWG on down to 24 (trim actuators, indicators, etc.). Be sure to
> get a pin remover if you go this way. Also, the open barrel crimper works
> on these, but get the smaller pins as well as the the larger pins.
>
> I'd buy the machined pins and crimper from B&C. We tried another brand of
> screw machined pins for some of the CPc's and they do not work nearly as
> well. They seem to come out of the B&C crimper with a bit of a bend where
> the crimp is made.
>
> Hope this helps.
>
> John
>
>
>
>>I'm getting ready to buy some AMP CPC connectors just as connectors at
>>the wing root for my pitot, landing, Nav, Strobe, and stall warning
>>connections, so that I can wire the wings, and connect the connector
>>at the time I join the wings to the fuse.
>>
>>In looking at the CPC varieties, I want to make sure I get the
>>appropriate style and pin type. I'm looking at Digikey's
>>online catalog starting at page 244.
>>
>>I was planning on Series 1 sealed plastic connectors, since the contacts
>>can handle 13A, and I have nothing that will draw that much.
>>
>
>
>>Then, I already own a crimper that does the standard crimping of these
>>connectors, where the two tabs on the tail make "m" shaped crimps.
>>BUT, I see that they make nice, screw machined crimp connectors that
>>seem to be similar to the D-sub pins that I'm about to buy,along
>>with the required crimper. Would these be better, and would they
>>crimp with the same crimper used on the D-sub pins? Digikey does
>>list a couple of crimpers like the Pro-Crimper II with dies for
>>$145.50 for series 1 contacts. I don't know if this is better than
>>what I own though. I have a nice ratcheting crimper for AMP pins.
>>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
--
Tim Olson -- RV-10 #170
Tim(at)MyRV10.com
Wing Kit - Almost Complete
QB Fuse - Coming soon!
'77 Sundowner - Flying
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Neil K Clayton <harvey4(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | Question re circuit breakers |
Forgive what I'm sure is a fundamental question but looking at the spec for
P&B W23 series breakers, it says max operating voltage 50VDC.
I'll be running it 12VDC in my plane.
so a 10amp breaker (say) will draw 50V x 10 A = 500 Watts to pop it when
running at 50V
but will only draw 12V x 10A = 120 Watts when in my 12V plane.
My question is, since these are thermal devices, how do it know when to pop?
Thanks
Neil
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | rv-9a-online <rv-9a-online(at)telus.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Question re circuit breakers |
Neil, the voltage rating of a breaker is the maximum voltage at which
the breaker will operate, not a factor in the computation of power. A
breaker is normally a thermal device (will trip based on internal
temperature), with a designed resistance, call it R. The heat (power)
is the current (I) squared times the resistance or I
2 * R. The energy
is power times time or I
2 * R * t. Energy produces heat, heat trips
the breaker. Voltage has nothing directly to do with the operation of
the breaker, only current and time.
You can see that in an ideal world, if a 10A breaker that takes 10
seconds to trip at 10A, would take only 100 milliseconds to trip at
100A. Breakers are not ideal devices, but you get the picture.
I hope this is helpful.
Vern Little
Neil K Clayton wrote:
>
>Forgive what I'm sure is a fundamental question but looking at the spec for
>P&B W23 series breakers, it says max operating voltage 50VDC.
>I'll be running it 12VDC in my plane.
>
>so a 10amp breaker (say) will draw 50V x 10 A = 500 Watts to pop it when
>running at 50V
>but will only draw 12V x 10A = 120 Watts when in my 12V plane.
>
>My question is, since these are thermal devices, how do it know when to pop?
>
>Thanks
>Neil
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: AMP CPC connectors and Pins |
| From: | "John Schroeder" <jschroeder(at)perigee.net> |
Tim -
I bought a Paladin 1300 series ratcheting crimper frame and 2 sets of
dies. One set (#2082) has a slot for 24-30 AWG open barrel and another for
18-22 AWG open barrel. This combo does Molex Mini-Fit Juniors, AMP CPC
Type I, AMP Mate 'N Lock "Craps" (the kind that Whelan sends along with
their light and strobe kits) and the older Molex connectors (almost as bad
as the AMP Mate 'N Locks). The machined pin crimper from B&C is specially
modified to do perfect crimps on the AMP brand machined pins. They set the
depth so that the diamond crimp is at the right position on the pin. I
have done about 80 percent of all crimps with these two crimpers and the
8082 die set for the Paladin. You can also get a Paladin die set for
crimping Red, Blue and Yellow PIDG terminals. While you are at it, buy a
set of dies for the RG-58/BNC connectors.
The other set of dies (no number) for the Paladin has slots for 22-18,
16-14 and 12-10 open barrels. I used this set to crimp a few AWG16 and a
couple of AWG 12 wires to Molex Mini Fit Senior connectors (landing/taxi
lights and pitot heat, respectively). The Paladin is a medium quality
crimper and the dies are very good quality. The frame and both sets of
dies were $76. I bought them from GreatCables.com
Unless a specific piece of equipment like the Dynon or some of the
avionics require DSubs, I would strongly recommend going with Type II AMP
CPC's for free hanging or panel mount connectors that connect multiple
wires in bundles. They are much easier to secure, not that much more
expensive, easier to mate and they use the same pins as the DSubs.
Hope this helps.
John
PS: What kind of airplane are you building? Ours is a Lancair Super ES.
> The follow-up is what open-barrel crimper do you suggest? I looked
> at mine this a.m. and found it was just a cheap one, not a nice
> ratcheting one. For around $150 you can get an AMP Pro Crimper II
> with the proper dies, but I'm hoping for something a little more
> affordable that will still do a good job. Mine isn't too far off
> from the BCT-1, B-Crimp from B&C.
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Jeffrey W. Skiba" <jskiba(at)icosa.net> |
| Subject: | Lost Linik for Pilot Stick Grip Switches |
All,
Can some point top the link where the AEROELECTRIC Connection Pilot Stick
Grip Switches Priority Options REV B 14 MAR 04 is found
I have an old print out that I ripped and would like to re print it.
Thanks In advance Jeff.
--
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Glen Matejcek" <aerobubba(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | Hall effect sensor |
Hi Brian-
Thanks for the quick reply. I get running the ground lead outside the loop
of the sensor; my concern is the proximity of the ground wire to the
sensor. Are you saying that it is irrelevant and that it would be okay for
the ground wire to actually be in contact with the outer surface of the
sensor?
Thanks again-
Glen Matejcek
aerobubba(at)earthlink.net
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Mark Banus" <mbanus(at)hotmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Lost Linik for Pilot Stick Grip Switches |
http://www.aeroelectric.com/articles/Pilot_Priority_B.pdf
Mark Banus
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Brian Lloyd <brianl(at)lloyd.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Hall effect sensor |
Glen Matejcek wrote:
>
> Hi Brian-
>
> Thanks for the quick reply. I get running the ground lead outside the loop
> of the sensor; my concern is the proximity of the ground wire to the
> sensor. Are you saying that it is irrelevant and that it would be okay for
> the ground wire to actually be in contact with the outer surface of the
> sensor?
Yes. Most hall-effect sensors place the sensor in the gap of a ferrous
metal ring. You pass the wires you want to sense through the middle of
this ring. The field around the wires then induces a corresponding
magnetic field in the ring which is what the hall-effect sensor then
measures. Anything outside that ring is, for all intents and purposes,
ignored.
So back to the short answer, yes, you can place the ground wire in
proximity. It won't have an effect unless you also run it through the
hole in the sensor.
--
Brian Lloyd 6501 Red Hook Plaza
brianl(at)lloyd.com Suite 201
http://www.lloyd.com St. Thomas, VI 00802
+1.340.998.9447 (voice) +1.270.912.0788 (fax)
There is a time to laud one's country and a time to protest.
A good citizen is prepared to do either as the need arises.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Charlie England <ceengland(at)bellsouth.net> |
"avionics-list(at)matronics.com"
| Subject: | Garmin GNC300 problem |
Posted for a friend:
New install of Garmin GNC300. All functions seem to work normally unless
the transmit button is held for 10-15 seconds. The display will then go
dim to dark & the unit hums & groans. This continues after the transmit
button is released. If power is cycled, the unit will immediately return
to normal operation. The owner has removed the GPS antenna & has seen
no change in the symptoms.
Any thoughts??
Thanks,
Charlie
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | rv-9a-online <rv-9a-online(at)telus.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Garmin GNC300 problem |
What is the power feed to the unit... a fused circuit, a circuit breaker
or a poly fuse (Controlvision load center)?
Vern Little
Charlie England wrote:
>
>Posted for a friend:
>
>New install of Garmin GNC300. All functions seem to work normally unless
>the transmit button is held for 10-15 seconds. The display will then go
>dim to dark & the unit hums & groans. This continues after the transmit
>button is released. If power is cycled, the unit will immediately return
>to normal operation. The owner has removed the GPS antenna & has seen
>no change in the symptoms.
>
>Any thoughts??
>
>Thanks,
>
>Charlie
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <b.nuckolls(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Rotary Switch- solution found |
>
>Question - is this switch, switching AC or DV voltages - switches rated for
>AC normally will only handle a fraction of their current rating when
>operated in a DC application. It has to do with the type of contacts used
>in each switch, DC switches cost more to make because of the material that
>has to be used to reduce arcing when contacts break and resist welding. AC
>switches take advantage of the zero point crossing of the AC swine wave to
>reducing arching effect when contact break thus allow the use of lower cost
>materials for the contacts.
>jerb
Yeah . . . kinda sorta . . . DC vs. AC ratings of switches is
not well understood and there's a LOT of hangar lore and ol'
mechanic's tales circulating around out there. Take a look at:
http://aeroelectric.com/articles/swtchrat.pdf
Yes, there's a lot more to switch design and usage than meets
the eye. But MOST of what's circulated in OBAM aviation circles
takes good data and puts an incorrect interpretation on it.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "David Lloyd" <skywagon(at)charter.net> |
"aeroelectric list"
| Subject: | Re: Avionics-List: Garmin GNC300 problem |
Charlie,
The transmit mode draws the most current of any mode of operation. It
sounds like the unit is being strangled for power during this time. Could
be: too small a gauge of wire used for hook-up, a bad ground, a bad circuit
breaker limiting current but not popping, a bad power supply in the new 300.
Take it back to the installer for testing. Let us know what the problem is.
David
----- Original Message -----
From: "Charlie England" <ceengland(at)bellsouth.net>
Subject: Avionics-List: Garmin GNC300 problem
> --> Avionics-List message posted by: Charlie England
>
>
> Posted for a friend:
>
> New install of Garmin GNC300. All functions seem to work normally unless
> the transmit button is held for 10-15 seconds. The display will then go
> dim to dark & the unit hums & groans. This continues after the transmit
> button is released. If power is cycled, the unit will immediately return
> to normal operation. The owner has removed the GPS antenna & has seen
> no change in the symptoms.
>
> Any thoughts??
>
> Thanks,
>
> Charlie
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Glen Matejcek" <aerobubba(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | List: Hall effect sensor |
Thanks Brian!
Glen Matejcek
aerobubba(at)earthlink.net
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Eric Ruttan" <ericruttan(at)chartermi.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Open letter to the list |
I have deep respect for Bob.
I dont care what he likes or what he drinks or his "family values". I dont
care about where he works, or what he does, or how he does it. I dont care
if he makes tones of money or gives away advice for free.
I care how he thinks. It is rigrous, vigrous, and unflinching persuit of
facts. That is what I respect.
He does have a jedi like "simple ideas" mantra. I like that, but thats not
respect.
I see people like yourself, and perhaps less qualified others challange
aspects or entire ideas that have been presented through Aeroelectric. And
I already know what the response wil be.
Why would you do that?
What are you trying to fix/solve?
----- Original Message -----
From: "Paul Messinger" <paulm(at)olypen.com>
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Open letter to the list
>
> I have been a follower of the Aeroelectric Connection for 10+ years.
>
> Bob has contributed more to experimental aviation electrical systems
design
> etc ( in my opinion) than ALL the rest of those pundits who would try to
> educate builders in electrical systems design.
>
> Many of us are in awe of how much Bob produces and still has time for a
Job,
> not to mention the width and depth of his knowledge.
>
> But, I and other equally experienced electrical and electronic engineers
> have some concerns with some of the positions and recommendations of the
> Aeroelectric connection web site as well as this list.
>
> I firmly believe that alternate solutions exist and should be given a fair
> and unbiased discussion as there are always more than one good solution to
> most every problem. While its great to have firm opinions not all of us
> agree with each other and a well done technical vs. opinion discussion is
> helpful.
>
> These discussions should end with agreement that the others opinion has
> passed technical merit and is a reasonable alternative. Today most of the
> time its "my or no way" or lets overwhelm the discussion with verbose
> responses until the discussion is overwhelmed with factoids not always
> relevant.
>
> During the past few years I have noticed that, on occasion, some one posts
> an alternate solution and is slapped down with a comment like "why would
you
> want to do that" etc. The result is that person typically decides not to
> follow up and others decide not to voice their alternant opinions in fear
of
> being slapped at. I do not think the response was intended to be harsh,
just
> a request for basis of that position but it comes across much harder and
the
> result is much discussion is suppressed.
>
> Its now gotten to the point that many different positions are not even
being
> posted. I know as many post to me privately to get my opinion.
>
> I have come up with a list of subjects and concerns where I and my
> associates disagree with the "official" position of Aeroelectric
Connection
> in that there are pros and cons that might suggest that at least some of
the
> time a different concept is preferred.
>
> This list will be a separate post soon.
>
> With the greatest admiration and respect to Bob.
>
> Paul
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Jeremy Davey" <EuropaFlyer_3(at)msn.com> |
| Subject: | Open letter to the list |
Hear, hear! I have the utmost admiration for the way Bob approaches ideas on
this list - like a scientist, where facts are God, and mere opinions are, by
their very nature, unproven, even if they are expert opinions.
I want to build something that is safe to fly. To date, I have found that
Bob's approach gives me the best chance of doing that. I understand and
respect why he asks: "Why would you do that? What are you trying to
fix/solve?"
It is imperative on all of us that we understand Bob's approach is that of
the scientist, not the dictator. When a scientist's approach is questioned,
that is a good thing. A good scientist relishes the opportunity to test his
thinking and demonstrate its veracity. A poor scientist reacts emotionally
and accuses others of rubbishing his work. A good scientist accepts that he
is sometimes wrong and holds his hand up when it is so demonstrated by
others. A poor scientist attempts to defend the indefensible. A good
scientist recognises that acknowledging error leads to greater truth, and
does not harm reputation. A poor scientist denies his ability to err, and
destroys his reputation by doing so.
There is no place for emotion in Bob's approach. Nor should there be. Only
for truth.
As for myself, I do not have the experience or knowledge to determine which
approach is best. I rely on those like Bob to guide me in selecting the
safest. I identify them by their need to ask: "Why would you do that?"
Carry on, Bob, youre doing a first class job, in my opinion (but please see
caveat above! :-) ).
Regards,
Jeremy
Jeremy Davey
Europa Monowheel 537M G-EZZA
Europa Club Vice-Chairman, Webmaster, PFA NC Representative
PFA EC Member
If you can keep your head when all about you are losing theirs, then it is
possible you haven't grasped the severity of the situation.
Tail done
Standard XS wings with mods underway
CM installed in fuse (with airbrakes fittings)
1250 build hours to date
Intended fit:
Rotax 914 turbo, Airmaster CS fully-feathering prop
Lots of lights, buttons, switches, gizmos, and alarms
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Eric
Ruttan
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Open letter to the list
I have deep respect for Bob.
I dont care what he likes or what he drinks or his "family values". I dont
care about where he works, or what he does, or how he does it. I dont care
if he makes tones of money or gives away advice for free.
I care how he thinks. It is rigrous, vigrous, and unflinching persuit of
facts. That is what I respect.
He does have a jedi like "simple ideas" mantra. I like that, but thats not
respect.
I see people like yourself, and perhaps less qualified others challange
aspects or entire ideas that have been presented through Aeroelectric. And
I already know what the response wil be.
Why would you do that?
What are you trying to fix/solve?
----- Original Message -----
From: "Paul Messinger" <paulm(at)olypen.com>
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Open letter to the list
>
> I have been a follower of the Aeroelectric Connection for 10+ years.
>
> Bob has contributed more to experimental aviation electrical systems
design
> etc ( in my opinion) than ALL the rest of those pundits who would try to
> educate builders in electrical systems design.
>
> Many of us are in awe of how much Bob produces and still has time for a
Job,
> not to mention the width and depth of his knowledge.
>
> But, I and other equally experienced electrical and electronic engineers
> have some concerns with some of the positions and recommendations of the
> Aeroelectric connection web site as well as this list.
>
> I firmly believe that alternate solutions exist and should be given a fair
> and unbiased discussion as there are always more than one good solution to
> most every problem. While its great to have firm opinions not all of us
> agree with each other and a well done technical vs. opinion discussion is
> helpful.
>
> These discussions should end with agreement that the others opinion has
> passed technical merit and is a reasonable alternative. Today most of the
> time its "my or no way" or lets overwhelm the discussion with verbose
> responses until the discussion is overwhelmed with factoids not always
> relevant.
>
> During the past few years I have noticed that, on occasion, some one posts
> an alternate solution and is slapped down with a comment like "why would
you
> want to do that" etc. The result is that person typically decides not to
> follow up and others decide not to voice their alternant opinions in fear
of
> being slapped at. I do not think the response was intended to be harsh,
just
> a request for basis of that position but it comes across much harder and
the
> result is much discussion is suppressed.
>
> Its now gotten to the point that many different positions are not even
being
> posted. I know as many post to me privately to get my opinion.
>
> I have come up with a list of subjects and concerns where I and my
> associates disagree with the "official" position of Aeroelectric
Connection
> in that there are pros and cons that might suggest that at least some of
the
> time a different concept is preferred.
>
> This list will be a separate post soon.
>
> With the greatest admiration and respect to Bob.
>
> Paul
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Ron Schreck" <ronschreck(at)webkorner.com> |
| Subject: | Starter Contactor |
Note: Messages forwarded from RV List:
Excellent point! After I read this post I dove into Bob Nuckolls' "AeroElectric
Connection" and found that ALL of his sample electic wiring schematics have
a starter contactor. I have great respect for "Electric" Bob yet I see your
point as well. I'm hoping Bob will jump on this thread and shed some light on
this issue. Come in Bob!
Ron Schreck
RV-8
Gold Hill, NC
>>> Why do you need another starter contactor in the first place? There's
one built into the starter. Disconnect the jumper from the big
terminal on the starter, run a wire from it to your starter switch,
then a diode from the starter side of the switch to ground to prevent
arcing in the switch or contactor. I have had this setup since day
one on my -6 and have never had any trouble with it.
Regards,
Bob Japundza
RV-6 flying F1 under const.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <b.nuckolls(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Open letter to the list |
>
> > But, I and other equally experienced electrical and electronic engineers
> > have some concerns with some of the positions and recommendations of the
> > Aeroelectric connection web site as well as this list.
>
> >>>>>
>
>As well do theologians, politicians, and scientists of any vein have of their
>particular pursuits. This is how we naturally select. In my minds' eye I
>see a pair of sharp eyes in Kansas above a gray beard rubbing his palms
>together, ready to attack the keyboard. Have at it folks, we all win in
>this contest-
>stay tuned; should be entertaining, educational, and verrrrrrryyy
>eenterrestink..........
Close but no cigar. I'll remind folks that the ultimate proof
of any science is the repeatable experiment. George says he can
blow transorbs in a heartbeat. We'll need details of his test
environment before any query or argument can be mounted. Paul
says he has come conclusions to make based on his testing. I presume
he'll be willing to detail his experiments. If I have anything to
contribute to the conversations, I'll have to either (1) show where
the setup is wrong or (2) explain how the interpretation is in
error or (3) go to the shop and repeat the experiment for closer
examination.
When the dust settles, it may well be that solutions offered are
ALL applicable to some degree based on design goals of the builder.
In these cases, anyone with a solution to offer SHOULD be able
to explain exactly how it ranks among other solutions. My personal
mission is not to discourage anyone from from adopting a solution
or design philosophy as long as everything we know about it
has been explained and understood. It's like the old Sears
catalogs where one could select from three levels of performance
in products . . . Good, better and best. My personal design
philosophy is to strive for the best we know how to do and to
keep advancing on the state of our art . . . but in no
way do I intend to throw mud at the "good" or "better" philosophies
as long as they are FAILURE TOLERANT and good value for the
expenditure of time and cash.
Watch this space. We can only get better at what we do.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <b.nuckolls(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Open letter to the list |
>
> > But, I and other equally experienced electrical and electronic engineers
> > have some concerns with some of the positions and recommendations of the
> > Aeroelectric connection web site as well as this list.
>
> >>>>>
>
>As well do theologians, politicians, and scientists of any vein have of their
>particular pursuits. This is how we naturally select. In my minds' eye I
>see a pair of sharp eyes in Kansas above a gray beard rubbing his palms
>together, ready to attack the keyboard. Have at it folks, we all win in
>this contest-
>stay tuned; should be entertaining, educational, and verrrrrrryyy
>eenterrestink..........
I didn't see this posting and place it in the right context before
I crafted my earlier message. Yes, I will approach any discussion
with enthusiasm and yes, enthusiasm is an emotion. Folks should
be aware that I, Paul, George or anyone else may step into the
arena with what some will interpret to be heavy clubs and a blood
in the eye demeanor. However, I trust that resolution of ideas is
always is achievable. Further, when we're through swinging
"clubs", there will be no broken bones nor blood on the ground
. . . and we'll all go out for a beer afterwards.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | D Fritz <dfritzj(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Open letter to the list |
Paul,
Please continue in your line of discussion. I have great respect for Bob and his
ideas (he's convinced me to abandon many of my own ideas as too complex for
the value they added.) However, there are times when Bob's response comes off
the page as implying that the questions are foolish or of no value. I don't
think this is what he means (forgive me for trying to read between lines), but
it does have the effect you describe: it stops some from asking hard (or simple)
questions and challenging the "status quo." The ideals of this board are
based in the idea that discussion and challenge are good for the advancement
of the state of aircraft electric and electronic systems, if we squelch ideas
we diminish the capacity to achieve those ideals. Please continue in the discussions
that challenge some of the long-held ideas espoused on this board as
there are lots of us out here (non-EEs) who are really learning a lot about the
subject and enjoy the possibility to see both sides
of the
issues. We're all human, and ANY one of us on this list can be wrong.
Thanks,
Dan Fritz
---------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <b.nuckolls(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Starter Contactor |
See http://aeroelectric.com/articles/strtctr.pdf
and figure Z-22 of
http://aeroelectric.com/articles/Rev10/z10.pdf
Bob . . .
>Excellent point! After I read this post I dove into Bob
>Nuckolls' "AeroElectric Connection" and found that ALL of his sample
>electic wiring schematics have a starter contactor. I have great respect
>for "Electric" Bob yet I see your point as well. I'm hoping Bob will jump
>on this thread and shed some light on this issue. Come in Bob!
>
>Ron Schreck
>RV-8
>Gold Hill, NC
>
>
> >>> Why do you need another starter contactor in the first place? There's
> one built into the starter. Disconnect the jumper from the big
> terminal on the starter, run a wire from it to your starter switch,
> then a diode from the starter side of the switch to ground to prevent
> arcing in the switch or contactor. I have had this setup since day
> one on my -6 and have never had any trouble with it.
>
> Regards,
> Bob Japundza
> RV-6 flying F1 under const.
>
>
>--
>Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
>
>
>-- incoming mail is certified Virus Free.
>Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Bob . . .
--------------------------------------------------------
< Throughout history, poverty is the normal condition >
< of man. Advances which permit this norm to be >
< exceeded -- here and there, now and then -- are the >
< work of an extremely small minority, frequently >
< despised, often condemned, and almost always opposed >
< by all right-thinking people. Whenever this tiny >
< minority is kept from creating, or (as sometimes >
< happens) is driven out of a society, the people >
< then slip back into abject poverty. >
< >
< This is known as "bad luck". >
< -Lazarus Long- >
<------------------------------------------------------>
http://www.aeroelectric.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Frank & Dorothy <frankv(at)infogen.net.nz> |
| Subject: | More on batteries and wiring... |
clamav-milter version 0.80j
on dbmail-mx4.orcon.co.nz
Hi all,
Short story: A 12v 7Ah RG battery is fine to start a small engine.
Long story:
Well, I bit the bullet and bought a 12V 7Ah RG battery for my Kawasaki
440cc engine. I experimented with a few different wires to connect it to
the starter motor. According to some docs I have, the starter motor
should pull 18-20 amps.
1. Holding some 3m long wires sold by Super Cheap Autos (no really,
that's their name) as 20A capable on to the battery terminals with my
fingers (for a quick test, you understand), the starter motor didn't
turn over and I burnt my fingertips :-( Don't try this at home, kids!
2. Using the same 3m 20A wires securely attached to the battery
terminals, the starter barely chugged over once.
3. Using the heavy starter motor wires (again, not sure what gauge) that
came with the engine, it worked perfectly.
So far, I have started the engine about 8 or 9 times without recharging
the battery -- I haven't connected up the voltage regulator yet.
I was a bit worried about whether the battery's push-on spade terminals
would cope with the starting current, but obviously that wasn't a problem.
Whilst talking about terminals... does anyone have any suggestions about
how to connect other wires to the battery along with the heavy starter
wires? Because my plane is a pusher, the battery will physically be
between the engine and panel. I don't see any sense in running wires
from the engine right past the battery to the panel. But I also don't
want to cut the heavy cable to put in a connector.
Frank
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Charlie England <ceengland(at)bellsouth.net> |
| Subject: | Re: More on batteries and wiring... clamav-milter |
version 0.80j on dbmail-mx4.orcon.co.nz
Frank & Dorothy wrote:
>
>Hi all,
>
>Short story: A 12v 7Ah RG battery is fine to start a small engine.
>
>Long story:
>Well, I bit the bullet and bought a 12V 7Ah RG battery for my Kawasaki
>440cc engine. I experimented with a few different wires to connect it to
>the starter motor. According to some docs I have, the starter motor
>should pull 18-20 amps.
>
>1. Holding some 3m long wires sold by Super Cheap Autos (no really,
>that's their name) as 20A capable on to the battery terminals with my
>fingers (for a quick test, you understand), the starter motor didn't
>turn over and I burnt my fingertips :-( Don't try this at home, kids!
>2. Using the same 3m 20A wires securely attached to the battery
>terminals, the starter barely chugged over once.
>3. Using the heavy starter motor wires (again, not sure what gauge) that
>came with the engine, it worked perfectly.
>
>So far, I have started the engine about 8 or 9 times without recharging
>the battery -- I haven't connected up the voltage regulator yet.
>
>I was a bit worried about whether the battery's push-on spade terminals
>would cope with the starting current, but obviously that wasn't a problem.
>
>Whilst talking about terminals... does anyone have any suggestions about
>how to connect other wires to the battery along with the heavy starter
>wires? Because my plane is a pusher, the battery will physically be
>between the engine and panel. I don't see any sense in running wires
>from the engine right past the battery to the panel. But I also don't
>want to cut the heavy cable to put in a connector.
>
>Frank
>
Spade terminals are available that will 'stack'. Try Digikey.com or
Mouser.com.
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Open letter to the list |
| From: | "George Braly" <gwbraly(at)gami.com> |
Bob,
40 amp ND alternator.
Under load at 4000 shaft RPM and 30-35 amps at 28 volts.
An 11,000 uF cap on line.
Load consists of landing lights - - not atypical.
Kill the landing lights with no battery on the circuit, and I could repeatedly
fry 5KW transorbs rated at 36 volts.
I was also frying a 5 volt switching power supply (rated to take 60 volt inputs)
on the same circuit.
This was not very complicated but it was repeatable, and of course, unacceptable.
By the way, this issue is a real problem. Now recognized on certified aircraft.
Recently the German FAA type folks had to issue an AD against the Thielert
125Hp diesel engine because it was failing due to electrical failure (engine
is dependant upon the electron pump) when the battery relay failed and the battery
was off line... and the regulator/alternator was self-destructing - - - thus
causing the engine to quit.
Regards, George
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Robert L. Nuckolls, III
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Open letter to the list
>
> > But, I and other equally experienced electrical and electronic engineers
> > have some concerns with some of the positions and recommendations of the
> > Aeroelectric connection web site as well as this list.
>
> >>>>>
>
>As well do theologians, politicians, and scientists of any vein have of their
>particular pursuits. This is how we naturally select. In my minds' eye I
>see a pair of sharp eyes in Kansas above a gray beard rubbing his palms
>together, ready to attack the keyboard. Have at it folks, we all win in
>this contest-
>stay tuned; should be entertaining, educational, and verrrrrrryyy
>eenterrestink..........
I didn't see this posting and place it in the right context before
I crafted my earlier message. Yes, I will approach any discussion
with enthusiasm and yes, enthusiasm is an emotion. Folks should
be aware that I, Paul, George or anyone else may step into the
arena with what some will interpret to be heavy clubs and a blood
in the eye demeanor. However, I trust that resolution of ideas is
always is achievable. Further, when we're through swinging
"clubs", there will be no broken bones nor blood on the ground
. . . and we'll all go out for a beer afterwards.
Bob . . .
---
---
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Interest level in RG-400 cable at discount |
| From: | Jack <jgh2(at)charter.net> |
On Thursday, January 27, 2005, at 11:19 PM, SportAV8R(at)aol.com wrote:
> I have a chance to purchase RG-400 coax in bulk, and could part out a
> roll to builders at 1.00/foot in any length.
Bill,
I bought some RG-400 a few months ago at a great price and can supply
you or others for $.50/foot plus shipping.
Jack H.
RV-6A
P. S. Also have the BNC male connectors and tools to make completed
cables but the price would be significantly higher because I'm tired of
the "strip, crimp and shrink" routine.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "John F. Herminghaus" <catignano(at)tele2.it> |
Bob:
It is normal to put more than one engine instrument on a fuse or cb ,
but what about the power leads? Can the be daisy chained or do you
recommend separate wires for each device?
John Herminghaus
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Jerry Grimmonpre" <jerry(at)mc.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Interest level in RG-400 cable at discount |
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jack" <jgh2(at)charter.net>
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Interest level in RG-400 cable at discount
>
>
> On Thursday, January 27, 2005, at 11:19 PM, SportAV8R(at)aol.com wrote:
>
>> I have a chance to purchase RG-400 coax in bulk, and could part out a
>> roll to builders at 1.00/foot in any length.
>
> Bill,
>
> I bought some RG-400 a few months ago at a great price and can supply
> you or others for $.50/foot plus shipping.
>
> Jack H.
> RV-6A
>
> P. S. Also have the BNC male connectors and tools to make completed
> cables but the price would be significantly higher because I'm tired of
> the "strip, crimp and shrink" routine.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <b.nuckolls(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Power supply |
>
>
>Bob:
>
>It is normal to put more than one engine instrument on a fuse or cb ,
>but what about the power leads? Can the be daisy chained or do you
>recommend separate wires for each device?
From the perspective of electrical system safety, it's technically
SAFE to put EVERYTHING on one protected circuit as long as the downstream
wiring is properly protected. From the perspective of flight system
safety, it's best to have no single fault take down more than
the system so afflicted.
Engine instruments are VERY low on priority of aids to flight
safety so if you're short on fuse slots, those would be the FIRST
articles I'd team up on one protected circuit. It's purely
a "comfort decision" . . . big fuseblocks are readily available
and can provide for maximum isolation between systems.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Ken <klehman(at)albedo.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Open letter to the list |
clamav-milter version 0.80j
on juliet.albedo.net
May I ask what the current draw of the landing lights was? I'm having
trouble imagining that much load. I was alway taught to operate switches
one at a time. ie even if turning off a row of light switches - do it
one at a time.
My presumption has been that most old worn contactors fail to start the
engine. And that the minor contact welding caused by passing starter
current generally keeps the contacts at fairly low resistance for the
rest of the flight. Am I wrong? How do most contactors fail? Doesn't
really matter to me as I don't have battery contactors, just OV
contactors, but it's still interesting.
While I'd never do it intentionally, I've seen a couple of vehicles
continue to operate with a disconnected/open battery circuit with no
secondary problems develop. The alternator kept working. So far I've
never found a transorb hidden in any circuitry or components. I know
that is too small a sample to mean much.
How did Thielert get into that position? My philosophy has always been
redundancy for electrically dependant engines. If their redundancy was
that either the battery or the alternator would power a pump then surely
they aren't using common wiring/contactor or not testing the system with
the battery disconnected??? Maybe they should tune in here ;)
Ken
George Braly wrote:
>
>
>Bob,
>
>40 amp ND alternator.
>
>Under load at 4000 shaft RPM and 30-35 amps at 28 volts.
>
>An 11,000 uF cap on line.
>
>Load consists of landing lights - - not atypical.
>
>Kill the landing lights with no battery on the circuit, and I could repeatedly
fry 5KW transorbs rated at 36 volts.
>
>I was also frying a 5 volt switching power supply (rated to take 60 volt inputs)
on the same circuit.
>
>This was not very complicated but it was repeatable, and of course, unacceptable.
>
>By the way, this issue is a real problem. Now recognized on certified aircraft.
Recently the German FAA type folks had to issue an AD against the Thielert
125Hp diesel engine because it was failing due to electrical failure (engine
is dependant upon the electron pump) when the battery relay failed and the battery
was off line... and the regulator/alternator was self-destructing - - -
thus causing the engine to quit.
>
>Regards, George
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Open letter to the list clamav-milter version |
0.80j on juliet.albedo.net
| From: | "George Braly" <gwbraly(at)gami.com> |
Ken,
The current draw was as stated. Yes, there were more than one landing light on
the circuit. Yes, they were disconnected more or less simultaneously.
Keep in mind, that the FAA requires that one must be able to disconnect the entire
aircraft electrical system "by the single movement of one hand."
Regards, George
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Ken
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Open letter to the list clamav-milter version 0.80j
on juliet.albedo.net
May I ask what the current draw of the landing lights was? I'm having
trouble imagining that much load. I was alway taught to operate switches
one at a time. ie even if turning off a row of light switches - do it
one at a time.
My presumption has been that most old worn contactors fail to start the
engine. And that the minor contact welding caused by passing starter
current generally keeps the contacts at fairly low resistance for the
rest of the flight. Am I wrong? How do most contactors fail? Doesn't
really matter to me as I don't have battery contactors, just OV
contactors, but it's still interesting.
While I'd never do it intentionally, I've seen a couple of vehicles
continue to operate with a disconnected/open battery circuit with no
secondary problems develop. The alternator kept working. So far I've
never found a transorb hidden in any circuitry or components. I know
that is too small a sample to mean much.
How did Thielert get into that position? My philosophy has always been
redundancy for electrically dependant engines. If their redundancy was
that either the battery or the alternator would power a pump then surely
they aren't using common wiring/contactor or not testing the system with
the battery disconnected??? Maybe they should tune in here ;)
Ken
George Braly wrote:
>
>
>Bob,
>
>40 amp ND alternator.
>
>Under load at 4000 shaft RPM and 30-35 amps at 28 volts.
>
>An 11,000 uF cap on line.
>
>Load consists of landing lights - - not atypical.
>
>Kill the landing lights with no battery on the circuit, and I could repeatedly
fry 5KW transorbs rated at 36 volts.
>
>I was also frying a 5 volt switching power supply (rated to take 60 volt inputs)
on the same circuit.
>
>This was not very complicated but it was repeatable, and of course, unacceptable.
>
>By the way, this issue is a real problem. Now recognized on certified aircraft.
Recently the German FAA type folks had to issue an AD against the Thielert
125Hp diesel engine because it was failing due to electrical failure (engine
is dependant upon the electron pump) when the battery relay failed and the battery
was off line... and the regulator/alternator was self-destructing - - -
thus causing the engine to quit.
>
>Regards, George
>
>
>
---
---
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Eric M. Jones" <emjones(at)charter.net> |
Load Dump occurs anytime the generator sheds its load (like turning
something off), because the generator/alternator has a collapsing magnetic
field. This takes a while---almost half-a-second in the worst case. Load
Dump is at it's worst when nothing but a flat battery is being honked
on by the alternator/ generator and every other load is off---THEN the
battery gets disconnected. Paul Messinger has pointed out to me that this is
what happens to the stored energy in an inductor like a relay too--just on a
smaller scale.
Let's see what's going on with George's 5kW transorbs---- (some of this
email I posted previously)
>40 amp ND alternator. Under load at 30-35 amps at 28 volts.
>An 11,000 uF cap on line.
>Load consists of landing lights.
>Kill the landing lights with no battery on the circuit, and I could
repeatedly fry 5KW transorbs rated at 36 volts.
>I was also frying a 5 volt switching power supply (rated to take 60 volt
inputs) on the same circuit.
Load dump Std Open-Circuit Volts Rise Time (10%-90%) Pulse duration
(10%-10%)
SAE J1113-11 ???? ???? ????
Chrysler PF9326 91.5 V 5-10 mS 300 mS
Ford CL240 60 V 1-10 mS 300 mS
ISO 7637 ?? 5-10 mS 50-400 mS
To properly design a system to squash this stuff we need to know the worst
case system energy (in Joules), which, we all remember, is a Watt-second.
These are hard numbers to come by, but we can tease them out of the
published data: Chrysler PF9326 presumes a Load Dump pulse of 91.5 Volts
into a 0.5 ohm load at 14 VDC, so we can presume George's 28 VDC system
(worst case) could be above even that. So the energy stored in the inductor
is 2X at twice the voltage. The energy is 1/2 L x I sqrd. Where "L" is the
inductance (proportional to the alternator windings) and "I" the current. So
we presume the inductance is twice and the current stays about the same. If
Chrysler's test number is reasonable then, the open circuit voltage must be
about 180 VDC(Yikes...it fried the power supply!)
Chrysler's assumed load impedance is 0.5 ohms, but since cars are wired
looser than airplanes, the airplane's electrical system COULD be even lower.
But we'll go with 0.5 ohms.
Peak current therefore could be 180/0.5=360 Amps. And peak watts (power) is
therefore 64.8 kW. The exponential decay is 0.300 Seconds. So that's (...are
you following this?) 64.8 kW X 0.300 S=19.4 kW seconds X 1/3 to 1/2 which
is the correction factor for the exponential decay. We get 6.5-9.7 kW. So
yes we can make a 5 kW transorb think it's the fourth of July. If we use a
10 kW device we buy a little margin. And yes I know I left out the 36V
transorb cut-off but I just count that as margin.
I don't know how the 11,000 uF cap figures into this--but I'd be
careful--because it doesn't help.
Now that you 'splained it George there is no mystery.
BTW: Aviation Consumer rated George Braly's company GAMI to be company of
the year. For a nice note on this and a good picture of George please see:
http://www.aviation-consumer.com/ytb/
Regards,
Eric M. Jones
www.PerihelionDesign.com
113 Brentwood Drive
Southbridge MA 01550-2705
Phone (508) 764-2072
Email: emjones(at)charter.net
Teamwork: " A lot of people doing exactly what I say."
(Marketing exec., Citrix Corp.)
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Brian Lloyd <brianl(at)lloyd.com> |
Eric M. Jones wrote:
> To properly design a system to squash this stuff we need to know the worst
> case system energy (in Joules), which, we all remember, is a Watt-second.
> These are hard numbers to come by, but we can tease them out of the
> published data: Chrysler PF9326 presumes a Load Dump pulse of 91.5 Volts
> into a 0.5 ohm load at 14 VDC, so we can presume George's 28 VDC system
> (worst case) could be above even that. So the energy stored in the inductor
> is 2X at twice the voltage. The energy is 1/2 L x I sqrd.
Not quite. That would be the way to figure out how much energy is stored
in the field (armature) b-field but that is not the problem. The
residual excess magnetism in the armature is causing the alternator to
just continue generating more power than it should. The problem comes
from the excess output from the *stator* as a result of the mechanical
input (engine power turning the alternator), not the energy contained in
the armature's b-field.
When you drop the load from say 30A to 10A suddenly, the mechanical
input and field current momentarily remain the same. (The regulator
hasn't had time to reduce the field current and even if it did, it would
take time for the b-field to change to the new, lower value.) If you
were drawing 30A @ 14V (420W or a bit over 1/2 hp) and now you change to
a 10A draw, the *power* output will remain the same (momentarily, modulo
the inductance of the stator which will slow down the voltage rise time)
at 420W. But in order to get the same *power* out with a 10A current
draw the voltage must quickly rise to 42V. The voltage will then ramp
back to 14V as the field b-field collapses to a lower value and reduces
the alternator output.
This only happens if there is nothing to absorb the extra energy (like
the battery). If the battery is there it just absorbs this excess power
and it just looks like a small bump in the buss voltage. If you are
looking at battery *current* you will see a sudden rise to 20A and then
a ramp back to the quiescent float charge current at 14V (probably an
amp or so).
BTW, if the load dump were to drop the demand from 30A to 1A, the
theoretical voltage rise would be a LOT higher (on the order of 420V
everything else being equal) but then other things will start absorbing
that excess energy including the output diodes and anything else still
on the bus.
If I could see the rate at which the field current decreases and the
transfer characteristic of the alternator that shows power output as a
function of field current and RPM, I could integrate the area under the
curve to calculate the total energy that must be absorbed. But I don't
have that information and besides, I am lazy. Regardless, I am sure Paul
or Bob is doing that so I don't have to worry my pretty little head over it.
The key point here is that, if the battery is in good condition and
there is a low resistance path from the B-lead and ground of the
alternator to the battery, there is no problem with load dump. The
battery just sucks up that extra energy and no one is the wiser. If the
battery does NOT do the job, the bus voltage rises and things get fried.
--
Brian Lloyd 6501 Red Hook Plaza
brianl(at)lloyd.com Suite 201
http://www.lloyd.com St. Thomas, VI 00802
+1.340.998.9447 (voice) +1.270.912.0788 (fax)
There is a time to laud one's country and a time to protest.
A good citizen is prepared to do either as the need arises.
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Microair 760N to Flightcom 403 |
| From: | "Mervin Friesen" <mefriese(at)hsd.ca> |
This question was asked and the reply given as copied below. The response is based on the maual for revision C. The manual on the Microair site shows revision N with some pins being changed. Can someone advise how to connect the two with the latest revision? It can be found here - page 18. http://www.microair.com.au/admin/uploads/760installusermanualverN.pdf
Thank you!
Mervin Friesen
Sonex #122
Date: Jan 01, 2005
Has anyone matched up the flightcom 403mc intercom to the microair 760-N
transceiver. I've received two different pinout diagrams and niether one matches
the schematics I have for the units. A working pinout diagram would sure
make me feel better before I apply power to this combo.
Referring to MC403 manual at: <http://www.flightcom.net/pdf/403mcManual.pdf> and 760VHF manual at:
You connect: MC403 "Tramnsmit Key Line" to Microair Pin 7
MC403 "Receive Audio" to Microair Pin 14 MC403 "Transmit Audio" to Microair
Pin 1
MC403 "Avionics Ground" to Microair Pin 2
and eliminate the avionics ground shown just to the right of the aircraft
radio in the MC403 wiring. Ignore Micorair Pin 3, "COPILOT MIC HI" Ignore all
headphone, microphone and push to talk wiring shown on the Microair wiring
diagram including the intercom wiring to pin 5.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <b.nuckolls(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Microair 760N to Flightcom 403 |
>
>
>This question was asked and the reply given as copied below. The response
>is based on the maual for revision C. The manual on the Microair site
>shows revision N with some pins being changed.
Which pins are changed? I've compared the latest download from Microair
with what I published in our in-house generated instructions and
the pinouts from the radio appear unchanged to me.
Bob . . .
> Can someone advise how to connect the two with the latest revision? It
> can be found here - page 18.
> http://www.microair.com.au/admin/uploads/760installusermanualverN.pdf
>Thank you!
>Mervin Friesen
>Sonex #122
>Date: Jan 01, 2005
>
> Has anyone matched up the flightcom 403mc intercom to the
> microair 760-N transceiver. I've received two different pinout diagrams
> and niether one matches the schematics I have for the units. A working
> pinout diagram would sure make me feel better before I apply power to
> this combo.
> Referring to MC403 manual at:
> <http://www.flightcom.net/pdf/403mcManual.pdf> and 760VHF manual at:
> <http://www.aeroelectric.com/Catalog/avionics/760imB.pdf>
>
> You connect: MC403 "Tramnsmit Key Line" to Microair Pin 7
> MC403 "Receive Audio" to Microair Pin 14
> MC403 "Transmit Audio" to Microair Pin 1
> MC403 "Avionics Ground" to Microair Pin 2
> and eliminate the avionics ground shown just to the right of the
> aircraft radio in the MC403 wiring. Ignore Micorair Pin 3, "COPILOT MIC
> HI" Ignore all headphone, microphone and push to talk wiring shown on the
> Microair wiring diagram including the intercom wiring to pin 5.
> Bob . . .
>
>
>--
>Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
>
>
>-- incoming mail is certified Virus Free.
>Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Bob . . .
--------------------------------------------------------
< Throughout history, poverty is the normal condition >
< of man. Advances which permit this norm to be >
< exceeded -- here and there, now and then -- are the >
< work of an extremely small minority, frequently >
< despised, often condemned, and almost always opposed >
< by all right-thinking people. Whenever this tiny >
< minority is kept from creating, or (as sometimes >
< happens) is driven out of a society, the people >
< then slip back into abject poverty. >
< >
< This is known as "bad luck". >
< -Lazarus Long- >
<------------------------------------------------------>
http://www.aeroelectric.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Microair 760N to Flightcom 403 |
| From: | "Mervin Friesen" <mefriese(at)hsd.ca> |
I'm certainly no expert, so my observation may not be accurate. But in the instructions
copied below, it says MC403 "Avionics Ground" to Microair Pin 2. On the
Revision N diagram, pin 2 shows no internal connection. On revision C, pin
2 is labelled Mic Lo. This is what led me to my request for advice.
Thanks!
Mervin Friesen
Sonex #122
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of Robert
L. Nuckolls, III
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Microair 760N to Flightcom 403
Which pins are changed? I've compared the latest download from Microair
with what I published in our in-house generated instructions and
the pinouts from the radio appear unchanged to me.
Bob . . .
> Referring to MC403 manual at:
> <http://www.flightcom.net/pdf/403mcManual.pdf> and 760VHF manual at:
> <http://www.aeroelectric.com/Catalog/avionics/760imB.pdf>
>
> You connect: MC403 "Tramnsmit Key Line" to Microair Pin 7
> MC403 "Receive Audio" to Microair Pin 14
> MC403 "Transmit Audio" to Microair Pin 1
> MC403 "Avionics Ground" to Microair Pin 2
> and eliminate the avionics ground shown just to the right of the
> aircraft radio in the MC403 wiring. Ignore Micorair Pin 3, "COPILOT MIC
> HI" Ignore all headphone, microphone and push to talk wiring shown on the
> Microair wiring diagram including the intercom wiring to pin 5.
> Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
Hello Group,
I procured a 5 amp dimmer control from B&C. When my bus voltage is 12
Volts the power lead from the dimmer with the potentiometer turned to the
brightness is a shade over 10 volts and when connected the voltage drops to a
shade under 10 volts. I ran a lead directly from the bus to the terminal blocks
where the lights are hooked up and everything reads 12 volts. Is the dimmer
control designed to only deliver 10 volts when fed 12? Is this because when
the alternated is running it will make up the difference since the buss voltage
will climb to 13.8 or so? Thanks for your thoughts. JR RV-7A Still Wiring.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Dan O'Brien" <danobrien(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Pretty darned confused about grounding shields |
After Wayne Sweet suggested the Garmin manual was off regarding shielding,
I called the company. Ready for this?
1. Connecting a UPS SL30 Nav Com to a MD200-306 CDI indicator: UPS manual
(before the Garmin merger) says ground shields at both ends. They are
SPECIFIC. For example, they have footnotes that explicitly say to ground a
both ends, while they also have footnotes saying to let float the Nav/Com
end of the connection to the audio panel. Couldn't be more explicit.
However, the Garmin tech rep says to ground the shields only at the Nav/Com
end. He says "I don't know why the manual says that?
2. Connecting a GNS430 GPS/Nav/Com to a MD200-306 CDI indicator: Garmin
manual says ground shields at both ends.
However, the Garmin tech rep says to ground the shields only at the Nav/Com
end. He says "I don't know why the manual says that?
3. Connecting a GNS430 to an altitude serializer: Garmin manual says ground
the shield at both ends.
However, the Garmin tech rep says to ground the shield only at the Garmin end;
while the Microencoder rep says ground the shield at the Microencoder end
(the "sending" end).
Almost as bad as economists (my field). OK scientists, there either IS a
right answer to each question, or there are tradeoffs that are worth
understanding. Inquiring (if somewhat mystified, and a little irritated)
minds want to know.
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | P-leads and ignition wires |
Bob and other listers,
I am running my mag P-leads separate from my other circuits. I would like
to bundle these though with the ignition wires for about 18" to keep things
neat in the engine compartment. Will that cause any kind of problem?
Thanks,
Bob Trumpfheller
RV7A / Lycoming IO360
http://users.aol.com/n67bt
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Wayne Sweet" <w_sweet(at)comcast.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Pretty darned confused about grounding shields |
Ahh...... electronics apparently really is a black art, one that only
'nature' has the final say; If it works, then it's correct. Don't fool with
"mother nature". Problem is she ain't talking.
Wayne
----- Original Message -----
From: "Dan O'Brien" <danobrien(at)cox.net>
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Pretty darned confused about grounding shields
>
> After Wayne Sweet suggested the Garmin manual was off regarding shielding,
> I called the company. Ready for this?
>
> 1. Connecting a UPS SL30 Nav Com to a MD200-306 CDI indicator: UPS manual
> (before the Garmin merger) says ground shields at both ends. They are
> SPECIFIC. For example, they have footnotes that explicitly say to ground
> a
> both ends, while they also have footnotes saying to let float the Nav/Com
> end of the connection to the audio panel. Couldn't be more explicit.
> However, the Garmin tech rep says to ground the shields only at the
> Nav/Com
> end. He says "I don't know why the manual says that?
> 2. Connecting a GNS430 GPS/Nav/Com to a MD200-306 CDI indicator: Garmin
> manual says ground shields at both ends.
> However, the Garmin tech rep says to ground the shields only at the
> Nav/Com
> end. He says "I don't know why the manual says that?
> 3. Connecting a GNS430 to an altitude serializer: Garmin manual says
> ground
> the shield at both ends.
> However, the Garmin tech rep says to ground the shield only at the Garmin
> end;
> while the Microencoder rep says ground the shield at the Microencoder end
> (the "sending" end).
>
> Almost as bad as economists (my field). OK scientists, there either IS a
> right answer to each question, or there are tradeoffs that are worth
> understanding. Inquiring (if somewhat mystified, and a little irritated)
> minds want to know.
>
>
>
Try www.SPAMfighter.com for free now!
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: P-leads and ignition wires |
| From: | "Matt Prather" <mprather(at)spro.net> |
I think it unlikely to cause problems.. Noise from the P-lead to the
high tension isn't a concern. Noise from the high tension to the P-lead
is unlikely since both wires are shielded. Even a broken shield on one
or the other isn't likely to be an issue. Any noise the high tension lead
puts onto the P-lead is going to be much lower than the P-lead operating
voltage. I could imagine there being a slight chance of this added noice
confusing a digital tach which looks at the P-lead.
Matt-
>
> Bob and other listers,
>
> I am running my mag P-leads separate from my other circuits. I would
> like to bundle these though with the ignition wires for about 18" to
> keep things neat in the engine compartment. Will that cause any kind
> of problem?
>
> Thanks,
>
> Bob Trumpfheller
>
> RV7A / Lycoming IO360
>
> http://users.aol.com/n67bt
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | rv-9a-online <rv-9a-online(at)telus.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Pretty darned confused about grounding shields |
OK, lots of confusing facts.
The purpose of a shield is to prevent outside interference or,
conversely, to prevent the signal from radiating interference. You'd
think that grounding both ends would be OK, but then we have an
interesting effect:
It's possible when grounding both ends, for current to flow in the
shield and through the equipment grounds. This current is caused by the
ever-present difference in ground voltages within each of the equipment
due to internal loads and wire lengths, etc.
When this occurs, high frequency longitudinal currents may flow in the
shield. This makes a good antenna, radiating energy around it, and
especially into the wire it's supposed to shield. The best way to
prevent this current flow is to not connect one end. Most of the
benefit will be gained by only connecting one end, and it does not
matter which end.
There is a theoretical additional benefit by ground the 'transmitter'
end (if you can figure this out) rather than the 'receiver' end, simply
because any noise in the transmitter ground should also be superimposed
on the transmitter signal, thus minimizing the (presumably noisy)
metallic currents (currents from signal to shield). This may slightly
reduce radiated interference.
Some think that it's better to ground only the audio panel/intercom end
of audio signals because that represents the system 'quiet point'. This
makes sense. A true quiet ground shield won't be radiating anything,
whereas a high power comm might have some ground bounce.
So, rules of thumb:
1) Don't ground both ends of a shield.
2) If not specified, ground the transmitter end only (most signals other
than audio signals); except
3) For audio signals, ground the audio panel end only.
I can't comment on Garmin's confusing documentation, except that the
tech rep is probably right. The engineer (blush) that wrote the Garmin
documentation is probably related to the guy who made Garmin avionics
trays 6.3125" wide rather than the 6.25" the rest of the civilized world
standardized on.
Vern Little, RV-9A
Dan O'Brien wrote:
>
>After Wayne Sweet suggested the Garmin manual was off regarding shielding,
>I called the company. Ready for this?
>
>1. Connecting a UPS SL30 Nav Com to a MD200-306 CDI indicator: UPS manual
>(before the Garmin merger) says ground shields at both ends. They are
>SPECIFIC. For example, they have footnotes that explicitly say to ground a
>both ends, while they also have footnotes saying to let float the Nav/Com
>end of the connection to the audio panel. Couldn't be more explicit.
>However, the Garmin tech rep says to ground the shields only at the Nav/Com
>end. He says "I don't know why the manual says that?
>2. Connecting a GNS430 GPS/Nav/Com to a MD200-306 CDI indicator: Garmin
>manual says ground shields at both ends.
>However, the Garmin tech rep says to ground the shields only at the Nav/Com
>end. He says "I don't know why the manual says that?
>3. Connecting a GNS430 to an altitude serializer: Garmin manual says ground
>the shield at both ends.
>However, the Garmin tech rep says to ground the shield only at the Garmin end;
>while the Microencoder rep says ground the shield at the Microencoder end
>(the "sending" end).
>
>Almost as bad as economists (my field). OK scientists, there either IS a
>right answer to each question, or there are tradeoffs that are worth
>understanding. Inquiring (if somewhat mystified, and a little irritated)
>minds want to know.
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Wayne Sweet" <w_sweet(at)comcast.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Pretty darned confused about grounding shields |
This is a keeper...........
Into my avionics folder goes this one.
Wayne
----- Original Message -----
From: "rv-9a-online" <rv-9a-online(at)telus.net>
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Pretty darned confused about grounding
shields
>
>
> OK, lots of confusing facts.
>
> The purpose of a shield is to prevent outside interference or,
> conversely, to prevent the signal from radiating interference. You'd
> think that grounding both ends would be OK, but then we have an
> interesting effect:
>
> It's possible when grounding both ends, for current to flow in the
> shield and through the equipment grounds. This current is caused by the
> ever-present difference in ground voltages within each of the equipment
> due to internal loads and wire lengths, etc.
>
> When this occurs, high frequency longitudinal currents may flow in the
> shield. This makes a good antenna, radiating energy around it, and
> especially into the wire it's supposed to shield. The best way to
> prevent this current flow is to not connect one end. Most of the
> benefit will be gained by only connecting one end, and it does not
> matter which end.
>
> There is a theoretical additional benefit by ground the 'transmitter'
> end (if you can figure this out) rather than the 'receiver' end, simply
> because any noise in the transmitter ground should also be superimposed
> on the transmitter signal, thus minimizing the (presumably noisy)
> metallic currents (currents from signal to shield). This may slightly
> reduce radiated interference.
>
> Some think that it's better to ground only the audio panel/intercom end
> of audio signals because that represents the system 'quiet point'. This
> makes sense. A true quiet ground shield won't be radiating anything,
> whereas a high power comm might have some ground bounce.
>
> So, rules of thumb:
>
> 1) Don't ground both ends of a shield.
> 2) If not specified, ground the transmitter end only (most signals other
> than audio signals); except
> 3) For audio signals, ground the audio panel end only.
>
> I can't comment on Garmin's confusing documentation, except that the
> tech rep is probably right. The engineer (blush) that wrote the Garmin
> documentation is probably related to the guy who made Garmin avionics
> trays 6.3125" wide rather than the 6.25" the rest of the civilized world
> standardized on.
>
> Vern Little, RV-9A
>
>
> Dan O'Brien wrote:
>
>>
>>After Wayne Sweet suggested the Garmin manual was off regarding shielding,
>>I called the company. Ready for this?
>>
>>1. Connecting a UPS SL30 Nav Com to a MD200-306 CDI indicator: UPS manual
>>(before the Garmin merger) says ground shields at both ends. They are
>>SPECIFIC. For example, they have footnotes that explicitly say to ground
>>a
>>both ends, while they also have footnotes saying to let float the Nav/Com
>>end of the connection to the audio panel. Couldn't be more explicit.
>>However, the Garmin tech rep says to ground the shields only at the
>>Nav/Com
>>end. He says "I don't know why the manual says that?
>>2. Connecting a GNS430 GPS/Nav/Com to a MD200-306 CDI indicator: Garmin
>>manual says ground shields at both ends.
>>However, the Garmin tech rep says to ground the shields only at the
>>Nav/Com
>>end. He says "I don't know why the manual says that?
>>3. Connecting a GNS430 to an altitude serializer: Garmin manual says
>>ground
>>the shield at both ends.
>>However, the Garmin tech rep says to ground the shield only at the Garmin
>>end;
>>while the Microencoder rep says ground the shield at the Microencoder end
>>(the "sending" end).
>>
>>Almost as bad as economists (my field). OK scientists, there either IS a
>>right answer to each question, or there are tradeoffs that are worth
>>understanding. Inquiring (if somewhat mystified, and a little irritated)
>>minds want to know.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
Try www.SPAMfighter.com for free now!
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Dan O'Brien" <danobrien(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Pretty darned confused about grounding shields |
This is a keeper...........
Into my avionics folder goes this one.
A real keeper indeed --- pretty much just what the doctor ordered. Thanks
Vern and Wayne both for your help on this one.
<rv-9a-online(at)telus.net>
OK, lots of confusing facts.
The purpose of a shield is to prevent outside interference or,
conversely, to prevent the signal from radiating interference. You'd
think that grounding both ends would be OK, but then we have an
interesting effect:
It's possible when grounding both ends, for current to flow in the
shield and through the equipment grounds. This current is caused by the
ever-present difference in ground voltages within each of the equipment
due to internal loads and wire lengths, etc.
When this occurs, high frequency longitudinal currents may flow in the
shield. This makes a good antenna, radiating energy around it, and
especially into the wire it's supposed to shield. The best way to
prevent this current flow is to not connect one end. Most of the
benefit will be gained by only connecting one end, and it does not
matter which end.
There is a theoretical additional benefit by ground the 'transmitter'
end (if you can figure this out) rather than the 'receiver' end, simply
because any noise in the transmitter ground should also be superimposed
on the transmitter signal, thus minimizing the (presumably noisy)
metallic currents (currents from signal to shield). This may slightly
reduce radiated interference.
Some think that it's better to ground only the audio panel/intercom end
of audio signals because that represents the system 'quiet point'. This
makes sense. A true quiet ground shield won't be radiating anything,
whereas a high power comm might have some ground bounce.
So, rules of thumb:
1) Don't ground both ends of a shield.
2) If not specified, ground the transmitter end only (most signals other
than audio signals); except
3) For audio signals, ground the audio panel end only.
I can't comment on Garmin's confusing documentation, except that the
tech rep is probably right. The engineer (blush) that wrote the Garmin
documentation is probably related to the guy who made Garmin avionics
trays 6.3125" wide rather than the 6.25" the rest of the civilized world
standardized on.
Vern Little, RV-9A
Dan O'Brien wrote:
<danobrien(at)cox.net>
>
>After Wayne Sweet suggested the Garmin manual was off regarding shielding,
>I called the company. Ready for this?
>
>1. Connecting a UPS SL30 Nav Com to a MD200-306 CDI indicator: UPS manual
>(before the Garmin merger) says ground shields at both ends. They are
>SPECIFIC. For example, they have footnotes that explicitly say to ground at
>both ends, while they also have footnotes saying to let float the Nav/Com
>end of the connection to the audio panel. Couldn't be more explicit.
>However, the Garmin tech rep says to ground the shields only at the Nav/Com
>end. He says "I don't know why the manual says that?"
>2. Connecting a GNS430 GPS/Nav/Com to a MD200-306 CDI indicator: Garmin
>manual says ground shields at both ends.
>However, the Garmin tech rep says to ground the shields only at the Nav/Com
>end. He says "I don't know why the manual says that?"
>3. Connecting a GNS430 to an altitude serializer: Garmin manual says ground
>the shield at both ends.
>However, the Garmin tech rep says to ground the shield only at the Garmin
end;
>while the Microencoder rep says ground the shield at the Microencoder end
>(the "sending" end).
>
>Almost as bad as economists (my field). OK scientists, there either IS a
>right answer to each question, or there are tradeoffs that are worth
>understanding. Inquiring (if somewhat mystified, and a little irritated)
>minds want to know.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Paul Messinger" <paulm(at)olypen.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Open letter to the list |
Sorry to drop a "bomb" and then run.
Well KOMPUTUR failed and backups not so good. Then internet connection
(Directway) failed. Still down, (for general info I live out where cable dsl
etc are not available so I have a satellite ground station where I uplink to
the satellite my outgoing and down link from the satellite the incomming.
With that mode NFG its its SLOW telecon modem and tonight only 300+ emails
to look at. New computer + new software etc etc.
It will be at least a week before back to normal at best. (Kant even smell
chk until more SW is loaded.)
Any way. I have test data, facts and lots of industry references on my side
(oops as we are not taking sides just offering more info to consider) as
well as a team of 6 others who have over 200 years experience 9with my time
added in its nearly 250 years of related experience). Not that we are right,
as that is not the point, just to point out alternatives and their merits.
This is not to say Bob is wrong, just there are more than one proper
solution and what is fine for one might not be even reasonable for another.
For example a C150 in day VFR in uncontrolled airspace is very different
than an auto engine conversion where it takes over 10+ amps to keep the prop
turning. The C150 flys with no battery or alternator while the auto
conversion needs lots of amps from somewhere ALL the time
Diferent solutions to different problems.
BUT in general I feel its time to leap into the modern age and use some real
rugged automotive components that are far more reliable and pass much more
rugged testing requirements than the infamous DO-160.
Also my testing has led to a series of problems etc etc that needed more
investigation. I have testing that is st least repeatable for me as well as
industry reports for backup. This has kept the report in a constant state of
flux. Add been sick and Wife is not at all well last yeasr and now there is
not a lot of time to work on things.
However I have not found any show stoppers than need immediate attention.
(Perhaps those in the middle of wiring would disagree.)
How about NO fuses, practically no CB's NO relays, simple controls etc
nearly all solid state with smarts built in. Eric would have no contactors
or fuses or CB's anywhere. Its possible today with off the shelf parts and
much lighter and potentially lower cost and far more reliable. End of final
soap box conclusion as that is were its all ending up.
Below Bob you left out option 4 in your list. Perhaps Paul (et al) are
right. :-), welllll he has a point in the design for a specific application
etc :-)
Anyway I will return when the dust settles (mine) with talking points one at
a time, perhaps one per week so things are not so confusing with many
discussions at once.
Paul
----- Original Message -----
From: Robert L. Nuckolls, III <b.nuckolls(at)cox.net>
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Open letter to the list
>
> Close but no cigar. I'll remind folks that the ultimate proof
> of any science is the repeatable experiment. George says he can
> blow transorbs in a heartbeat. We'll need details of his test
> environment before any query or argument can be mounted. Paul
> says he has come conclusions to make based on his testing. I presume
> he'll be willing to detail his experiments. If I have anything to
> contribute to the conversations, I'll have to either (1) show where
> the setup is wrong or (2) explain how the interpretation is in
> error or (3) go to the shop and repeat the experiment for closer
> examination.
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | rv-9a-online <rv-9a-online(at)telus.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Pretty darned confused about grounding shields |
One more thing to add... engine monitors are like intercoms or audio
panels. Whenever possible, all of the sensor shields should be
connected on the engine monitor and not at the sensor end. Applies
mostly to analog sensors (temperature, volts, amps, pressures, etc.).
Digital sensors follow the transmitter rule... but it's still not too
critical which end you ground.
Vern Little.
Wayne Sweet wrote:
>
>Ahh...... electronics apparently really is a black art, one that only
>'nature' has the final say; If it works, then it's correct. Don't fool with
>"mother nature". Problem is she ain't talking.
>Wayne
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "Dan O'Brien" <danobrien(at)cox.net>
>To:
>Subject: AeroElectric-List: Pretty darned confused about grounding shields
>
>
>
>
>>
>>After Wayne Sweet suggested the Garmin manual was off regarding shielding,
>>I called the company. Ready for this?
>>
>>1. Connecting a UPS SL30 Nav Com to a MD200-306 CDI indicator: UPS manual
>>(before the Garmin merger) says ground shields at both ends. They are
>>SPECIFIC. For example, they have footnotes that explicitly say to ground
>>a
>>both ends, while they also have footnotes saying to let float the Nav/Com
>>end of the connection to the audio panel. Couldn't be more explicit.
>>However, the Garmin tech rep says to ground the shields only at the
>>Nav/Com
>>end. He says "I don't know why the manual says that?
>>2. Connecting a GNS430 GPS/Nav/Com to a MD200-306 CDI indicator: Garmin
>>manual says ground shields at both ends.
>>However, the Garmin tech rep says to ground the shields only at the
>>Nav/Com
>>end. He says "I don't know why the manual says that?
>>3. Connecting a GNS430 to an altitude serializer: Garmin manual says
>>ground
>>the shield at both ends.
>>However, the Garmin tech rep says to ground the shield only at the Garmin
>>end;
>>while the Microencoder rep says ground the shield at the Microencoder end
>>(the "sending" end).
>>
>>Almost as bad as economists (my field). OK scientists, there either IS a
>>right answer to each question, or there are tradeoffs that are worth
>>understanding. Inquiring (if somewhat mystified, and a little irritated)
>>minds want to know.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>Try www.SPAMfighter.com for free now!
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <b.nuckolls(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Dimmer voltage |
>
>Hello Group,
>
> I procured a 5 amp dimmer control from B&C. When my bus voltage is 12
>Volts the power lead from the dimmer with the potentiometer turned to the
>brightness is a shade over 10 volts and when connected the voltage drops
>to a
>shade under 10 volts. I ran a lead directly from the bus to the terminal
>blocks
>where the lights are hooked up and everything reads 12 volts. Is the dimmer
>control designed to only deliver 10 volts when fed 12? Is this because when
>the alternated is running it will make up the difference since the buss
>voltage
>will climb to 13.8 or so? Thanks for your thoughts. JR RV-7A Still Wiring.
The DIM series controllers from B&C (and others featured in various
publication articles) are based on adjustable, 3-terminal regulators
like a series of devices introduced by national and duplicated
by many others. See:
http://www.national.com/ds.cgi/LM/LM117.pdf (1.5 a max)
http://www.national.com/ds.cgi/LM/LM150.pdf (3.0 a max)
http://www.national.com/ds.cgi/LM/LM138.pdf (5.0 a max)
For the dimmer you've cited, the LM138 data applies. Check out
page 3 of the data sheet at the bottom center graph called
"Dropout Voltage" . . .
This graph depicts the minimum operating differential between
input and output voltage under various operating conditions.
If you operated this device at max load and kept the junction
temperature in the device below 100C then one could expect
a dropout voltage on the order of 2.6 volts meaning that for
12 volts input, one can expect about 9.4 volts out. The fact
that you are seeing less than 2 volts of differential suggests
your currents are much below 5 amps and perhaps on the order
of 1.5 to 2 amps.
You'll find similar characteristics in the lower current
devices featured on other models of the DIM series lighting
controllers from B&C.
Yes, when your bus rises to 14+ volts, the maximum output
from the controller will rise too.
The phenomenon you've observed has been noted by numerous
builders over the years. Allow me to suggest that the
condition is irrelevant to the operation of your airplane.
Panel lights are generally first turned on right after
sunset and may well be at max bright for a few minutes.
As it begins to get really dark, the dimmer knob gets
turned down so that by the time sky light contributes
little to cockpit visibility, dimmer output voltage will
be something substantially less than 8 volts.
The thoughts behind the DIM series controllers is that
the active devices are VOLTAGE REGULATORS. This means that
for any change of bus voltage coming in, there is very
little change in voltage coming out. So, pulsations caused
by strobe supplies in particular are NOT perceived as
perturbations in light levels on the panel. See page 2
value for line voltage regulation . . . for a 1 volt
change of input voltage, output voltage will no depart
from set-point by more than 6/100ths of a percent.
The loss of max voltage due to characteristics of the
solid state regulator have no great significance in the
utility of the dimmer as it's used in your aircraft.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Steve Thomas <lists(at)stevet.net> |
Hello aeroelectric-list,
I need to run some additional wires through my wing conduit and it
is pretty full already. The conduit is plastic tube.
Is there any slippery stuff I can use in there to make running the
wires easier that won't harm things down the road?
--
Best regards,
Steve mailto:lists(at)stevet.net.nospam
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <b.nuckolls(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Microair 760N to Flightcom 403 |
>
>I'm certainly no expert, so my observation may not be accurate. But in the
>instructions copied below, it says MC403 "Avionics Ground" to Microair Pin
>2. On the Revision N diagram, pin 2 shows no internal connection. On
>revision C, pin 2 is labelled Mic Lo. This is what led me to my request
>for advice.
Very good. I missed that. On the earliest 760 drawings pin
2 is called out as "microphone ground" and I'll bet that if
you do an ohmmeter check between pins 2 and 11 or 12 on your
radio you will find that they are connected together. I
interpret their "not wired" notation to mean that you don't
wire to this pin for the purposes of arriving at their suggested
wiring . . . not that the pin is floating inside the radio.
There would have been no reason for an "old" radio to have
pin 2 connected and utilized in older diagrams and "new"
radios to suddenly have a disabled internal connection to
pin 2. If the ohmmeter test suggested above confirms my
hypothesis, then my suggestion of using pin 2 on the radio
as "avionics ground" for the intercom is a rational
approach for minimizing potential for noise injected by
ground loops.
Thanks for illuminating my oversight.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Slippery Stuff |
I used talcum powder rubbed on the wire, which worked well.
Bob Trumpfheller
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Harold Kovac" <kayce(at)sysmatrix.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Slippery Stuff |
I've seen wires pulled thru conduit with a goop in a quart container, can but bought
at an electrical supply shop...maybe medical lube could also be used.
Harold
----- Original Message -----
From: Steve Thomas
To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Saturday, January 29, 2005 10:33 AM
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Slippery Stuff
Hello aeroelectric-list,
I need to run some additional wires through my wing conduit and it
is pretty full already. The conduit is plastic tube.
Is there any slippery stuff I can use in there to make running the
wires easier that won't harm things down the road?
--
Best regards,
Steve mailto:lists(at)stevet.net.nospam
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Slippery Stuff |
| From: | "John Schroeder" <jschroeder(at)perigee.net> |
Most electrical supply houses have a lube for pulling cables thru conduit.
Since the stuff I have seen and used on a house has a wax in it, I would
not use it on a "plastic" airplane. It has the consistency of a hand
lotion. Metal, I should think, would be OK.
Hope this helps,
John chroeder
> Is there any slippery stuff I can use in there to make running the
> wires easier that won't harm things down the road?
>
--
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Eric M. Jones" <emjones(at)charter.net> |
| Subject: | RE: Slippery Stuff |
>I need to run some additional wires through my wing conduit and it is
pretty full already. The conduit is plastic tube. Is there any slippery
stuff I can >use in there to make running the wires easier that won't harm
things down the road?
Steve,
One of the few great uses of Teflon is to do exactly this job. Pure Teflon
is sold in spray form in CP (Chemically Pure) and FB (Film Bonding) grades.
Use the CP grade if you can, but the FB grade is okay too. MSC sell this as
TFE dry lube spray. Many sources. Google "TFE spray".
I used to sell the CP grade spray to parachute riggers, who went through
cases of it. Amazing stuff when you wanted a parachute to open quickly.
Great lube for plastics too.
Regards,
Eric M. Jones
www.PerihelionDesign.com
113 Brentwood Drive
Southbridge MA 01550-2705
Phone (508) 764-2072
Email: emjones(at)charter.net
"When dealing with the enemy, it helps if he thinks you're a little bit
crazy."
--Gen. Curtis LeMay
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Steve Thomas <lists(at)stevet.net> |
| Subject: | Re: RE: Slippery Stuff |
Hello Eric,
Saturday, January 29, 2005, 8:55:16 AM, you wrote:
EMJ> MSC sell this as
EMJ> TFE dry lube spray.
Thanks to all for your responses. I'll try some of this teflon stuff,
TFE Dry Lube by Sprayon, and let you-all know how it works.
--
Best regards,
Steve
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Charlie England <ceengland(at)bellsouth.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Slippery Stuff |
Steve Thomas wrote:
>
>Hello aeroelectric-list,
>
> I need to run some additional wires through my wing conduit and it
> is pretty full already. The conduit is plastic tube.
>
> Is there any slippery stuff I can use in there to make running the
> wires easier that won't harm things down the road?
>
>
>
Try the nearest electrical supply house or even a well stocked building
supply that handles electrical stuff. Wire lube is essential for any
electrician pulling wire through conduit in commercial buildings.
________________________________________________________________________________
I have used (but not in my aircraft) a product that electricians call
"elephant snot" (a rather viscous yellow goop - once you see it you'll
understand the name) available at electrical supply stores. I don't recall
the real name but I'm sure that if you use this term that the folks at the
counter will know what exactly you want.
Best regards,
Rob Housman
Europa XS Tri-Gear A070
Airframe complete
Irvine, CA
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of Steve
Thomas
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Slippery Stuff
Hello aeroelectric-list,
I need to run some additional wires through my wing conduit and it
is pretty full already. The conduit is plastic tube.
Is there any slippery stuff I can use in there to make running the
wires easier that won't harm things down the road?
--
Best regards,
Steve mailto:lists(at)stevet.net.nospam
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Slippery Stuff |
| From: | Kent Ashton <kjashton(at)vnet.net> |
Yes, the bodily fluids of elephants are widely used. We used to use
"elephant cum" to clean grease pencil scheduling boards in the air force.
--Kent
> From: "Rob Housman" <robh@hyperion-ef.us>
> Reply-To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
> Date: Sat, 29 Jan 2005 11:31:35 -0800
> To:
> Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Slippery Stuff
>
>
> I have used (but not in my aircraft) a product that electricians call
> "elephant snot" (a rather viscous yellow goop - once you see it you'll
> understand the name) available at electrical supply stores. I don't recall
> the real name but I'm sure that if you use this term that the folks at the
> counter will know what exactly you want.
>
> Best regards,
>
> Rob Housman
>
> Europa XS Tri-Gear A070
> Airframe complete
> Irvine, CA
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of Steve
> Thomas
> To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
> Subject: AeroElectric-List: Slippery Stuff
>
>
> Hello aeroelectric-list,
>
> I need to run some additional wires through my wing conduit and it
> is pretty full already. The conduit is plastic tube.
>
> Is there any slippery stuff I can use in there to make running the
> wires easier that won't harm things down the road?
>
> --
> Best regards,
> Steve mailto:lists(at)stevet.net.nospam
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Brian Kraut" <brian.kraut(at)engalt.com> |
I had always heard it called elephant something else that I will not repeat
on the list.
Brian Kraut
Engineering Alternatives, Inc.
www.engalt.com
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of Rob
Housman
Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Slippery Stuff
I have used (but not in my aircraft) a product that electricians call
"elephant snot" (a rather viscous yellow goop - once you see it you'll
understand the name) available at electrical supply stores. I don't recall
the real name but I'm sure that if you use this term that the folks at the
counter will know what exactly you want.
Best regards,
Rob Housman
Europa XS Tri-Gear A070
Airframe complete
Irvine, CA
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of Steve
Thomas
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Slippery Stuff
Hello aeroelectric-list,
I need to run some additional wires through my wing conduit and it
is pretty full already. The conduit is plastic tube.
Is there any slippery stuff I can use in there to make running the
wires easier that won't harm things down the road?
--
Best regards,
Steve mailto:lists(at)stevet.net.nospam
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Vincent Welch" <welchvincent(at)hotmail.com> |
Two of the politically correct names are "Wire Lube" or "Wire Ease" :)
Vince
>From: "Rob Housman" <robh@hyperion-ef.us>
>Reply-To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
>To:
>Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Slippery Stuff
>Date: Sat, 29 Jan 2005 11:31:35 -0800
>
><robh@hyperion-ef.us>
>
>I have used (but not in my aircraft) a product that electricians call
>"elephant snot" (a rather viscous yellow goop - once you see it you'll
>understand the name) available at electrical supply stores. I don't recall
>the real name but I'm sure that if you use this term that the folks at the
>counter will know what exactly you want.
>
>Best regards,
>
>Rob Housman
>
>Europa XS Tri-Gear A070
>Airframe complete
>Irvine, CA
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
>[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of Steve
>Thomas
>To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
>Subject: AeroElectric-List: Slippery Stuff
>
>
>Hello aeroelectric-list,
>
> I need to run some additional wires through my wing conduit and it
> is pretty full already. The conduit is plastic tube.
>
> Is there any slippery stuff I can use in there to make running the
> wires easier that won't harm things down the road?
>
>--
>Best regards,
> Steve mailto:lists(at)stevet.net.nospam
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Rick <n701rr(at)yahoo.com> |
that's it..sometimes though I do confuse "monkey snot and elephant snot". Not
the same though..elephant snot is wire lube whereas we call plummer's puddy "monkey
snot"...I dunno.
Vincent Welch wrote:--> AeroElectric-List message posted
by: "Vincent Welch"
Two of the politically correct names are "Wire Lube" or "Wire Ease" :)
Vince
>From: "Rob Housman"
>Reply-To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
>To:
>Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Slippery Stuff
>Date: Sat, 29 Jan 2005 11:31:35 -0800
>
>
>I have used (but not in my aircraft) a product that electricians call
>"elephant snot" (a rather viscous yellow goop - once you see it you'll
>understand the name) available at electrical supply stores. I don't recall
>the real name but I'm sure that if you use this term that the folks at the
>counter will know what exactly you want.
>
>Best regards,
>
>Rob Housman
>
>Europa XS Tri-Gear A070
>Airframe complete
>Irvine, CA
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
>[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of Steve
>Thomas
>To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
>Subject: AeroElectric-List: Slippery Stuff
>
>
>Hello aeroelectric-list,
>
> I need to run some additional wires through my wing conduit and it
> is pretty full already. The conduit is plastic tube.
>
> Is there any slippery stuff I can use in there to make running the
> wires easier that won't harm things down the road?
>
>--
>Best regards,
> Steve mailto:lists(at)stevet.net.nospam
>
>
Rick
Orlando, FL
http://www.geocities.com/n701rr/index.html
---------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "James E. Clark" <james(at)nextupventures.com> |
| Subject: | Open letter to the list THE END |
Paul,
I, for one, request that you do not leave as a contributor ("... listen only
mode ...")
I suspect I am like many that sit on the sidelines and reap the benefits
without jumping in on matters like this. I think there are a lot of us.
Opinion: 90+% (not a fact ... just an opinion I have) of the people on this
list would very much appreciate your report ... WHENEVER you were able to
get around to it. I suspect Bob would be in that list. I for one appreciate
how much work people like you and Bob are VOLUNTEERING to do and provide to
us FREE(!!) whether we agree with your views, conclusions, opinions etc or
not.
I can also see why you would NOT want to share data at every step and spend
half of your time debating the approach. And I am sure there would be
debate.
This list is one of the few where there is real debate from time to time.
Many facts get presented and many opinions. Of course there is a certain
deference to Bob (not his fault in my opinion). I take the ones I want and
leave the others. I am grateful for them all.
As an example, some time ago there was an opinion expressed by Bob about
solid state switches/fuses (polyfuses???) and the EXP-Bus from ControlVision
vs a fuseblock approach. I took it all in and now have one plane one way and
am building another the other way. The discourse was good but I then
selected my approach for my mission profile. The two planes were different
and I made my decision based on a lot of factors ... not just the "technical
differences". And so far, all had worked just fine ... My point is I bet
there are some people who are interested in your alternate approaches so
that they can decide if they are better for their mission profiles.
Long-winded response just to request ... take a short break OK, but hang in
there ... we all need people like yourself who are willing to put in the
time and energy give us a different view and who are willing to challenge
the "view of record".
Finally, this medium (email) is sometimes quite limited in the handling of
responses that can be taken very much the wrong way. My suspicion is that
Eric did not mean harm in his message but its hard to correct a word or two
after you hit the send the button.
James
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Steve Thomas <lists(at)stevet.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Open letter to the list THE END |
Hello All,
Saturday, January 29, 2005, 12:57:10 PM, you wrote:
PM> Its been interesting but after many years of seeing so many try to suggest
PM> alternatives and be put down (over and over again) its time to say enough.
I guess that this statement is what I find to be odd. I don't see
anyone on this list being "put down" at all. I posted on this list
once in an inappropriate way and was GENTLY reminded to take it easy.
I really don't see any "put downs" from a technical perspective - just
disagreements. The technically competent posters on this list (I am
NOT one of them) have disagreed a lot over the years and I don't
recall any put-downs.
Bob, in particular, has repeatedly said that if you choose to go
another way, or listen to other advice, it's your airplane; do as you
please. You are responsible for that machine and when it flies, it
should meet with your requirements.
We all need to grow a little thicker skin here. If you are an expert
and you disagree, then disagree! Evidence and repeatability are the
key ingredients. Add a dose of economical thinking and you have the
basis for this list, as I understand it. Beyond that, there seems to
be plenty of room for alternatives.
If you are an expert, I'd like to know why you don't agree. But, at
the same time, don't presume that we novices are required to accept
it, either.
I spend most of my time lurking because I'm mostly an idiot on these
matters. But I want to learn; listening and watching are the best
ways to do that. Let's keep it professional.
--
Best regards,
Steve
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "glaesers" <glaesers(at)wideopenwest.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Open letter to the list |
Paul,
I hope you reconsider - and that one closed mind doesn't spoil it for the
rest of us. I don't know what Eric Ruttan's problem is. Frankly, his
drivel pisses me off (and I hope a whole lot of others as well).
I'd like to think that 99.9% of the folks who read this list eagerly await
your report, and the education that the ensuing discussion will provide.
Yeah, I'm sure the discussions will have plenty of enthusiasm - which Bob
noted is an emotion - and at times will, no doubt, generate other emotions.
Your health, and your wife's, is far more important than anything else.
Take your time, get better, and of course - fix your computer :-). Even
those who are in the midst of wiring will survive.
Dennis Glaeser
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Steve Thomas <lists(at)stevet.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Slippery Stuff |
Hello Rick,
Saturday, January 29, 2005, 2:21:55 PM, you wrote:
R> "monkey snot and elephant snot"
Wow! Way more information than I need! Thanks to all!
--
Best regards,
Steve
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Dj Merrill <deej(at)thayer.dartmouth.edu> |
| Subject: | Re: Open letter to the list |
glaesers wrote:
> I'd like to think that 99.9% of the folks who read this list eagerly await
> your report, and the education that the ensuing discussion will provide.
> Yeah, I'm sure the discussions will have plenty of enthusiasm - which Bob
> noted is an emotion - and at times will, no doubt, generate other emotions.
>
> Your health, and your wife's, is far more important than anything else.
> Take your time, get better, and of course - fix your computer :-). Even
> those who are in the midst of wiring will survive.
>
> Dennis Glaeser
Thanks, Dennis. Not sure I could have said it any better.
Paul, please get better, and rejoin the discussion when you feel
like you want to. In my opinion, there are tons of us out here that
appreciate ALL viewpoints.
-Dj
--
Dj Merrill
deej(at)thayer.dartmouth.edu
"TSA: Totally Screwing Aviation"
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Duane Zavadil" <dzavadil(at)hometownaccess.net> |
| Subject: | Dual Electronic Starting Issues |
I'd like to relate an experience and ask some questions.
I've got a 6A with an 0-320 with dual Electoair ignition. I had lot of problems
with kickback on starting that I attributed to low cranking speed. Upon rebuilding
the old Remy starter, the nature of the problem changed. Higher cranking
speed and less kickback but often when starting, particularly when cold, I
can crank away for up to 10 seconds with no luck but immediately upon releasing
the starter button, it often kicks off (and sometimes kicks back!). The bus
voltage drops into the 7-8 volt range when cranking. My guess is that the Electroair
ignition system is recieving inadequate voltage when cranking but when
the bus volatege jumps back up upon disengaging the starter, it resume operation(sometimes
with some odd transient that causes the kickback). By the way,I
found maintenance records of replacement of ring gear so this has probably been
going on for some time.
I'm inclined to add a second small battery such as one of small, 2-3 amp hour Yuasa
absorbed gel batterys that would be used for starting and backup. I would
like to take complexity out of the starting process and eliminate the potenial
for flying off with only the backup battery engaged by placing a normally closed
relay that is energized and opened by the starter relay primary circuit.
I would add a switch in series in this circuit to isolate the backup battery
from the rest of the systerm in the event that I needed to use it as a true backup
battery for the ignition system.
The plane is set up for night VFR, (vacuum system) and is sometimes flown that
way. It has an internally regulated alternator with Bob's crowbar OVP. I use an
Oddessy PC 725 and replace it annually (the old batterys work great in all kinds
of equipment around the place!).
Questions: Is there an easier way to fix the kickback such as a modern starter(
though I thought they drew higher current)?
Is it possible that the old Remy starter is somehow defective and drawing excess
current - causing the problem?
Is there a fatal flaw in the proposed backup scheme?
Thanks
Sent via the WebMail system at hometownaccess.net
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Denis Walsh <denis.walsh(at)comcast.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Dual Electronic Starting Issues |
Agree with your analysis. There is always a cost for adding complexity
to the system. I would first check all connections, cables and the
solenoids. Take a good look at the starter and battery cables paying
attention to the crimps on the termini. The volts should not drop to
7 when cranking, and when it does, the electroair is indeed going to be
unreliable. You should be able to get it up with better connections,
and cabling, with a new battery and rebuilt starter.
One other thing that has happened to me is if the battery is run down,
these things can happen. So check your charging volts and check for a
discharge when all switches are off. I had a drain I never would have
expected. It was the electronic tach I got from Jeff was drawing a few
ma when master switch was off! It took a couple months of inactivity
but it would drain the odyssey enough to cause low cranking voltage. I
rewired it to the main bus so it is powered from the master switch.
Now the battery will stay up even after long periods of inactivity.
I am a great fan of the odyssey but it is only a 17ah battery and will
be depleted easily if any thing like a clock or tach, etc is using it
up over a long period of time.
Good luck and let us know how it turns out. My first guess is the old
favorite of loose or poor connections somewhere, unless you let the
plane sit a long time between tries.
Denis
As a post script I would add that this is one advantage of having one
magneto and only one electronic ignition. You are a little more likely
to get a start with a low battery. The trade off is the dual system
gets better performance.
On Jan 29, 2005, at 5:17 PM, Duane Zavadil wrote:
>
>
> I'd like to relate an experience and ask some questions.
>
> I've got a 6A with an 0-320 with dual Electoair ignition. I had lot
> of problems with kickback on starting that I attributed to low
> cranking speed. Upon rebuilding the old Remy starter, the nature of
> the problem changed. Higher cranking speed and less kickback but
> often when starting, particularly when cold, I can crank away for up
> to 10 seconds with no luck but immediately upon releasing the starter
> button, it often kicks off (and sometimes kicks back!). The bus
> voltage drops into the 7-8 volt range when cranking. My guess is that
> the Electroair ignition system is recieving inadequate voltage when
> cranking but when the bus volatege jumps back up upon disengaging the
> starter, it resume operation(sometimes with some odd transient that
> causes the kickback). By the way,I found maintenance records of
> replacement of ring gear so this has probably been going on for some
> time.
>
> I'm inclined to add a second small battery such as one of small, 2-3
> amp hour Yuasa absorbed gel batterys that would be used for starting
> and backup. I would like to take complexity out of the starting
> process and eliminate the potenial for flying off with only the backup
> battery engaged by placing a normally closed relay that is energized
> and opened by the starter relay primary circuit. I would add a switch
> in series in this circuit to isolate the backup battery from the rest
> of the systerm in the event that I needed to use it as a true backup
> battery for the ignition system.
>
> The plane is set up for night VFR, (vacuum system) and is sometimes
> flown that way. It has an internally regulated alternator with Bob's
> crowbar OVP. I use an Oddessy PC 725 and replace it annually (the old
> batterys work great in all kinds
> of equipment around the place!).
>
> Questions: Is there an easier way to fix the kickback such as a modern
> starter( though I thought they drew higher current)?
>
> Is it possible that the old Remy starter is somehow defective and
> drawing excess current - causing the problem?
>
> Is there a fatal flaw in the proposed backup scheme?
>
> Thanks
>
>
> Sent via the WebMail system at hometownaccess.net
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "James E. Clark" <james(at)nextupventures.com> |
| Subject: | Dual Electronic Starting Issues |
TWO different responses.
Warning: includes some anecdote and opinion ... not a clear answer.
#1.
I don't remember if it is in the archives or not but my friend had a similar
problem with another popular Electronic Ignition. Specifically, there were
times when his plane would start only AFTER he released the starter
switch/button.
We surmised that the voltage was at a certain level and this was not
adequate for the electronic ignition. Our theory was not agreed with by the
manufacturer but we held fast, did some tests and proved to ourselves that
it was true. (While he was cranking the engine, I monitored the voltage ....
with long probes ... that was provided to the electronic ignition.) The
voltage was dropping to say 8 volts and lower (but above the theoretically
required 4 volts or so) and this was not enough for the electronic ignition
to fire. His plane REQUIRES the electronic ignition to fire. (My partner and
I have the Rose system plus a mag that will fire on our 6.)
The first solution that was tried was a large capacitor across the the
ignition (I think with a diode to keep it from being drained on cranking or
something like that). This seemed to work but in fact did not.
As I recall the end solution was in fact a small battery that is kept
charged by the charging system and is "protected" from drainage during
cranking. Problem fixed.
#2.
My partner and I have a single Electroair system O-320 with an old, heavy
start and wood prop up front and I seem to have witnessed what you mention
as well (a few times at least).
You mention that you have the 725 ... I am not familiar with that model
number but we and a lot of people use the PC 680. I assume they are similar
capacity. We will be changing out our battery for a new one in a few months
at annual but in the meantime, I have put one of the little trickle
charger/maintainers on the battery during the cold weather *and* have added
an oil sump heater. This seems to help immensely and further adds to the
theory of low voltage when the battery is weak, the starter is less
efficient and its cold to boot to make it all worse.
James
| -----Original Message-----
| From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-
| aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Duane Zavadil
| Sent: Saturday, January 29, 2005 7:18 PM
| To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
| Subject: AeroElectric-List: Dual Electronic Starting Issues
|
|
|
| I'd like to relate an experience and ask some questions.
|
| I've got a 6A with an 0-320 with dual Electoair ignition. I had lot of
| problems with kickback on starting that I attributed to low cranking
| speed. Upon rebuilding the old Remy starter, the nature of the problem
| changed. Higher cranking speed and less kickback but often when
| starting, particularly when cold, I can crank away for up to 10 seconds
| with no luck but immediately upon releasing the starter button, it often
| kicks off (and sometimes kicks back!). The bus voltage drops into the 7-
| 8 volt range when cranking. My guess is that the Electroair ignition
| system is recieving inadequate voltage when cranking but when the bus
| volatege jumps back up upon disengaging the starter, it resume
| operation(sometimes with some odd transient that causes the kickback). By
| the way,I found maintenance records of replacement of ring gear so this
| has probably been going on for some time.
|
| I'm inclined to add a second small battery such as one of small, 2-3 amp
| hour Yuasa absorbed gel batterys that would be used for starting and
| backup. I would like to take complexity out of the starting process and
| eliminate the potenial for flying off with only the backup battery
| engaged by placing a normally closed relay that is energized and opened
| by the starter relay primary circuit. I would add a switch in series in
| this circuit to isolate the backup battery from the rest of the systerm
| in the event that I needed to use it as a true backup battery for the
| ignition system.
|
| The plane is set up for night VFR, (vacuum system) and is sometimes flown
| that way. It has an internally regulated alternator with Bob's crowbar
| OVP. I use an Oddessy PC 725 and replace it annually (the old batterys
| work great in all kinds
| of equipment around the place!).
|
| Questions: Is there an easier way to fix the kickback such as a modern
| starter( though I thought they drew higher current)?
|
| Is it possible that the old Remy starter is somehow defective and drawing
| excess current - causing the problem?
|
| Is there a fatal flaw in the proposed backup scheme?
|
| Thanks
|
|
| Sent via the WebMail system at hometownaccess.net
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Fiveonepw(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Slippery Stuff |
In a message dated 01/29/2005 4:23:36 PM Central Standard Time,
n701rr(at)yahoo.com writes:
>I have used (but not in my aircraft) a product that electricians call
>"elephant snot" (a rather viscous yellow goop -
>>>
I've used this stuff (Ideal yellow 77) and it is VERY slick and works great
for pulling monster cables through long runs of metal conduit, but I'm not sure
I'd want it in my plane. Here's a typical vendors listing:
http://www.twacomm.com/Catalog/Model_31-350.htm
It would sure collect a lot of grit over time and I'd be concerned about
having to pull additional wires or remove some after flying for some time, plus
I've no idea what effects it may have on aluminum, probably not much but I'd dig
out a product data sheet and MSDS from the manufacturer before I'd commit.
Another possibility might be using soapy water or some other water soluble
slime that could be flushed out when done...
Mark Phillips
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "David Carter" <dcarter(at)datarecall.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Open letter to the list |
Eric Ruttan, Paul M. explained he'd be giving bite sized servings or pieces
of the report, about weekly hereafter, as he is able. Ever hear of of an
"executive summary" or "introduction" or "preface". Cool your rockets and
be patient. Let the man do what he just said he's going to do. Why flog
him 'cause he said he was going to do it in a way you don't like?
Flame me, if you like, not him. I wear Nomex and don't give a hoot about
your impatient intemperate reaction.
David Carter
----- Original Message -----
From: "Eric Ruttan" <ericruttan(at)chartermi.net>
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Open letter to the list
>
> Paul;
>
> I have deep respect for your experiences, and the fact you are bringing
data
> and a challenge to the table.
>
> But you are really starting to piss me off.
>
> If you have something FACTUAL to say, say it. If you have a LOGICAL
> deduction or reasoning to share, share it.
>
> I see most all your emails as "I have all this data and facts and reasons,
> but let me share political spin and rhetoric. I can make time to share
> rhetoric, but haven't time to share hard data."
>
> It has no place here.
>
> Why not spend your limited time and bandwidth actually sharing facts? For
6
> months we have been looking for your "study". What did you do, and how
did
> you do it? Before you drop a thesis on our heads and start lecturing us
on
> how wrong Bob is, how about you give us details on your actually
> experimental foundation? Let us begin to look at your premise, before you
> spring your ambush of conclusions based on it. (See Paul, I can use
> inflaming rhetoric too! Now I feel dirty.) Let us start to question your
> premises NOW! Then we will have a solid ground to see if something is
> different than what we have shown it to be for years.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Matt Jurotich <mjurotich(at)hst.nasa.gov> |
| Subject: | Re: Open letter to the list THE END |
Paul
I personally regret your decision to leave the Aeroelectric list. However,
I am TRULY interested in reading your report when it is finished. Please
provide a list of other forums to which you post. Or email me a
copy. Thanks for your insight. I ask a lot of dumb questions at work
(JWST infrared telescope for the L2 point) and these questions are my
greatest contribution to the project even though only about 10% are
relevant. Frequently my question is "Why would you want to do that?"
Matthew M. Jurotich
NASA/Goddard Space Flight Center
JWST ISIM Systems Engineer
m/c : 443
e-mail mailto: mjurotich(at)hst.nasa.gov
phone : 301-286-5919
fax : 301-286-7021
JWST URL: <http://ngst1.gsfc.nasa.gov>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Open letter to the list THE END |
| From: | "Chuck Jensen" <cjensen(at)dts9000.com> |
I have no intention of attempting to provide a defense of Bob--he needs none.
While the value of a persons advice and philosophy is measured by the breadth
and depth of the knowledge and the clarity with which it is conveyed, the value
of a person is how (s)he accepts critique, even criticism. In this regard,
it's my observation and personal opinion that Bob is "pedestal material". I do
not genuflect before him, but I certainly pay attention when he speaks.
Some may mistake straightforward answers from Bob as unnecessarily blunt, even
dismissive. No such thing. If every time a responder disagrees with an idea
that's floated on this site, and he has to spend the first three paragraphs explaining
that its not personal, and with all due respect, et al, then the volume
of the site will go up and the content down.
Overall, when ideas are offered, we first weigh and assess the idea, then consider
the idea-giver and his past history. It is these criteria that causes the
vast majority of listers to be receptive to Bob's ideas as "probably being right
and probably being the best (if not the only solution)", all while not closing
the door to contrarian ideas.
Paul may well have bombshell information. And if he does, all, including Bob,
I'm sure, will be most interested. But know this, before the results are accepted,
or even seriously considered, the test design, test methods and data analysis
will be scrutinized with wariness and skepticism, as all new ideas that
go against conventional wisdom and historical experience should be. But the cart
before the horse does not travel well. When one has his data together and
facts straight, then, and only then, should ideas that turn convention on its
head, be presented as fact.
Chuck
Minds are like parachutes--not much good if they're not open.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Dan O'Brien" <danobrien(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Open letter to the list: THE END |
Paul,
It would be tragic if you stopped sharing ideas, data, analysis, etc. on
the list. Part of why this list works is because people like Bob,
yourself, Eric, and many others spend time probing, questioning, analyzing,
and offering suggestions as to how to make things better, using science as
the foundation. There aren't many lists that do this sort of thing as
well. As in my field (economics), we can't rely on scholarly journals to
answer many, many questions of practical significance, like how to wire an
airplane. This list is one of the best sources of practical information on
airplane wiring around. Participation by guys like you is the reason why.
I am very much looking forward to your report, in whatever form it comes,
on whatever schedule you choose.
Dan
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Duane Zavadil" <dzavadil(at)hometownaccess.net> |
| Subject: | Dual Electronic Starting Issues |
I lied, it is an Odessy 925, not a 725. Since it fit in the box for the old lead
acid, weighed about the same as the old lead acid, and given the dual electronic
setup, I thought it prudent. The plane has Sensinich fixed metal prop and
is always preheated for anything less than 35 degrees.
After digesting these and the responses on the RV-list, I think I'll try the second
battery approach and as suggested, supply one ignition system from each battery.
I can leave the ignition powered by the main battery off for starting.
I feel that second battery is useful from a safety standpoint on a dual electronic
plane.
But that being said, I can't wait to get something like a B&C or that new inline
starter on the plane. I've missed a few flights due to starter issues and never
had any other mechanical issue with the plane. Plane foolishness to leave
the boat anchor on there.
I'll let all know what happens....
---------- Original Message ----------------------------------
From: "James E. Clark" <james(at)nextupventures.com>
Date: Sat, 29 Jan 2005 20:43:19 -0500
>
>TWO different responses.
>
>Warning: includes some anecdote and opinion ... not a clear answer.
>
>#1.
>
>I don't remember if it is in the archives or not but my friend had a similar
>problem with another popular Electronic Ignition. Specifically, there were
>times when his plane would start only AFTER he released the starter
>switch/button.
>
>We surmised that the voltage was at a certain level and this was not
>adequate for the electronic ignition. Our theory was not agreed with by the
>manufacturer but we held fast, did some tests and proved to ourselves that
>it was true. (While he was cranking the engine, I monitored the voltage ....
>with long probes ... that was provided to the electronic ignition.) The
>voltage was dropping to say 8 volts and lower (but above the theoretically
>required 4 volts or so) and this was not enough for the electronic ignition
>to fire. His plane REQUIRES the electronic ignition to fire. (My partner and
>I have the Rose system plus a mag that will fire on our 6.)
>
>The first solution that was tried was a large capacitor across the the
>ignition (I think with a diode to keep it from being drained on cranking or
>something like that). This seemed to work but in fact did not.
>
>As I recall the end solution was in fact a small battery that is kept
>charged by the charging system and is "protected" from drainage during
>cranking. Problem fixed.
>
>#2.
>
>My partner and I have a single Electroair system O-320 with an old, heavy
>start and wood prop up front and I seem to have witnessed what you mention
>as well (a few times at least).
>
>You mention that you have the 725 ... I am not familiar with that model
>number but we and a lot of people use the PC 680. I assume they are similar
>capacity. We will be changing out our battery for a new one in a few months
>at annual but in the meantime, I have put one of the little trickle
>charger/maintainers on the battery during the cold weather *and* have added
>an oil sump heater. This seems to help immensely and further adds to the
>theory of low voltage when the battery is weak, the starter is less
>efficient and its cold to boot to make it all worse.
>
>James
>
>
>| -----Original Message-----
>| From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-
>| aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Duane Zavadil
>| Sent: Saturday, January 29, 2005 7:18 PM
>| To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
>| Subject: AeroElectric-List: Dual Electronic Starting Issues
>|
>|
>|
>| I'd like to relate an experience and ask some questions.
>|
>| I've got a 6A with an 0-320 with dual Electoair ignition. I had lot of
>| problems with kickback on starting that I attributed to low cranking
>| speed. Upon rebuilding the old Remy starter, the nature of the problem
>| changed. Higher cranking speed and less kickback but often when
>| starting, particularly when cold, I can crank away for up to 10 seconds
>| with no luck but immediately upon releasing the starter button, it often
>| kicks off (and sometimes kicks back!). The bus voltage drops into the 7-
>| 8 volt range when cranking. My guess is that the Electroair ignition
>| system is recieving inadequate voltage when cranking but when the bus
>| volatege jumps back up upon disengaging the starter, it resume
>| operation(sometimes with some odd transient that causes the kickback). By
>| the way,I found maintenance records of replacement of ring gear so this
>| has probably been going on for some time.
>|
>| I'm inclined to add a second small battery such as one of small, 2-3 amp
>| hour Yuasa absorbed gel batterys that would be used for starting and
>| backup. I would like to take complexity out of the starting process and
>| eliminate the potenial for flying off with only the backup battery
>| engaged by placing a normally closed relay that is energized and opened
>| by the starter relay primary circuit. I would add a switch in series in
>| this circuit to isolate the backup battery from the rest of the systerm
>| in the event that I needed to use it as a true backup battery for the
>| ignition system.
>|
>| The plane is set up for night VFR, (vacuum system) and is sometimes flown
>| that way. It has an internally regulated alternator with Bob's crowbar
>| OVP. I use an Oddessy PC 725 and replace it annually (the old batterys
>| work great in all kinds
>| of equipment around the place!).
>|
>| Questions: Is there an easier way to fix the kickback such as a modern
>| starter( though I thought they drew higher current)?
>|
>| Is it possible that the old Remy starter is somehow defective and drawing
>| excess current - causing the problem?
>|
>| Is there a fatal flaw in the proposed backup scheme?
>|
>| Thanks
>|
>|
>| Sent via the WebMail system at hometownaccess.net
>|
>|
>|
>|
>|
>|
>|
>|
>
>
Sent via the WebMail system at hometownaccess.net
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Eric M. Jones" <emjones(at)charter.net> |
Early on in my experience with the aeroelectric-list, I expressed some
opinion or other, and Bob N. responded in a way that seemed a bit
overbearing. So I picked up the telephone and called him and inquired,
"Bob...are you pissed at me or what?"
He really wasn't and that was the beginning of a congenial relationship, I
hope. Bob N. has a done a volume of good works which must be defended to
some extent. Although one might want to say that everything is open to
debate, we all understand why this simply cannot be true. Still I think Bob
does a great, if not perfect, job as technical referee and guru. And yes, I
think Bob could stoop to see some things Paul's way or my way--but all this
is open to debate.
Many people who have accomplished much, and have achieved a large reputation
in their professional lives have a hard time coming to terms with the give
and take of technical debate in an email forum. When one posts some sage and
well-considered technical pronunciamento, it can be unsettling to have some
unknown and upstart lightweight comment poorly upon it.
Paul Messinger's technical credentials induced me to ask--upon first
exchanging emails--"Are you THE Paul Messinger?" I had read some of his
resume' in various places and knew he was certainly a man among men in
technical circles. But he would never suffer fools gladly....
However, I do suffer fools gladly--and my list of people I hope die like
pigs in Hell is really quite short.... We will all turn to bleached bones in
the end---and hardly anyone deserves THAT. No pilots anyway!
Yes, I was Paul's silent partner in the much anticipated report. He was
doing all the testing and reporting and I offered to provide editorial help,
any small technical assistance, and miscellaneous support. I also had a spot
reserved for the report on my website. Paul and I agree on many esoteric
corners of avionics design, and disagree on some.
I encourage Paul to re-engage in this discourse. It really does create
better things in the world.
Regards,
Eric M. Jones
www.PerihelionDesign.com
113 Brentwood Drive
Southbridge MA 01550-2705
Phone (508) 764-2072
Email: emjones(at)charter.net
Ring the bells that still can ring
Forget your perfect offering
There is a crack in everything
That's how the light gets in
- - Leonard Cohen
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | <bakerocb(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Cold Cathode and Electroluminescent Lighting |
1/30/2005
Hello Fellow Builders, I provide the below URL for your inspection and
comment.
http://www.elwirecheap.com/glowingstuff/index.html
I am not affiliated with this company in any way.
OC
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Dual Electronic Starting Issues |
Does it make any sense in a duel battery duel electronic ignition setup to
run two wires from each battery to each electronic ignition.?
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Charlie Brame <chasb(at)satx.rr.com> |
Duane Zavadil
| Subject: | Dual Electronic Starting Issues |
When I bought my Electoair Ignition System, Jeff Rose mentioned this
sort of problem was possible with a low battery situation and/or a high
amperage drawing starter (in particular, he mentioned the SkyTec
starter.) Basically, the voltage drop caused by the starter prevents the
electronic ignition from firing until the start button was released.
Upon release, the ignition would fire, frequently causing a kickback.
Jeff Rose recommended individual ignition switches, a separate push
button start switch, and the following starting procedure:
(1)Begin cranking with BOTH ignitions OFF.
(2)After a couple of blades, then turn one electronic ignition on.
(3)If no start, turn the ignition off before releasing the start
switch.
Needless to say, if you have a typical Spam Can ignition switch, (Off,
L, R, Both, Start) this procedure won't work.
Charlie
RV-6A N11CB
San Antonio
------------------------------------------------------
> From: "Duane Zavadil"
> Subject: AeroElectric-List: Dual Electronic Starting Issues
>
>
> I'd like to relate an experience and ask some questions.
>
> I've got a 6A with an 0-320 with dual Electoair ignition. I had lot of problems
>
> with kickback on starting that I attributed to low cranking speed. Upon rebuilding
>
> the old Remy starter, the nature of the problem changed. Higher cranking speed
and
>
> less kickback but often when starting, particularly when cold, I can crank
>
> away for up to 10 seconds with no luck but immediately upon releasing the starter
>
> button, it often kicks off (and sometimes kicks back!). The bus voltage drops
into
>
> the 7-8 volt range when cranking. My guess is that the Electroair ignition system
>
> is recieving inadequate voltage when cranking but when the bus volatege jumps
back
>
> up upon disengaging the starter, it resumes operation(sometimes with some odd
>
> transient that causes the kickback). By the way,I found maintenance records of
>
> replacement of ring gear so this has probably been going on for some time.
>
> I'm inclined to add a second small battery such as one of small, 2-3 amp hour
> Yuasa absorbed gel batterys that would be used for starting and backup. I would
> like to take complexity out of the starting process and eliminate the potenial
> for flying off with only the backup battery engaged by placing a normally
> closed relay that is energized and opened by the starter relay primary circuit.
> I would add a switch in series in this circuit to isolate the backup battery
> from the rest of the systerm in the event that I needed to use it as a true
> backup battery for the ignition system.
>
> The plane is set up for night VFR, (vacuum system) and is sometimes flown that
> way. It has an internally regulated alternator with Bob's crowbar OVP. I use
an
> Oddessy PC 725 and replace it annually (the old batterys work great in all
> kinds of equipment around the place!).
>
> Questions: Is there an easier way to fix the kickback such as a modern starter
> (though I thought they drew higher current)?
>
> Is it possible that the old Remy starter is somehow defective and drawing
> excess current - causing the problem?
>
> Is there a fatal flaw in the proposed backup scheme?
>
> Thanks
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Frank Smith" <franksmit(at)nc.rr.com> |
| Subject: | Dual Electronics Starting Issue |
I have a similar setup in an RV-4. It has an io360 (180 HP) with dual electroair
systems.. Started out with 2 mags, went to one mag, and finally to two Electroair
systems. Never had the particular start when the start button is released
problem. Probably because when I went to the two electronic systems, I added
another small battery, like you are proposing, for redundacy. The second
battery is a small 7Amphr, I think, one that supplies power to only one of the
electronic ignitions, and nothing else, In fact it is connected directly to
the battery, with no fluses, CB., or whatever. The switch is the only failure
point. The other battery is a Concorde, 25 amphr, that supplies everything
else. In this case when you are cranking, one set of plugs has the full 12 or
13 volts, and is providing maximum spark. The second electronic system is also
connected directly to the main battery with a switch, no fuses, cb, or master
relay. The only problem with this is that you always have to be sure to turn
off the master, as well as the two ignition systems, so I put a red light in
each system. The starter is a B&C, and it really spins the engine up. The
voltage drops to maybe 8 or 9 while cranking, on the main abattery. The voltmeter
is switchable between the two batteries. The charging from the alternator
is split to the two batteries with a couple of 30 amp diodes, so tlhey both
stay charged up ok, and one failing will not affect the other. Been working
good for about 6 years. Hope this will help you. Good luck . FWIW Frak
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Lonnie Benson" <lonben(at)erols.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Cold Cathode and Electroluminescent Lighting |
OC,
Did you see the article by Jim Weir in the March 2005 issue of Kitplanes on
this subject?
Lonnie
----- Original Message -----
From: <bakerocb(at)cox.net>
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Cold Cathode and Electroluminescent Lighting
>
> 1/30/2005
>
> Hello Fellow Builders, I provide the below URL for your inspection and
> comment.
>
> http://www.elwirecheap.com/glowingstuff/index.html
>
> I am not affiliated with this company in any way.
>
> OC
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Open letter to the list THE END |
> everyone it is necessary to compromise. When the best is compromised
> with the worst, only the worst wins. Please keep in mind that in
addition
> to the few dozens of active participants on this List, there are
hundreds
> who get the postings. I presume they find value in them else they would
> "un-subscribe". Since these folks don't post to the list it's a
reasonable
> assumption that they are on honorable missions and seeking clarity of
vision.
> That is the job of true teachers. We are all teachers when we
participate
> in the task of distilling the inventions down to simple ideas and making
> sure the invention works as intended and then explaining those
> concepts to folks who want to understand.
I believe one of the reasons this list has only a handful of active
participants is because opinions (and observations and anecdotal evidence)
are generally not welcomed. Anyone with the temerity post an opinion gets
met with a barrage of responses asking for supporting data, reasoning, FMEA
and a detailed analysis of why they hold such an opinion. Few are willing to
examine why they have reached an opinion and fewer still are willing to
actively debate it. So if you aren't prepared for a Socratic bludgeoning you
just don't post. Socratic teaching can be intimidating and I suspect most
will avoid it if given the choice.
I think it's a bit quixotic to believe that the non-posters are all on some
quest for knowledge and "clarity of vision." I'll bet most just want to wire
their airplane and are hoping someone else will ask their question before
they have to. They just want to know what parts to use rather than how to
design the ultimate system. Like Freud said "sometimes a cigar is just a
cigar." The final stages of completing an RV (or other kit plane) are
difficult because you're thrust into unknown territory where suddenly
nothing is designed or spec'd. Van doesn't (or didn't) even provide a
starting point. Bob's book is often offered to fill that void. It's great on
education but short on any practical advice. If every homebuilder had to go
through the same level of design effort on the airframe as is suggested for
the electrical system, there wouldn't be any kit planes and darn few
homebuilts at all.
Don't get me wrong, I've taken away some valuable ideas but at a cost far
greater than I think necessary. Take the e-bus idea. To implement it you
need a diode. What diode? Well any xx amp or a Scholtzky (isn't that a
sandwich shop?) or a bridge rectifier or some such, or just get any old
diode at Radio Shack. No sample part numbers. Can you conceive how
un-helpful that is to the electron-challenged, like me? OK, I bought a part
that looks like one I saw in a picture but I still don't really know if it's
right. Then how do I wire it? Get out the VOM and test all four legs till I
find a path that works. I bet that chamfered corner would give me a clue for
the hook-up but there's no description of it in the "book" and 30 yrs after
EE101 I can't decipher the schematic. All told, probably 3 hours messing
with a 5 minute task and no net knowledge gained.
I believe the pedantic style of this list does a disservice to the broader
OBAM community by not offering practical, how-to advise. The glowing
exceptions are Bob's picture books, but even those are hard to find. Why
aren't they in the "book"? I would have killed for some of them when I wired
my first RV but if they existed then I was not aware of them. I think
there's a real need for an OBAM version of AC43.13, i.e. 21st century
acceptable methods and practices, not theory. As much as I view Greg Richter
as a snake oil salesman, I think he offered a valuable <> to the
needs of a large segment of the OBAM world. Every airplane's electrical
system does not have to be custom designed. There are >4000 RV's flying -
surely they all don't have to be different. It should really be OK to do
something less than optimal as long as it's still within the bounds of safe
and acceptable solutions. Bob's response to Richter's paper was an eloquent
restatement of Bob's philosophy but really just came down to an antithetical
preference, custom design everything vs one-size-fits-all. Are there only
the extremes? Or is there a middle ground? To really advance the state of
the OBAM fleet is going to require getting a high percentage of new aircraft
to embrace a higher standard. And that's going to require making that
standard both convenient and accessible. The folks buying Van's electrical
system kit aren't consciously choosing a 1940's system, it's just all there
is that's convenient. Except for maybe the EXPbus;-) Most want something
better but their only other choice is design it themselves. Surely we can
offer something better, maybe not perfect, maybe not customized. Yeah,
that's compromise so I guess it's a terrible thing to do. Worst wins. But
doesn't worst win too if there are only a handful of "perfect" examples and
thousands of obsolete ones?
Opinions offered with the utmost respect to all who contribute.
Regards,
Greg Young - Houston (DWH)
RV-6 N6GY ...project Phoenix
Navion N5221K - just an XXL RV-6A
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Charlie England <ceengland(at)bellsouth.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Open letter to the list THE END |
Greg Young wrote:
>
>
>
>> everyone it is necessary to compromise. When the best is compromised
>> with the worst, only the worst wins. Please keep in mind that in
>>
>>
>addition
>
>
>> to the few dozens of active participants on this List, there are
>>
>>
>hundreds
>
>
>> who get the postings. I presume they find value in them else they would
>> "un-subscribe". Since these folks don't post to the list it's a
>>
>>
>reasonable
>
>
>> assumption that they are on honorable missions and seeking clarity of
>>
>>
>vision.
>
>
>> That is the job of true teachers. We are all teachers when we
>>
>>
>participate
>
>
>> in the task of distilling the inventions down to simple ideas and making
>> sure the invention works as intended and then explaining those
>> concepts to folks who want to understand.
>>
>>
>
>I believe one of the reasons this list has only a handful of active
>participants is because opinions (and observations and anecdotal evidence)
>are generally not welcomed. Anyone with the temerity post an opinion gets
>met with a barrage of responses asking for supporting data, reasoning, FMEA
>and a detailed analysis of why they hold such an opinion. Few are willing to
>examine why they have reached an opinion and fewer still are willing to
>actively debate it. So if you aren't prepared for a Socratic bludgeoning you
>just don't post. Socratic teaching can be intimidating and I suspect most
>will avoid it if given the choice.
>
>I think it's a bit quixotic to believe that the non-posters are all on some
>quest for knowledge and "clarity of vision." I'll bet most just want to wire
>their airplane and are hoping someone else will ask their question before
>they have to. They just want to know what parts to use rather than how to
>design the ultimate system. Like Freud said "sometimes a cigar is just a
>cigar." The final stages of completing an RV (or other kit plane) are
>difficult because you're thrust into unknown territory where suddenly
>nothing is designed or spec'd. Van doesn't (or didn't) even provide a
>starting point. Bob's book is often offered to fill that void. It's great on
>education but short on any practical advice. If every homebuilder had to go
>through the same level of design effort on the airframe as is suggested for
>the electrical system, there wouldn't be any kit planes and darn few
>homebuilts at all.
>
>Don't get me wrong, I've taken away some valuable ideas but at a cost far
>greater than I think necessary. Take the e-bus idea. To implement it you
>need a diode. What diode? Well any xx amp or a Scholtzky (isn't that a
>sandwich shop?) or a bridge rectifier or some such, or just get any old
>diode at Radio Shack. No sample part numbers. Can you conceive how
>un-helpful that is to the electron-challenged, like me? OK, I bought a part
>that looks like one I saw in a picture but I still don't really know if it's
>right. Then how do I wire it? Get out the VOM and test all four legs till I
>find a path that works. I bet that chamfered corner would give me a clue for
>the hook-up but there's no description of it in the "book" and 30 yrs after
>EE101 I can't decipher the schematic. All told, probably 3 hours messing
>with a 5 minute task and no net knowledge gained.
>
>I believe the pedantic style of this list does a disservice to the broader
>OBAM community by not offering practical, how-to advise. The glowing
>exceptions are Bob's picture books, but even those are hard to find. Why
>aren't they in the "book"? I would have killed for some of them when I wired
>my first RV but if they existed then I was not aware of them. I think
>there's a real need for an OBAM version of AC43.13, i.e. 21st century
>acceptable methods and practices, not theory. As much as I view Greg Richter
>as a snake oil salesman, I think he offered a valuable <> to the
>needs of a large segment of the OBAM world. Every airplane's electrical
>system does not have to be custom designed. There are >4000 RV's flying -
>surely they all don't have to be different. It should really be OK to do
>something less than optimal as long as it's still within the bounds of safe
>and acceptable solutions. Bob's response to Richter's paper was an eloquent
>restatement of Bob's philosophy but really just came down to an antithetical
>preference, custom design everything vs one-size-fits-all. Are there only
>the extremes? Or is there a middle ground? To really advance the state of
>the OBAM fleet is going to require getting a high percentage of new aircraft
>to embrace a higher standard. And that's going to require making that
>standard both convenient and accessible. The folks buying Van's electrical
>system kit aren't consciously choosing a 1940's system, it's just all there
>is that's convenient. Except for maybe the EXPbus;-) Most want something
>better but their only other choice is design it themselves. Surely we can
>offer something better, maybe not perfect, maybe not customized. Yeah,
>that's compromise so I guess it's a terrible thing to do. Worst wins. But
>doesn't worst win too if there are only a handful of "perfect" examples and
>thousands of obsolete ones?
>
>Opinions offered with the utmost respect to all who contribute.
>
>
>Regards,
>Greg Young - Houston (DWH)
>RV-6 N6GY ...project Phoenix
>Navion N5221K - just an XXL RV-6A
>
Maybe the problems you see are due to (to use a computer buzz word) the
'open source' nature of the effort. Using a computer analogy, you can
pay now & get MS Windows, go find a 'geek' to install a proper operating
system like Linux (developed by a worldwide network of volunteer
programmers), or wait until the open source community advances Linux to
the point that anyone can install it. Rumor has it that some versions of
Linux have reached that level & I've got a copy waiting to try on my
backup computer now.
Aircraft wiring ain't there yet, but there are a few geeks here that can
help with details. Not many will have all the answers but using lists
like this you can gather info from many sources. The alternative is to
by 'Windows' from your local avionics shop. :-) If you ask for info in
specific small cookbook oriented bites, someone will usually come
through. If you think verbal consultation might help, gamble & post your
phone # (if you are like me, it's in the phone book anyway). I've
helped several folks with audio & DC power related questions both by
email & phone. In turn, I've been helped in other areas by many others.
I haven't bought 'the book' yet because I have an electronics
background, I'm a long way from pulling wire & figure I'll wait for the
most current version when I start the process. If it's missing something
like a representative image of a bridge rectifier with lead ID, mention
it to Bob or the list in general & I'll bet someone will come up with a
page of images, usable part #'s, etc. A problem with almost *any* tech
document is that the author(s) are too close to their work and are
victims what I call 'center of the universe' syndrome. They
subconsciously assume that the reader has the same background info they
have as they write the document. If enough people mention the need,
I'll bet pages with part #'s/pictures will be in future revisions of
'the book.'
Charlie
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Duane Zavadil" <dzavadil(at)hometownaccess.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Dual Electronic Starting Issues |
That is interesting - maybe with diodes to prevent backfeeding. Probably just
one more part to break though. When diodes go bad, they go open!
I like Frank's idea of a switchable voltmeter to check the backup battery and Georges
point about nothing between the battterys and the unit other than a switch.
I think that is the way it is now. I'll take a look at the schematics that
George forwarded. Thanks for all the help!
---------- Original Message ----------------------------------
From: TimRhod(at)aol.com
Date: Sun, 30 Jan 2005 17:30:15 EST
>
>Does it make any sense in a duel battery duel electronic ignition setup to
>run two wires from each battery to each electronic ignition.?
>
>
Sent via the WebMail system at hometownaccess.net
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <b.nuckolls(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Open letter to the list |
>
>I believe one of the reasons this list has only a handful of active
>participants is because opinions (and observations and anecdotal evidence)
>are generally not welcomed. Anyone with the temerity post an opinion gets
>met with a barrage of responses asking for supporting data, reasoning, FMEA
>and a detailed analysis of why they hold such an opinion. Few are willing to
>examine why they have reached an opinion and fewer still are willing to
>actively debate it.
Would you have it any different? Suppose I offered:
"In my opinion, you should hand carve your prop from
Tasmanian snagroot". I would hope that any OPINION
can be supported by a discussion of simple-ideas that
hold it up even if so simple as data showing hundreds
of airplanes are flying with snagroot props. But wouldn't
you be curious for more detail? Suppose all the airplanes were
powered by big ol' rotaries that run 1000 RPM wide open?
Would snagroot be suited for a prop that turns 2700 rpm?
No matter how attractive the opinion might be to you, would
it not be important to understand everything there is to
know about it?
So, if one is loath to offer an opinion because they're
unable to support it, so be it. We as a society are
immersed in unfounded opinion that comes at us from all
directions. If someone is seeking to have an opinion
validated or debunked, then offer it to the List as
a question or hypothesis . . . then let the IDEA be
attacked to see if it stands or falls. This isn't about
preying on people's timidity or fears, it's about validating
ideas. One can choose to be either participant or observer.
However, nobody benefits from the question never asked or
hypothesis never offered.
>So if you aren't prepared for a Socratic bludgeoning you
>just don't post. Socratic teaching can be intimidating and I suspect most
>will avoid it if given the choice.
It would be a very sad condition if that were the reason
that over 1300 people don't post their own words to the
List. I will suggest that this simply cannot be the case.
Are they voyeurs who enjoy watching other people conducting
technical dog-fights? I have to believe that most perceive
value in observing some if not all of the discussions in
progress. If one is looking for gladiators to champion,
there are far more exciting fights over unfounded opinions
to watch on TV - in full color with special effects and
home theater surround-sound.
>I think it's a bit quixotic to believe that the non-posters are all on some
>quest for knowledge and "clarity of vision." I'll bet most just want to wire
>their airplane and are hoping someone else will ask their question before
>they have to. They just want to know what parts to use rather than how to
>design the ultimate system. Like Freud said "sometimes a cigar is just a
>cigar." The final stages of completing an RV (or other kit plane) are
>difficult because you're thrust into unknown territory where suddenly
>nothing is designed or spec'd. Van doesn't (or didn't) even provide a
>starting point. Bob's book is often offered to fill that void. It's great on
>education but short on any practical advice. If every homebuilder had to go
>through the same level of design effort on the airframe as is suggested for
>the electrical system, there wouldn't be any kit planes and darn few
>homebuilts at all.
An EXCELLENT point . . . I've made multiple offers every
year at OSH to every kit supplier I could find in the tents
to craft a factory wire book for a Z-11 like system. They
could recoup their costs in the first dozen kits of parts
they could sell. After ten years of trying, I gave up
and concentrated on the 'Connection, aeroelectric.com
and ultimately the AeroElectric-List.
That's exactly why the AeroElectric-List was started . . .
to fill the gap between simple ideas (the book) and practical
solutions (buying parts and bolting them to your airplane).
When a list participant asks how to solve a particular
problem with installation and fabrication, I expect that
there may be multiple solutions . . . these are not opinions
but manifestations of experience and common sense. If the
solution works on someone's project, then that success is
a simple fact - not an opinion to be debated. In case of
multiple solutions there is perhaps room for debate
but one can always ignore the debate and choose from the
most attractive of the demonstrated solutions.
>Don't get me wrong, I've taken away some valuable ideas but at a cost far
>greater than I think necessary. Take the e-bus idea. To implement it you
>need a diode. What diode? Well any xx amp or a Scholtzky (isn't that a
>sandwich shop?) or a bridge rectifier or some such, or just get any old
>diode at Radio Shack. No sample part numbers. Can you conceive how
>un-helpful that is to the electron-challenged, like me? OK, I bought a part
>that looks like one I saw in a picture but I still don't really know if it's
>right. Then how do I wire it? Get out the VOM and test all four legs till I
>find a path that works. I bet that chamfered corner would give me a clue for
>the hook-up but there's no description of it in the "book" and 30 yrs after
>EE101 I can't decipher the schematic. All told, probably 3 hours messing
>with a 5 minute task and no net knowledge gained.
Why didn't you post a question on the List? Have you looked
over B&C's offerings of a suitable diode on their website?
Have you seen note 12 of appendix Z of the 'Connection where
a Radio Shack 276-1185 is suggested? There's some discussion
of the diode bridge rectifier on page 1-9 of the 'Connection.
You could have e-mailed me directly and received a specific
suggestion sans tributes to Socrates where I would have
referred you to a picture at:
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/s401-25.jpg
and suggested the Radio Shack p/n.
>I believe the pedantic style of this list does a disservice to the broader
>OBAM community by not offering practical, how-to advise. The glowing
>exceptions are Bob's picture books, but even those are hard to find. Why
>aren't they in the "book"?
If I were to put everything "in the book" as multiple figure,
full color pictures, it would be three times as thick and sell
for 5x the price. The website servers offer a way to put huge
amounts of visual data up at ZERO cost to the reader. If I
operated as you suggest, very few people would buy the book.
Hard to find? Just ask . . . or download the free website image
from http://www.aeroelectric.com/CD/AEC8_0.zip and browse the
articles and images at your leisure.
>I would have killed for some of them when I wired
>my first RV but if they existed then I was not aware of them. I think
>there's a real need for an OBAM version of AC43.13, i.e. 21st century
>acceptable methods and practices, not theory. As much as I view Greg Richter
>as a snake oil salesman, I think he offered a valuable <> to the
>needs of a large segment of the OBAM world. Every airplane's electrical
>system does not have to be custom designed. There are >4000 RV's flying -
>surely they all don't have to be different. It should really be OK to do
>something less than optimal as long as it's still within the bounds of safe
>and acceptable solutions. Bob's response to Richter's paper was an eloquent
>restatement of Bob's philosophy but really just came down to an antithetical
>preference, custom design everything vs one-size-fits-all.
Absolutely not so. Had someone handed me a box full of parts and his
document . . . I could not tell how those parts go together and
exactly how they served as alternatives to "atrocious work" driven
by the 'Connection.
His document contained no data nor a rational explanation behind
the philosophy of the proposed architecture. I studied his drawings
in detail and could not deduce what he was suggesting. Unlike
discussions here on the List, he refused to answer a single one of dozens
of specific questions aimed at clarifying his suggestions.
You want a one size fits all? Figure Z-11 is it. This fits the needs
of perhaps 90-plus percent of all builders. The fact that options
beyond this configuration are offered doesn't mean they need to
be agonized over. I thought chapter 17 offered food-for-thought
and options to consider should a builder want more. The
reason for crafting Z-11 and placing it first in the
architectures is because it's probably going to do the job
for the vast majority of builders.
> Are there only the extremes? Or is there a middle ground?
Yup, figures Z-12, and Z-13 are all middle grounds between
Z-11 and Z-14. Then there are some very simple cases wherein
alternators supplied on Rotax and LOM engines drive you to
something simpler yet than Z-11.
>To really advance the state of
>the OBAM fleet is going to require getting a high percentage of new aircraft
>to embrace a higher standard.
Not sure what you mean by "standard" . . . to my way of thinking,
the OBAM aircraft community is going to thrive because
there are NO STANDARDS. New ideas can be tried and retained or
discarded on a whim. Folks who are adventuresome and/or have
larger missions are free to expand their project's capabilities
beyond anything offered by BePipCesMo without disturbing the
majority of folks who will be happy with a Vans or Bengelis
approach.
>And that's going to require making that
>standard both convenient and accessible. The folks buying Van's electrical
>system kit aren't consciously choosing a 1940's system, it's just all there
>is that's convenient. Except for maybe the EXPbus;-) Most want something
>better but their only other choice is design it themselves. Surely we can
>offer something better, maybe not perfect, maybe not customized. Yeah,
>that's compromise so I guess it's a terrible thing to do. Worst wins. But
>doesn't worst win too if there are only a handful of "perfect" examples and
>thousands of obsolete ones?
You missed the point I was making concerning compromise . . .
The ranges of features offered in the Z-figures are not compromises
of each other but choices by which one may OPTIMIZE a system to
fit a mission. To install figure Z-11 in a full-up, long-legged
cross-country IFR machine like a Glasair or Lancair is not
a compromise of electrical system but a compromise of the
airplane's potential for conducting certain missions. You don't
get those kinds of choices when you buy a nice ol' used C-210, it's
wired just like a C-150. But if you want a day-vfr/occasional night
fun-machine . . . Z-11 is a carefully considered solution flying in
hundreds of airplanes. It's easy to morph into Z-13 if your
mission grows and/or you get tired of stroking vacuum driven
components.
The words "standard" and "want something better" are diametrically
opposed to each other in purpose and result. The FAA has given us
standards and they've brought new development to its knees.
On the other hand, those who truly want something better are getting
it done in their basements and garages and leaving certified aviation
trailing in the dust. Want OBAM aviation to fail? Set up any kind
of standards for design and fabrication and an organization to
oversee those standards. It doesn't have to be the FAA but it's
a sure bet that a few decades hence, the FAA and any new
organization set up to standardize OBAM aviation would be
indistinguishable from each other.
>Opinions offered with the utmost respect to all who contribute.
I'm not sure I understand your difficulty with the List. If you like
the EXP-Bus, you're certainly free to install one. Hundreds are flying
and as far as I know, owners are happy with them. If you encouraged
Greg to build you one of his one-size-fits-all boards for your project,
he might be quite accommodating. The vast majority of OBAM aircraft
builders are doing a clone of contemporary spam can architecture
with Van's installation kit. They're going to be just fine.
I don't expect them to perform any worse than the airplanes I
MUST rent every time I want to fly somewhere.
The PRIMARY function of the List is to address exactly the
issues you've raised. I'm sorry if you're cautious of getting
splashed with blood from somebody else's dog-fight. However, I've
noted multiple threads on the List discussing a variety of topics
that seem to move ahead oblivious to conversations about
herding electrons.
Sounds like what you're needing has nothing to do with sorting
opinions but simply dipping into the pool of experience and
common sense possessed by many folks here on the List. We are
all at your service sir. How may we assist you?
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Tinne maha" <tinnemaha(at)hotmail.com> |
| Subject: | Measuring Current & Resistance |
Hello List,
I would like to measure the current flow & resistance of my taxi/landing
light while in use so I can propery size the wires. As my plane isn't yet
complete, I'm hoping to be able to run some leads from my 12 V truck battery
(with the truck running) to the light & take the measurements right at the
light with a multi-meter.
Can it be that simple or am I missing something?
Will this procedure give me an accurate indication (of course assuming that
my meter & reading ability are both accurate)
Thanks,
Grant
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <b.nuckolls(at)cox.net> Lighting |
| Subject: | Re: Cold Cathode and Electroluminescent |
Lighting
Lighting
>
>1/30/2005
>
>Hello Fellow Builders, I provide the below URL for your inspection and
>comment.
>
>http://www.elwirecheap.com/glowingstuff/index.html
I purchased a little widget in the bargain basket
at WallyMart a few months ago. A small inverter about
1 x 1 x 1.5" driving a 36" segment of EL wire. It runs
from 12-16 volts DC and the entire length of wire lights
up. Could chunks of this stuff make nice ring lights
for steam gages? Maybe so. The EL tape might work for
under-the-glareshield flood lighting. Interesting stuff.
If somebody has the time/energy to explore this, I'd
be interested in putting an article about it up on
the website.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "James E. Clark" <james(at)nextupventures.com> |
| Subject: | Open letter to the list |
Interesting dialogue.
I intentionally left it all in so my short(well at least they were supposed
to be) comments will be in context.
-----------------------------------------
I see both points being made here and from this I see what I think is an
opportunity for us to help each other further. The only problem is how do we
get it done if it is a decent idea.
I have Bob's Book. Have had many versions. Have read it and got a lot of
value from it. I am build a plane with Z-14 (RV6A) and am flying one with
the EXP-Bus (RV6). Different mission profiles, so different choices.
In both cases, **AFTER** I had read and digested the material (theory and
practice), what I really WISHED FOR was a "here's how to make it work in
your RV" "booklet/application note".
Now this is NOT something I would expect from Bob ... no way, he's not in
"the business". I would have liked to have gotten that from CV and I wish
there was available *clear examples* of IMPLEMENTING Z-14 in an RV so I
could have saved some time in both planes. (Yes, this would be limited to an
RV in value but the process could be repeated for other types.)
Sooooo... how do we get to the next step? Well it seems that if each of us
could make a simple drawing or a picture available of our implementations in
some common place, that would be really valuable to those coming along
later. In other words, knowing that you can have two batteries is cool and
knowing how they are logically connected is great, but seeing how someone
did it saves a lot of time in the ACTUAL construction/implementation. And
some of us need a lot of time saving! {:-) The time saved is that of the
"repeat offenders" (repeat builders) who have been there before. They
understand the theory and it application.
[Small example ... I mounted the two PC680's on the firewall of an RV6 using
the mounting gear from Van's and mounted the "Ford Regulators" each on the
metal battery box. No big deal but seeing it *after the fact*, it was oh so
simple but before the fact it required some head scratching to be sure all
worked OK. Maybe this isn't a good example after all, but I think you get
the point. :-) ]
Comments????
James
| -----Original Message-----
| From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-
| aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Robert L. Nuckolls,
| III
| Sent: Monday, January 31, 2005 12:18 AM
| To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
| Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Open letter to the list
|
|
|
|
| >
| >I believe one of the reasons this list has only a handful of active
| >participants is because opinions (and observations and anecdotal
| evidence)
| >are generally not welcomed. Anyone with the temerity post an opinion
| gets
| >met with a barrage of responses asking for supporting data, reasoning,
| FMEA
| >and a detailed analysis of why they hold such an opinion. Few are
| willing to
| >examine why they have reached an opinion and fewer still are willing to
| >actively debate it.
|
|
| Would you have it any different? Suppose I offered:
| "In my opinion, you should hand carve your prop from
| Tasmanian snagroot". I would hope that any OPINION
| can be supported by a discussion of simple-ideas that
| hold it up even if so simple as data showing hundreds
| of airplanes are flying with snagroot props. But wouldn't
| you be curious for more detail? Suppose all the airplanes were
| powered by big ol' rotaries that run 1000 RPM wide open?
| Would snagroot be suited for a prop that turns 2700 rpm?
| No matter how attractive the opinion might be to you, would
| it not be important to understand everything there is to
| know about it?
|
| So, if one is loath to offer an opinion because they're
| unable to support it, so be it. We as a society are
| immersed in unfounded opinion that comes at us from all
| directions. If someone is seeking to have an opinion
| validated or debunked, then offer it to the List as
| a question or hypothesis . . . then let the IDEA be
| attacked to see if it stands or falls. This isn't about
| preying on people's timidity or fears, it's about validating
| ideas. One can choose to be either participant or observer.
| However, nobody benefits from the question never asked or
| hypothesis never offered.
|
| >So if you aren't prepared for a Socratic bludgeoning you
| >just don't post. Socratic teaching can be intimidating and I suspect
| most
| >will avoid it if given the choice.
|
| It would be a very sad condition if that were the reason
| that over 1300 people don't post their own words to the
| Are they voyeurs who enjoy watching other people conducting
| technical dog-fights? I have to believe that most perceive
| value in observing some if not all of the discussions in
| progress. If one is looking for gladiators to champion,
| there are far more exciting fights over unfounded opinions
| to watch on TV - in full color with special effects and
| home theater surround-sound.
|
|
| >I think it's a bit quixotic to believe that the non-posters are all on
| some
| >quest for knowledge and "clarity of vision." I'll bet most just want to
| wire
| >their airplane and are hoping someone else will ask their question
| before
| >they have to. They just want to know what parts to use rather than how
| to
| >design the ultimate system. Like Freud said "sometimes a cigar is just a
| >cigar." The final stages of completing an RV (or other kit plane) are
| >difficult because you're thrust into unknown territory where suddenly
| >nothing is designed or spec'd. Van doesn't (or didn't) even provide a
| >starting point. Bob's book is often offered to fill that void. It's
| great on
| >education but short on any practical advice. If every homebuilder had to
| go
| >through the same level of design effort on the airframe as is suggested
| for
| >the electrical system, there wouldn't be any kit planes and darn few
| >homebuilts at all.
|
|
| An EXCELLENT point . . . I've made multiple offers every
| year at OSH to every kit supplier I could find in the tents
| to craft a factory wire book for a Z-11 like system. They
| could recoup their costs in the first dozen kits of parts
| they could sell. After ten years of trying, I gave up
| and concentrated on the 'Connection, aeroelectric.com
| and ultimately the AeroElectric-List.
|
| That's exactly why the AeroElectric-List was started . . .
| to fill the gap between simple ideas (the book) and practical
| solutions (buying parts and bolting them to your airplane).
| When a list participant asks how to solve a particular
| problem with installation and fabrication, I expect that
| there may be multiple solutions . . . these are not opinions
| but manifestations of experience and common sense. If the
| solution works on someone's project, then that success is
| a simple fact - not an opinion to be debated. In case of
| multiple solutions there is perhaps room for debate
| but one can always ignore the debate and choose from the
| most attractive of the demonstrated solutions.
|
|
| >Don't get me wrong, I've taken away some valuable ideas but at a cost
| far
| >greater than I think necessary. Take the e-bus idea. To implement it you
| >need a diode. What diode? Well any xx amp or a Scholtzky (isn't that a
| >sandwich shop?) or a bridge rectifier or some such, or just get any old
| >diode at Radio Shack. No sample part numbers. Can you conceive how
| >un-helpful that is to the electron-challenged, like me? OK, I bought a
| part
| >that looks like one I saw in a picture but I still don't really know if
| it's
| >right. Then how do I wire it? Get out the VOM and test all four legs
| till I
| >find a path that works. I bet that chamfered corner would give me a clue
| for
| >the hook-up but there's no description of it in the "book" and 30 yrs
| after
| >EE101 I can't decipher the schematic. All told, probably 3 hours messing
| >with a 5 minute task and no net knowledge gained.
|
| Why didn't you post a question on the List? Have you looked
| over B&C's offerings of a suitable diode on their website?
| Have you seen note 12 of appendix Z of the 'Connection where
| a Radio Shack 276-1185 is suggested? There's some discussion
| of the diode bridge rectifier on page 1-9 of the 'Connection.
| You could have e-mailed me directly and received a specific
| suggestion sans tributes to Socrates where I would have
| referred you to a picture at:
|
| http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/s401-25.jpg
|
| and suggested the Radio Shack p/n.
|
|
| >I believe the pedantic style of this list does a disservice to the
| broader
| >OBAM community by not offering practical, how-to advise. The glowing
| >exceptions are Bob's picture books, but even those are hard to find. Why
| >aren't they in the "book"?
|
| If I were to put everything "in the book" as multiple figure,
| full color pictures, it would be three times as thick and sell
| for 5x the price. The website servers offer a way to put huge
| amounts of visual data up at ZERO cost to the reader. If I
| operated as you suggest, very few people would buy the book.
| Hard to find? Just ask . . . or download the free website image
| from http://www.aeroelectric.com/CD/AEC8_0.zip and browse the
| articles and images at your leisure.
|
| >I would have killed for some of them when I wired
| >my first RV but if they existed then I was not aware of them. I think
| >there's a real need for an OBAM version of AC43.13, i.e. 21st century
| >acceptable methods and practices, not theory. As much as I view Greg
| Richter
| >as a snake oil salesman, I think he offered a valuable <> to the
| >needs of a large segment of the OBAM world. Every airplane's electrical
| >system does not have to be custom designed. There are >4000 RV's flying
| -
| >surely they all don't have to be different. It should really be OK to do
| >something less than optimal as long as it's still within the bounds of
| safe
| >and acceptable solutions. Bob's response to Richter's paper was an
| eloquent
| >restatement of Bob's philosophy but really just came down to an
| antithetical
| >preference, custom design everything vs one-size-fits-all.
|
| Absolutely not so. Had someone handed me a box full of parts and his
| document . . . I could not tell how those parts go together and
| exactly how they served as alternatives to "atrocious work" driven
| by the 'Connection.
|
| His document contained no data nor a rational explanation behind
| the philosophy of the proposed architecture. I studied his drawings
| in detail and could not deduce what he was suggesting. Unlike
| discussions here on the List, he refused to answer a single one of
| dozens
| of specific questions aimed at clarifying his suggestions.
|
| You want a one size fits all? Figure Z-11 is it. This fits the needs
| of perhaps 90-plus percent of all builders. The fact that options
| beyond this configuration are offered doesn't mean they need to
| be agonized over. I thought chapter 17 offered food-for-thought
| and options to consider should a builder want more. The
| reason for crafting Z-11 and placing it first in the
| architectures is because it's probably going to do the job
| for the vast majority of builders.
|
| > Are there only the extremes? Or is there a middle ground?
|
| Yup, figures Z-12, and Z-13 are all middle grounds between
| Z-11 and Z-14. Then there are some very simple cases wherein
| alternators supplied on Rotax and LOM engines drive you to
| something simpler yet than Z-11.
|
| >To really advance the state of
| >the OBAM fleet is going to require getting a high percentage of new
| aircraft
| >to embrace a higher standard.
|
| Not sure what you mean by "standard" . . . to my way of thinking,
| the OBAM aircraft community is going to thrive because
| there are NO STANDARDS. New ideas can be tried and retained or
| discarded on a whim. Folks who are adventuresome and/or have
| larger missions are free to expand their project's capabilities
| beyond anything offered by BePipCesMo without disturbing the
| majority of folks who will be happy with a Vans or Bengelis
| approach.
|
|
| >And that's going to require making that
| >standard both convenient and accessible. The folks buying Van's
| electrical
| >system kit aren't consciously choosing a 1940's system, it's just all
| there
| >is that's convenient. Except for maybe the EXPbus;-) Most want something
| >better but their only other choice is design it themselves. Surely we
| can
| >offer something better, maybe not perfect, maybe not customized. Yeah,
| >that's compromise so I guess it's a terrible thing to do. Worst wins.
| But
| >doesn't worst win too if there are only a handful of "perfect" examples
| and
| >thousands of obsolete ones?
|
| You missed the point I was making concerning compromise . . .
| The ranges of features offered in the Z-figures are not compromises
| of each other but choices by which one may OPTIMIZE a system to
| fit a mission. To install figure Z-11 in a full-up, long-legged
| cross-country IFR machine like a Glasair or Lancair is not
| a compromise of electrical system but a compromise of the
| airplane's potential for conducting certain missions. You don't
| get those kinds of choices when you buy a nice ol' used C-210, it's
| wired just like a C-150. But if you want a day-vfr/occasional night
| fun-machine . . . Z-11 is a carefully considered solution flying in
| hundreds of airplanes. It's easy to morph into Z-13 if your
| mission grows and/or you get tired of stroking vacuum driven
| components.
|
| The words "standard" and "want something better" are diametrically
| opposed to each other in purpose and result. The FAA has given us
| standards and they've brought new development to its knees.
| On the other hand, those who truly want something better are getting
| it done in their basements and garages and leaving certified aviation
| trailing in the dust. Want OBAM aviation to fail? Set up any kind
| of standards for design and fabrication and an organization to
| oversee those standards. It doesn't have to be the FAA but it's
| a sure bet that a few decades hence, the FAA and any new
| organization set up to standardize OBAM aviation would be
| indistinguishable from each other.
|
|
| >Opinions offered with the utmost respect to all who contribute.
|
| I'm not sure I understand your difficulty with the List. If you like
| the EXP-Bus, you're certainly free to install one. Hundreds are flying
| and as far as I know, owners are happy with them. If you encouraged
| Greg to build you one of his one-size-fits-all boards for your
| project,
| he might be quite accommodating. The vast majority of OBAM aircraft
| builders are doing a clone of contemporary spam can architecture
| with Van's installation kit. They're going to be just fine.
| I don't expect them to perform any worse than the airplanes I
| MUST rent every time I want to fly somewhere.
|
| The PRIMARY function of the List is to address exactly the
| issues you've raised. I'm sorry if you're cautious of getting
| splashed with blood from somebody else's dog-fight. However, I've
| noted multiple threads on the List discussing a variety of topics
| that seem to move ahead oblivious to conversations about
| herding electrons.
|
| Sounds like what you're needing has nothing to do with sorting
| opinions but simply dipping into the pool of experience and
| common sense possessed by many folks here on the List. We are
| all at your service sir. How may we assist you?
|
| Bob . . .
|
|
|
|
|
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Joel Jacobs" <jj(at)sdf.lonestar.org> |
| Subject: | Re: Measuring Current & Resistance |
----- Original Message -----
From: "Tinne maha" <tinnemaha(at)hotmail.com>
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Measuring Current & Resistance
>
> Hello List,
>
> I would like to measure the current flow & resistance of my taxi/landing
> light while in use so I can propery size the wires. As my plane isn't yet
> complete, I'm hoping to be able to run some leads from my 12 V truck
battery
> (with the truck running) to the light & take the measurements right at the
> light with a multi-meter.
>
> Can it be that simple or am I missing something?
Could be simpler! It does not matter where you measure the current.
(Kirchoffs's 1st Law) You can measure it at the battery and you'll get the
same reading as at the light - or anywhere in between.
You cannot measure the resistance of the light. You have to calculate it.
The reason is that the filiment resistance is much higher when it's hot
(operating). You should only need to know the current to choose wire but if
you want to know the resistance measure the voltage - this time at the
light - and divide by the current.
>
> Will this procedure give me an accurate indication (of course assuming
that
> my meter & reading ability are both accurate)
>
Yup!
Joel
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Phil White" <philwhite9(at)aol.com> |
| Subject: | Rocker switch for DC? |
Saw the below listed switch on ELCHEAPWIRE's web site, and wonder if it
is suitable for DC.
http://www.elwirecheap.com/glowingstuff/sirosw.html
They make outrageous claims for current capability (obviously haven't
read Aerolectric's basics on electricity).
My question is: Can anyone steer me to a source of Rocker Switches in
round mounting format suitable for 12 V DC? And in DPDT would be great.
The advantages I see over toggle switches are smooth surface for
accident safety. But most rocker switches require cutting square or
rectangular holes for mounting, and I can drill round ones much faster
and more accurately.
Phil in IL, RV-10 (building fuselage, starting to plan panel)
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Open letter to the list |
> >I believe one of the reasons this list has only a handful of active
> >participants is because opinions (and observations and anecdotal
> >evidence) are generally not welcomed. Anyone with the
> temerity post an
> >opinion gets met with a barrage of responses asking for supporting
> >data, reasoning, FMEA and a detailed analysis of why they
> hold such an
> >opinion. Few are willing to examine why they have reached an opinion
> >and fewer still are willing to actively debate it.
>
>
> Would you have it any different? Suppose I offered:
> "In my opinion, you should hand carve your prop from
> Tasmanian snagroot". I would hope that any OPINION
> can be supported by a discussion of simple-ideas that
> hold it up even if so simple as data showing hundreds
> of airplanes are flying with snagroot props. But wouldn't
> you be curious for more detail? Suppose all the airplanes were
> powered by big ol' rotaries that run 1000 RPM wide open?
> Would snagroot be suited for a prop that turns 2700 rpm?
> No matter how attractive the opinion might be to you, would
> it not be important to understand everything there is to
> know about it?
Sure, but it's a matter of degree. If you had said birch instead, knowing
that it's a commonly used wood for props, I would just accept it as a data
point, one person's opinion, and move on. I wouldn't expect a long treatise.
When I go to carve a prop I'll need to do some analysis of the aerodynamics
and loads and materials. If birch shows up as one of the suitable materials
I might use your opinion as a factor in its selection.
>
> So, if one is loath to offer an opinion because they're
> unable to support it, so be it. We as a society are
> immersed in unfounded opinion that comes at us from all
> directions. If someone is seeking to have an opinion
> validated or debunked, then offer it to the List as
> a question or hypothesis . . . then let the IDEA be
> attacked to see if it stands or falls. This isn't about
> preying on people's timidity or fears, it's about validating
> ideas. One can choose to be either participant or observer.
> However, nobody benefits from the question never asked or
> hypothesis never offered.
Unable is one thing, unwilling is another. If everything turns into a debate
it may simply not be worth the effort. Producing a reasoned argument takes
time. I applaud you for the time and effort you put into your replies. I
don't know how you find the time. But not everyone does nor does every
subject deserve it. I view it as don't start something you're not willing to
finish.
>
> >So if you aren't prepared for a Socratic bludgeoning you just don't
> >post. Socratic teaching can be intimidating and I suspect most will
> >avoid it if given the choice.
>
> It would be a very sad condition if that were the reason
> that over 1300 people don't post their own words to the
> Are they voyeurs who enjoy watching other people conducting
> technical dog-fights? I have to believe that most perceive
> value in observing some if not all of the discussions in
> progress. If one is looking for gladiators to champion,
> there are far more exciting fights over unfounded opinions
> to watch on TV - in full color with special effects and
> home theater surround-sound.
>
Hard to argue that people find some value in being on the list. The issue is
what value? I'm on some lists out of habit and familiarity with the
participants, some to gain knowledge of their topic and others just in case
something new comes up. So you have an hypothesis on the silent 1300 as do
I. What's the truth? I don't see a viable means of finding out. If we ask
them to respond, how many does it take to yield a valid answer? 50? 100?
200? I'd be almost impossible without a large percentage because it's a
biased sample. But does it matter? It's your list and your hypothesis
supports your approach.
>
> >I think it's a bit quixotic to believe that the non-posters
> are all on
> >some quest for knowledge and "clarity of vision." I'll bet most just
> >want to wire their airplane and are hoping someone else will
> ask their
> >question before they have to. They just want to know what
> parts to use
> >rather than how to design the ultimate system. Like Freud said
> >"sometimes a cigar is just a cigar." The final stages of
> completing an
> >RV (or other kit plane) are difficult because you're thrust into
> >unknown territory where suddenly nothing is designed or spec'd. Van
> >doesn't (or didn't) even provide a starting point. Bob's
> book is often
> >offered to fill that void. It's great on education but short on any
> >practical advice. If every homebuilder had to go through the
> same level
> >of design effort on the airframe as is suggested for the electrical
> >system, there wouldn't be any kit planes and darn few
> homebuilts at all.
>
>
> An EXCELLENT point . . . I've made multiple offers every
> year at OSH to every kit supplier I could find in the tents
> to craft a factory wire book for a Z-11 like system. They
> could recoup their costs in the first dozen kits of parts
> they could sell. After ten years of trying, I gave up
> and concentrated on the 'Connection, aeroelectric.com
> and ultimately the AeroElectric-List.
>
> That's exactly why the AeroElectric-List was started . . .
> to fill the gap between simple ideas (the book) and practical
> solutions (buying parts and bolting them to your airplane).
> When a list participant asks how to solve a particular
> problem with installation and fabrication, I expect that
> there may be multiple solutions . . . these are not opinions
> but manifestations of experience and common sense. If the
> solution works on someone's project, then that success is
> a simple fact - not an opinion to be debated. In case of
> multiple solutions there is perhaps room for debate
> but one can always ignore the debate and choose from the
> most attractive of the demonstrated solutions.
>
It's a shame no one took you up on it. I still think there's a void though.
When you get to the finishing stage of a project its hard to stop to design
an electrical system. You really want something that allows you to keep
progressing. You need that initial plan to lock into and modify before you
can ask questions. Until then you don't know what you don't know. There
really isn't anything to satisfy that initial need. I used your Z drawings
and pieced together the rest from the Connection and other sources. That was
years ago but recent posts lead me to believe the situation hasn't changed.
>
> >Don't get me wrong, I've taken away some valuable ideas but
> at a cost
> >far greater than I think necessary. Take the e-bus idea. To
> implement
> >it you need a diode. What diode? Well any xx amp or a
> Scholtzky (isn't
> >that a sandwich shop?) or a bridge rectifier or some such,
> or just get
> >any old diode at Radio Shack. No sample part numbers. Can
> you conceive
> >how un-helpful that is to the electron-challenged, like me? OK, I
> >bought a part that looks like one I saw in a picture but I
> still don't
> >really know if it's right. Then how do I wire it? Get out
> the VOM and
> >test all four legs till I find a path that works. I bet that
> chamfered
> >corner would give me a clue for the hook-up but there's no
> description
> >of it in the "book" and 30 yrs after
> >EE101 I can't decipher the schematic. All told, probably 3 hours
> >messing with a 5 minute task and no net knowledge gained.
>
> Why didn't you post a question on the List? Have you looked
> over B&C's offerings of a suitable diode on their website?
> Have you seen note 12 of appendix Z of the 'Connection where
> a Radio Shack 276-1185 is suggested? There's some discussion
> of the diode bridge rectifier on page 1-9 of the 'Connection.
> You could have e-mailed me directly and received a specific
> suggestion sans tributes to Socrates where I would have
> referred you to a picture at:
>
> http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/s401-25.jpg
>
> and suggested the Radio Shack p/n.
>
My experience was ~5 years ago so it's good to know that's changed.
>
> >I believe the pedantic style of this list does a disservice to the
> >broader OBAM community by not offering practical, how-to advise. The
> >glowing exceptions are Bob's picture books, but even those
> are hard to
> >find. Why aren't they in the "book"?
>
> If I were to put everything "in the book" as multiple figure,
> full color pictures, it would be three times as thick and sell
> for 5x the price. The website servers offer a way to put huge
> amounts of visual data up at ZERO cost to the reader. If I
> operated as you suggest, very few people would buy the book.
> Hard to find? Just ask . . . or download the free website image
> from http://www.aeroelectric.com/CD/AEC8_0.zip and browse the
> articles and images at your leisure.
>
Sorry, I was a little too brief. I meant those tips and techniques were
valuable subject matter and suited for publication but don't mean to impose
a burden on you to do it. Although I'm a geek I prefer thing like that on
paper. You could talk to Andy at the Builders Bookstore to see if he's
interested in publishing it.
> >I would have killed for some of them when I wired my first RV but if
> >they existed then I was not aware of them. I think there's a
> real need
> >for an OBAM version of AC43.13, i.e. 21st century acceptable methods
> >and practices, not theory. As much as I view Greg Richter as a snake
> >oil salesman, I think he offered a valuable <> to the needs
> of a large
> >segment of the OBAM world. Every airplane's electrical
> system does not
> >have to be custom designed. There are >4000 RV's flying -
> surely they
> >all don't have to be different. It should really be OK to do
> something
> >less than optimal as long as it's still within the bounds of
> safe and
> >acceptable solutions. Bob's response to Richter's paper was
> an eloquent
> >restatement of Bob's philosophy but really just came down to an
> >antithetical preference, custom design everything vs
> one-size-fits-all.
>
> Absolutely not so. Had someone handed me a box full of
> parts and his
> document . . . I could not tell how those parts go together and
> exactly how they served as alternatives to "atrocious
> work" driven
> by the 'Connection.
>
> His document contained no data nor a rational explanation behind
> the philosophy of the proposed architecture. I studied
> his drawings
> in detail and could not deduce what he was suggesting. Unlike
> discussions here on the List, he refused to answer a
> single one of dozens
> of specific questions aimed at clarifying his suggestions.
>
> You want a one size fits all? Figure Z-11 is it. This
> fits the needs
> of perhaps 90-plus percent of all builders. The fact that options
> beyond this configuration are offered doesn't mean they need to
> be agonized over. I thought chapter 17 offered food-for-thought
> and options to consider should a builder want more. The
> reason for crafting Z-11 and placing it first in the
> architectures is because it's probably going to do the job
> for the vast majority of builders.
>
> > Are there only the extremes? Or is there a middle ground?
>
> Yup, figures Z-12, and Z-13 are all middle grounds between
> Z-11 and Z-14. Then there are some very simple cases wherein
> alternators supplied on Rotax and LOM engines drive you to
> something simpler yet than Z-11.
>
We obviously have a different take on what Greg said. Even I disagree with
some of his technical points but I see value in his intent (my view of it
anyway) of saying "do these things and you'll have a safe and workable
system."
> >To really advance the state of
> >the OBAM fleet is going to require getting a high percentage of new
> >aircraft to embrace a higher standard.
>
> Not sure what you mean by "standard" . . . to my way of thinking,
> the OBAM aircraft community is going to thrive because
> there are NO STANDARDS. New ideas can be tried and retained or
> discarded on a whim. Folks who are adventuresome and/or have
> larger missions are free to expand their project's capabilities
> beyond anything offered by BePipCesMo without disturbing the
> majority of folks who will be happy with a Vans or Bengelis
> approach.
>
Don't take a knee-jerk reaction to the word standard, I didn't refer to
regulation.
Noun: standard
1. A basis for comparison; a reference point against which other things
can be evaluated
2. The ideal in terms of which something can be judged
Pick another term if standard offends you or implies regulation. How about
baseline, benchmark, criteria, measure, norm, yardstick?
>
> >And that's going to require making that standard both convenient and
> >accessible. The folks buying Van's electrical system kit aren't
> >consciously choosing a 1940's system, it's just all there is that's
> >convenient. Except for maybe the EXPbus;-) Most want
> something better
> >but their only other choice is design it themselves. Surely we can
> >offer something better, maybe not perfect, maybe not
> customized. Yeah,
> >that's compromise so I guess it's a terrible thing to do.
> Worst wins.
> >But doesn't worst win too if there are only a handful of "perfect"
> >examples and thousands of obsolete ones?
>
> You missed the point I was making concerning compromise . . .
> The ranges of features offered in the Z-figures are not compromises
> of each other but choices by which one may OPTIMIZE a system to
> fit a mission. To install figure Z-11 in a full-up, long-legged
> cross-country IFR machine like a Glasair or Lancair is not
> a compromise of electrical system but a compromise of the
> airplane's potential for conducting certain missions. You don't
> get those kinds of choices when you buy a nice ol' used C-210, it's
> wired just like a C-150. But if you want a day-vfr/occasional night
> fun-machine . . . Z-11 is a carefully considered solution flying in
> hundreds of airplanes. It's easy to morph into Z-13 if your
> mission grows and/or you get tired of stroking vacuum driven
> components.
>
> The words "standard" and "want something better" are diametrically
> opposed to each other in purpose and result. The FAA has given us
> standards and they've brought new development to its knees.
> On the other hand, those who truly want something better
> are getting
> it done in their basements and garages and leaving
> certified aviation
> trailing in the dust. Want OBAM aviation to fail? Set up any kind
> of standards for design and fabrication and an organization to
> oversee those standards. It doesn't have to be the FAA but it's
> a sure bet that a few decades hence, the FAA and any new
> organization set up to standardize OBAM aviation would be
> indistinguishable from each other.
>
>
> >Opinions offered with the utmost respect to all who contribute.
>
> I'm not sure I understand your difficulty with the List.
> If you like
> the EXP-Bus, you're certainly free to install one.
> Hundreds are flying
> and as far as I know, owners are happy with them. If you encouraged
> Greg to build you one of his one-size-fits-all boards for
> your project,
> he might be quite accommodating. The vast majority of OBAM aircraft
> builders are doing a clone of contemporary spam can architecture
> with Van's installation kit. They're going to be just fine.
> I don't expect them to perform any worse than the airplanes I
> MUST rent every time I want to fly somewhere.
I guess I don't understand why you don't understand. Just reread my post.
Even if you reject my beliefs, they nonetheless are the basis of my opinion.
I don't particularly care for the EXPbus but I can see why some would.
Likewise, I don't care for Greg's board but can see value in his view. I
find your comments about both in contradiction to comments to previous list
posters. I recall people being castigated for wanting to use the EXPbus.
Likewise for spam can architecture.
>
> The PRIMARY function of the List is to address exactly the
> issues you've raised. I'm sorry if you're cautious of getting
> splashed with blood from somebody else's dog-fight. However, I've
> noted multiple threads on the List discussing a variety of topics
> that seem to move ahead oblivious to conversations about
> herding electrons.
>
These posts should illustrate I don't care about the blood or who's dog
fight it is. I was offering my opinion/hypothesis on why so few post. I
don't have the knowledge to engage in technical debates with the hard core
EE types but felt I could here. On other topics I triage because I do care
about the time it takes.
> Sounds like what you're needing has nothing to do with sorting
> opinions but simply dipping into the pool of experience and
> common sense possessed by many folks here on the List. We are
> all at your service sir. How may we assist you?
>
> Bob . . .
>
My comments were never about my needs, at least not current. I was
addressing the silent 1300 needs as well as those not on the list who don't
know where to turn. I've built up a pool of resources but will certainly ask
if the situation arises.
Greg
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | rd2(at)evenlink.com |
| Subject: | Cold Cathode and Electroluminescent Lighting |
>
I purchased a little widget in the bargain basket
at WallyMart a few months ago. A small inverter about
1 x 1 x 1.5" driving a 36" segment of EL wire. It runs
from 12-16 volts DC and the entire length of wire lights
up. Could chunks of this stuff make nice ring lights
for steam gages? Maybe so. The EL tape might work for
under-the-glareshield flood lighting. Interesting stuff.
If somebody has the time/energy to explore this, I'd
be interested in putting an article about it up on
the website.
Bob . . .
>
Some time ago I purchased some wire, tape and inverters for experimenting.
Didn't have time to explore a lot (I've still got the energy but time is
precious - anybody got some time to sell cheap ? :)
Here is my feedback:
EL Tape makes for very nice lighted panel labels - printed reverse on a
transparecy ("white" letters on black background) and placed the EL tape
behind (tried various colors) - real nice and professional.
Also tried makikng rings (from EL wire) around gauges - I found light,
color, and intensity very suitable. Problem is I could not find an easy way
to implement EL wire instrument lighting in practice. UMA already makes
such EL lighted bezels (PMA'd) - they look like a spacer (between the
instrument and the panel) made out of plexiglass/acrylic/lexan/whatever -
on the side facing the instrument they are tapered and covered w/EL tape. I
found the result very nice: the instrument is lighted very evenly, no
reflections.
Using EL tape for under-the-glareshield flood lighting also works, I
remember seeing PMA'd EL lightstrips/glowstrips. I personally was not
impressed with the results in my case because the glareshield lip was not
sloping at the proper angle. Also, with a strip, one has to have more
light/intensity to light up every instrument as opposed to individual
instrument lighting (I personally like the latter option better).
As much as I like the EL idea, 2 reservations I have are radio interference
and safety (spark). EL wire/strip is a AC capacitor. The purpose of the
inverter is to produce suitable voltage and frequency combinations for the
given length (or range of lengths) (capacitance). Some inverters are at 100
Hz, others higher (I've come across 1-1.5 Khz inverters for EL). Voltage
can also vary, I've come across 90 V, 200, 400. Can the 1 Khz fed from the
inverter to the EL wire produce interference, e.g. in the intercom? I asked
the question, a manufacturer answered yes, they already had occasional
problems. Is there even a slight potential for a spark - yes there is. Do I
need 1 more potential source of problems, if I could avoid it? No. But
"Your mileage may vary". :)
For instrument lighting I'd rather prefer a plexiglass bezel tapered
inside, that I could light up with 1-2 LEDs. LEDs offer advantages - low
voltage (almost any), easy to dimm, various colors. Nulite makes such a
bezel, but they use a mini bulb, I'd prefer LEDs (and a different price -
the Nulite bezels retail for about $38-40 ea.). I think such 2-1/4 and
3-1/8" bezels for LED's could be made cheap in quantity and would have a
market - anybody know a source?
Rumen
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Open letter to the list |
| From: | Gerry Holland <gnholland(at)onetel.com> |
Hi!
>> I was offering my opinion/hypothesis on why so few post.
> Here's another: Perhaps the majority of the "silent 1300" draw sufficient
> knowledge & information from the matierial provided to make their OBAM
> aircraft function just fine and don't need to post?
I'm a lurker and very occasional questioner.
This list provides a wealth of information that I have incorporated into my
Aircraft. Tips and ideas have come from many and occasionally I wonder what
the hell people are on about. In those cases I quickly glance and move on
and forget that particular thread.
I enjoy Bob, Eric Jones, Brian Lloyd, Trampas and Old Bob, names that spring
to mind instantly. There are many others. There experience and slant on
things is great. Some things are not for me but having such a wealth of
ideas and opinions allows me to make an informed decision. The information
I'm pointed towards is great.
So I thank you all.
Regards
Gerry in UK
Europa 384 G-FIZY
Trigear with Rotax 912 and Arplast CS Prop.
Dynon EFIS, KMD 150, Icom A-200 and SL70 Transponder.
PSS AoA Fitted.
http://www.g-fizy.com
Mobile: +44 7808 402404
WebFax: +44 870 7059985
gnholland(at)onetel.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: 11889 Harmon |
>
>Comments/Questions: Bob,
>I bought 2 battery cables a long time ago and now am ready to install them
>in an F1 Rocket. I bought 1 4AWG and 1 2AWG. Why did I buy 2 different
>sizes, and which one goes where? Did I just screw this up? The battery
>is behind the back seat, so I have a long run of cable. I am using your
>grounding block at the firewall.
I didn't know B&C was even supplying battery jumpers in 2AWG.
The recommendation is for 4AWG for both jumpers irrespective
of which wire is used for the rest of the system. This is for
flexibility and reduced stresses on battery posts. However,
if both jumpers are fabricated from welding cable (soft and
flexible) the 2AWG cable you have is fine.
I will invite you to join us on the AeroElectric List
to continue this and similar discussions. It's useful to
share the information with as many folks as possible.
A further benefit can be realized with membership on
the list. There are lots of technically capable folks
on the list who can offer suggestions too. You can
join at . . .
http://www.matronics.com/subscribe/
Thanks!
Bob . . .
--------------------------------------------
( Knowing about a thing is different than )
( understanding it. One can know a lot )
( and still understand nothing. )
( C.F. Kettering )
--------------------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Charlie Kuss <chaztuna(at)adelphia.net> Lighting |
| Subject: | Re: Cold Cathode and Electroluminescent |
Lighting
>snipped
>For instrument lighting I'd rather prefer a plexiglass bezel tapered
>inside, that I could light up with 1-2 LEDs. LEDs offer advantages - low
>voltage (almost any), easy to dimm, various colors. Nulite makes such a
>bezel, but they use a mini bulb, I'd prefer LEDs (and a different price -
>the Nulite bezels retail for about $38-40 ea.). I think such 2-1/4 and
>3-1/8" bezels for LED's could be made cheap in quantity and would have a
>market - anybody know a source?
>
>Rumen
Rumen,
I recently purchased FiberLite instrument rings from ACS. They cost about
$26 each, not the $38-40 that NuLite costs. I think you are confusing
NuLite and FiberLite. Nulite units are individually powered. FiberLite uses
fiber optic cable from a central source to feed up to 12 instruments from
one light source. FiberLite supplies their Light source with a standard
automotive # 194 bulb, I think you could easily replace it with a super
bright LED. Most builders will save money by purchasing the individual
FiberLite instrument rings (versus their "kit") See
http://www.aircraftspruce.com/catalog/elpages/fiberlite.php
http://www.aircraftspruce.com/catalog/elpages/nulite.php
http://www.nulite.net/
Charlie Kuss
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Richard Dudley <rhdudley(at)att.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Cold Cathode and Electroluminescent Lighting |
Bob,
I found a local company in Orlando who sells both EL tape and the
inverters to power the tape. It looked attractive. I purchased a length
with the appropriate inverter, tried it out and decided to install it
under the glare shield in my RV-6A. It floods the instrument panel with
enough light to read the instruments. The tape comes in various widths
and has an adhesive back. I am using a 3/4" width. Though I have
individual lights on all instruments, I consider the EL tape as a low
current backup with maximum currents under 100 ma. So, I have connected
it to the battery bus making it completely independent of any other
circuitry. The power supply/inverter is connected to the battery bus
through a 100 ohm 5 watt rheostat as a dimmer.
Regards,
Richard Dudley
RV-6A readying for FAA inspection
Robert L. Nuckolls, III Lighting wrote:
Lighting
>
>
>
>
>>
>>1/30/2005
>>
>>Hello Fellow Builders, I provide the below URL for your inspection and
>>comment.
>>
>>http://www.elwirecheap.com/glowingstuff/index.html
>>
>>
>
> I purchased a little widget in the bargain basket
> at WallyMart a few months ago. A small inverter about
> 1 x 1 x 1.5" driving a 36" segment of EL wire. It runs
> from 12-16 volts DC and the entire length of wire lights
> up. Could chunks of this stuff make nice ring lights
> for steam gages? Maybe so. The EL tape might work for
> under-the-glareshield flood lighting. Interesting stuff.
> If somebody has the time/energy to explore this, I'd
> be interested in putting an article about it up on
> the website.
>
> Bob . . .
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Glaeser, Dennis A" <dennis.glaeser(at)eds.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Cold Cathode and Electroluminescent Lighting |
Regarding:
-----------------------------------------------------
>Hello Fellow Builders, I provide the below URL for your inspection
and
>comment.
>
>http://www.elwirecheap.com/glowingstuff/index.html
<http://www.elwirecheap.com/glowingstuff/index.html>
I purchased a little widget in the bargain basket
at WallyMart a few months ago. A small inverter about
1 x 1 x 1.5" driving a 36" segment of EL wire. It runs
from 12-16 volts DC and the entire length of wire lights
up. Could chunks of this stuff make nice ring lights
for steam gages? Maybe so. The EL tape might work for
under-the-glareshield flood lighting. Interesting stuff.
If somebody has the time/energy to explore this, I'd
be interested in putting an article about it up on
the website.
Bob . . .
-----------------------------
I've been playing around with various types of LEDs because I want to
backlight labels on my (and probably my son's) panel. This looks like it
has great potential for that application - so I will be getting some to play
with. I'll certainly let you know what I find (8x10 glossies with the
circles and the arrows - just like in Alice's Restaurant :-)
My biggest concern (due to lack of knowledge on these things) is noise in
the audio system potentially caused by the inverter. How would one test to
determine if this is going to be an issue? I'm nowhere near actually
building my panel, so the best field test I know to do at the moment would
be to plug it into the cigarette lighter of one of the spam cans I rent and
see if it causes any problems.
Since I'm going to be exploring anyway - let me know what needs to be done
to make it useful to the whole group. Feel free to contact me off-list.
Dennis Glaeser
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Cold Cathode and Electroluminescent Lighting |
| From: | "Chuck Jensen" <cjensen(at)dts9000.com> |
Glaeser, Dennis A wrote...
My biggest concern (due to lack of knowledge on these things) is noise in
the audio system potentially caused by the inverter. How would one test to
determine if this is going to be an issue? I'm nowhere near actually
building my panel, so the best field test I know to do at the moment would
be to plug it into the cigarette lighter of one of the spam cans I rent and
see if it causes any problems.
Dennis,
I just installed the nulites and noise can be a problem (at least it was in my
install). The wires should be twisted (which I did) and it seems to be preferable
to run each light back to the source (which I didn't do), rather then daisy-chaining
them. If I recall correctly, it was also advised to avoid grounding
them to the radio stack. When all those things were done, my headset whine
turned to deafening silence.
Chuck
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "David Carter" <dcarter(at)datarecall.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Open letter to the list |
----- Original Message -----
From: "James E. Clark" <james(at)nextupventures.com>
Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Open letter to the list
>
> Interesting dialogue.
> In both cases, **AFTER** I had read and digested the material (theory and
> practice), what I really WISHED FOR was a "here's how to make it work in
> your RV" "booklet/application note".
>
> Now this is NOT something I would expect from Bob ... no way, he's not in
> "the business". I would have liked to have gotten that from CV and I wish
> there was available *clear examples* of IMPLEMENTING Z-14 in an RV so I
> could have saved some time in both planes. (Yes, this would be limited to
an
> RV in value but the process could be repeated for other types.)
>
> Sooooo... how do we get to the next step? Well it seems that if each of us
> could make a simple drawing or a picture available of our implementations
in
> some common place, that would be really valuable to those coming along
> later. > Comments????
> James
I have "the book" and I have saved LOTS of e-mails from this list that
provide insight and details for me to use as I craft my own RV-6 with
electrically dependent engine.
James's point - "how do we get to the next step? Well it seems that if each
of us could make a simple drawing or a picture available of our
implementations in some common place" hits the nail on the head.
- That "common place" cannot be some "manual mandated by FAA", as Bob
has pointed out.
- I have 16 builder created personal websites which document much of
their work. One has all his electrical diagrams on it - exactly what James
is talking about. Dan Checkoway's site says, "Since all aircraft builders
are encouraged to keep a builder's log, and since web stuff is second nature
to me, I decided early on that I would post my entire building experience
here on this site, photos and all. It's not my intent to provide instruction
on how to build an RV-7, but I do want to share my experience with other
builders in the hope that my photos and commentary might occasionally save
some poor soul a bit of aggravation by learning from my mistakes. Click any
of the links above the thumbnails below to dive right into the construction
log. Enjoy... "
- Then go to one of his pages, http://www.rvproject.com/20030705.html
and see lots of info and pictures on wiring.
The basic problem with getting from "here" to "builders' info-sharing
utopia" is knowing how to post stuff on the web.
- The first level is to save e-mails and lots of text and a few photos.
About all of us can do that.
- The next/ultimate level is to document stuff on a website and simply
give others the URL to that site or some page in it. THAT IS A SHOW STOPPER
for many. I spent some of my time and "yours" a year or two ago trying to
"break the code" on how to size photos (always the first question), then how
to post Autocad and Intellicad .dwg drawings of electrical
schematics/drawings. For a person starting from scratch, it is fairly
complex and daunting, takes time away from building to 1) learn how to post
on website and 2) actually post stuff to help others. NEXT STEP: A
"builders' guide to image generation and HTML/web stuff". I have my own
embryonic folder of info, but not yet organized enough and memorized enough
that it is easy enough for me to do very often.
Kevin Horton's website has his wiring info - TOTAL INFO for what he did! See
http://go.phpwebhosting.com/~khorton/rv8/gallery/view_album.php?set_albumName=Electrical_system_drawings
David Carter
RV-6 (canopy)
Nederland, Texas
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Cold Cathode and Electroluminescent Lighting |
| From: | "John Schroeder" <jschroeder(at)perigee.net> |
Richard -
Does this company have a website? Or could you provide the phone number.
Thanks,
John
> I found a local company in Orlando who sells both EL tape and the
> inverters to power the tape.
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Cold Cathode and Electroluminescent Lighting |
| From: | "John Schroeder" <jschroeder(at)perigee.net> |
Check out this website.
http://www.e-lite.com/techassist.htm
They are one of the better suppliers and have an entire section of
technical information. I downloaded it and made it into a .pdf file to
weed out the duplicative pages. They also respond to RFQ's so they can
make up a light for you in the width and length you need.
Cheers,
John
> I've been playing around with various types of LEDs because I want to
> backlight labels on my (and probably my son's) panel. This looks like it
> has great potential for that application - so I will be getting some to
> play
> with. I'll certainly let you know what I find (8x10 glossies with the
> circles and the arrows - just like in Alice's Restaurant :-)
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "David Carter" <dcarter(at)datarecall.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Open letter to the list |
----- Original Message -----
From: "Greg Young" <gyoung@cs-sol.com>
Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Open letter to the list
> It's a shame no one took you up on it. I still think there's a void
though.
> When you get to the finishing stage of a project its hard to stop to
design
> an electrical system.
> [ *** ] You really want something that allows you to keep
> progressing. You need that initial plan to lock into and modify before you
> can ask questions. Until then you don't know what you don't know. There
> really isn't anything to satisfy that initial need. I used your Z drawings
> and pieced together the rest from the Connection and other sources. That
was
> years ago but recent posts lead me to believe the situation hasn't
changed.
> My comments were never about my needs, at least not current. I was
> addressing the silent 1300 needs as well as those not on the list who
don't
> know where to turn. I've built up a pool of resources but will certainly
ask
> if the situation arises.
>
> Greg
Greg, I complained about as much as anyone about Van's conscious decision
not to document builder complaints and suggestions (up until a year or two
ago when they got their a**s up out of the reach of the alligators and could
start doing it. There were problems that I was having that untold others
had also suffered and that should have been fixed, not let continue. I
finally got wiser and shut up complaining and just focused on
non-complaining submissions of revised drawings, areas to fix, etc.
You are complaining, in like vein, about lack of availability of concise
info on electrical system design and installation.
It's not a perfect world, is it? It only gets better when people contribute
something to make it better. Thank God for these lists and the great people
who help us in our awesome task of building some great flying machines.
David Carter
RV-6
Nederland, Texas
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Richard Dudley <rhdudley(at)att.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Cold Cathode and Electroluminescent Lighting |
I have to revise my statement about maximum current for my EL
installation. On reviewing my earlier measurments, I found a maximum
current of 160 ma for my EL glareshield strip.
RHDudley
Richard Dudley wrote:
>
>Bob,
>I found a local company in Orlando who sells both EL tape and the
>inverters to power the tape. It looked attractive. I purchased a length
>with the appropriate inverter, tried it out and decided to install it
>under the glare shield in my RV-6A. It floods the instrument panel with
>enough light to read the instruments. The tape comes in various widths
>and has an adhesive back. I am using a 3/4" width. Though I have
>individual lights on all instruments, I consider the EL tape as a low
>current backup with maximum currents under 100 ma. So, I have connected
>it to the battery bus making it completely independent of any other
>circuitry. The power supply/inverter is connected to the battery bus
>through a 100 ohm 5 watt rheostat as a dimmer.
>
>Regards,
>
>Richard Dudley
>RV-6A readying for FAA inspection
>
>Robert L. Nuckolls, III Lighting wrote:
>
>
>
Lighting
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>
>>>1/30/2005
>>>
>>>Hello Fellow Builders, I provide the below URL for your inspection and
>>>comment.
>>>
>>>http://www.elwirecheap.com/glowingstuff/index.html
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>> I purchased a little widget in the bargain basket
>> at WallyMart a few months ago. A small inverter about
>> 1 x 1 x 1.5" driving a 36" segment of EL wire. It runs
>> from 12-16 volts DC and the entire length of wire lights
>> up. Could chunks of this stuff make nice ring lights
>> for steam gages? Maybe so. The EL tape might work for
>> under-the-glareshield flood lighting. Interesting stuff.
>> If somebody has the time/energy to explore this, I'd
>> be interested in putting an article about it up on
>> the website.
>>
>> Bob . . .
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Richard Dudley <rhdudley(at)att.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Cold Cathode and Electroluminescent Lighting |
Hi John,
The local company is called Luxury Lighting and their main customers are
custom limosine builders. Their phone number is 866-681-0072 and their
website is:
www.LuxuryLighting.net
Regards,
RHDudley
John Schroeder wrote:
>
>Richard -
>
>Does this company have a website? Or could you provide the phone number.
>
>Thanks,
>John
>
>
>
>
>>I found a local company in Orlando who sells both EL tape and the
>>inverters to power the tape.
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Mickey Coggins <mick-matronics(at)rv8.ch> |
| Subject: | Re: Open letter to the list |
> ...
> [Small example ... I mounted the two PC680's on the firewall of an RV6 using
> the mounting gear from Van's and mounted the "Ford Regulators" each on the
> metal battery box. No big deal but seeing it *after the fact*, it was oh so
> simple but before the fact it required some head scratching to be sure all
> worked OK. Maybe this isn't a good example after all, but I think you get
> the point. :-) ]
>
>
> Comments????
>
I completely understand where you are coming from on this. I
had exactly the same thinking when I started wiring. I only
wanted a cookbook and a parts list. Trying to figure out the
electron thing was really not my bag, baby.
Since I'll be running an electrically dependent engine, I knew
that getting the design right was important. The engine
supplier provides exactly what I was looking for - a parts
list and a cookbook, and it is working fine in many airplanes.
However, there were just a few things I wanted to do differently
in my airplane, which led me to the aeroelectric connection book.
Yes, it's been an investment in trying to understand things, and
gather the bits and pieces. My schematic is a work in progress.
I am modifying and refining it with the help of many on this list.
I feel when it is completed it will be exactly what I am
looking for. Since it is based on a technically sound
foundation, one of the Z figures, most of the work has been
on implementation details.
The work required to do the wiring is actually less than I
had anticipated, and it is really a very rewarding part of
the construction. I think I would have missed a very fun
part of the project had I simply followed a cookbook.
--
Mickey Coggins
http://www.rv8.ch/
#82007 Wiring
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | rd2(at)evenlink.com |
| Subject: | Cold Cathode and Electroluminescent Lighting |
Thanks for the links, Charlie
Rumen
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <b.nuckolls(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Rocker switch for DC? |
>
>Saw the below listed switch on ELCHEAPWIRE's web site, and wonder if it
>is suitable for DC.
>
>http://www.elwirecheap.com/glowingstuff/sirosw.html
>
>They make outrageous claims for current capability (obviously haven't
>read Aerolectric's basics on electricity).
That WAS pretty amazing . . .
>My question is: Can anyone steer me to a source of Rocker Switches in
>round mounting format suitable for 12 V DC? And in DPDT would be great.
> The advantages I see over toggle switches are smooth surface for
>accident safety. But most rocker switches require cutting square or
>rectangular holes for mounting, and I can drill round ones much faster
>and more accurately.
I'm aware of no rocker with attractive quality that
mounts in round holes. My personal $low$ favorites are
featured at:
http://dkc3.digikey.com/PDF/T051/1170.pdf
They even offer multiple poles and some momentary versions.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Eric M. Jones" <emjones(at)charter.net> |
| Subject: | Re: ELCHEAPWIRE switch. |
>
>Saw the below listed switch on ELCHEAPWIRE's web site, and wonder if it
>is suitable for DC.
>
>http://www.elwirecheap.com/glowingstuff/sirosw.html
>
>They make outrageous claims for current capability (obviously haven't
>read Aerolectric's basics on electricity).
On the ELCHEAPWIRE website, they say:
"Great little two pole on-off switch rated 6amp at 250volt/10amp at 125 so
when your only running 12volts it will handle about 60amps" ....Or, [My
corrections in brackets.]
"Great little two[-]pole on-off switch[,] rated 6[ ]amp[s] at 250[ ]volt[s]
[ delete / ][;] 10[ ]amp[s] at 125[;] so when your [you're] only running
12[ ]volts it will handle about 60[ ]amps."
We should be clear that this is incorrect. The switch would explode like a
photon torpedo at 60 amps. Somebody used some odd mathematical guess based
on watts, but this is certainly wrong. In general switches carry amps, and
in specific it gets very complicated.
I sent them a note on this.
Regards,
Eric M. Jones
www.PerihelionDesign.com
113 Brentwood Drive
Southbridge MA 01550-2705
Phone (508) 764-2072
Email: emjones(at)charter.net
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Steve Sampson" <steve(at)lbho.freeserve.co.uk> |
| Subject: | Microair 760N to Flightcom 403 |
Merven - I recently installed a Microair 760N. It was confusing because the
manual was wrong though I found the correct info on their web site. If you
still need help contact me off line and I will dig things out.
Steve.
PS The radio works fine finally!
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of Mervin
Friesen
Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Microair 760N to Flightcom 403
I'm certainly no expert, so my observation may not be accurate. But in the
instructions copied below, it says MC403 "Avionics Ground" to Microair Pin
2. On the Revision N diagram, pin 2 shows no internal connection. On
revision C, pin 2 is labelled Mic Lo. This is what led me to my request for
advice.
Thanks!
Mervin Friesen
Sonex #122
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of Robert
L. Nuckolls, III
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Microair 760N to Flightcom 403
Which pins are changed? I've compared the latest download from Microair
with what I published in our in-house generated instructions and
the pinouts from the radio appear unchanged to me.
Bob . . .
> Referring to MC403 manual at:
> <http://www.flightcom.net/pdf/403mcManual.pdf> and 760VHF manual at:
> <http://www.aeroelectric.com/Catalog/avionics/760imB.pdf>
>
> You connect: MC403 "Tramnsmit Key Line" to Microair Pin 7
> MC403 "Receive Audio" to Microair Pin 14
> MC403 "Transmit Audio" to Microair Pin 1
> MC403 "Avionics Ground" to Microair Pin 2
> and eliminate the avionics ground shown just to the right of the
> aircraft radio in the MC403 wiring. Ignore Micorair Pin 3, "COPILOT MIC
> HI" Ignore all headphone, microphone and push to talk wiring shown on the
> Microair wiring diagram including the intercom wiring to pin 5.
> Bob . . .
--
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
--
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Joel Jacobs" <jj(at)sdf.lonestar.org> |
| Subject: | DC rated switches |
For those that may be interested, I've found some nice toggle switches with
actual DC ratings stated. The 15 and 20 amp ones are quite inexpensive.
The 30 and 50 amp ones are a bit pricey. Have a look.
http://www.mouser.com/catalog/620/1021.pdf
I ordered a S-1F a while back just to check it out and it seems like a well
built switch. I think I'm going to use these. The only problem I can see
is the nut that holds them in the panel is not a hex nut. It's a round
knurled nut and I haven't found a tool to tighten it yet.
Joel
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | George Neal E Capt AU/CCP <Neal.George(at)maxwell.af.mil> |
| Subject: | DC rated switches |
Channel Locks? :)
Neal
RV-7 N8ZG
Fuselage ordered
>
The only problem I can see is the nut that holds them in the panel is not a
hex nut. It's a round knurled nut and I haven't found a tool to tighten it
yet.
Joel
<
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Joel Jacobs" <jj(at)sdf.lonestar.org> |
| Subject: | Re: DC rated switches |
Channel locks would mar them. I did find this wrench that looks like it
might work but hesitant to order one if I'm not sure. Actually I'm leaning
toward trying to make one. I was thinking lightly coat the nut with grease,
lay it on a flat surface, glob some JB weld around the nut and slip a piece
of 1/2" copper water pipe over that and let it set up a bit...
http://www.stewmac.com/shop/Electronics,_pickups/Tools:_Toggle_switch_wrench
.html
Joel
----- Original Message -----
From: "George Neal E Capt AU/CCP" <Neal.George(at)maxwell.af.mil>
Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: DC rated switches
>
> Channel Locks? :)
>
> Neal
> RV-7 N8ZG
> Fuselage ordered
>
> >
> The only problem I can see is the nut that holds them in the panel is not
a
> hex nut. It's a round knurled nut and I haven't found a tool to tighten
it
> yet.
>
> Joel
> <
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Ronald J. Parigoris" <rparigor(at)SUFFOLK.LIB.NY.US> |
| Subject: | Shrink tube expanding? |
Live on Long Island NY. Did a repair on my cell phone charger over the summer where
the charge wire enters the banana pin, did a nice job and used silicone and some
shrink tube. Left in car when it got down to ~ 0F and the heat shrink expanded
a bit
where it slid down the cord. When it warmed up it stayed expanded. Heat did shrink
it
back down, but this would not be a nice thing for a aeroplane. It was some heat
shrink i had purchased from Active Electronics.
Is there a certain type of heat shrink tube should be using?? Or apply in a certain
manor to prevent this?
Thx.
Ron Parigoris
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: DC rated switches |
| From: | "Matt Prather" <mprather(at)spro.net> |
How much torque do you really have to put on one of these things?? I
thought the point of a knurled nut was to be able to hand tighten it.
Regards,
Matt-
VE N34RD, C150 N714BK
>
>
> Channel locks would mar them. I did find this wrench that looks like it
> might work but hesitant to order one if I'm not sure. Actually I'm
> leaning toward trying to make one. I was thinking lightly coat the nut
> with grease, lay it on a flat surface, glob some JB weld around the nut
> and slip a piece of 1/2" copper water pipe over that and let it set up a
> bit...
> http://www.stewmac.com/shop/Electronics,_pickups/Tools:_Toggle_switch_wrench
> .html
>
> Joel
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "George Neal E Capt AU/CCP" <Neal.George(at)maxwell.af.mil>
> To:
> Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: DC rated switches
>
>
>
>>
>> Channel Locks? :)
>>
>> Neal
>> RV-7 N8ZG
>> Fuselage ordered
>>
>> >
>> The only problem I can see is the nut that holds them in the panel is
>> not
> a
>> hex nut. It's a round knurled nut and I haven't found a tool to
>> tighten
> it
>> yet.
>>
>> Joel
>> <
>>
>>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "923te" <923te(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: DC rated switches |
I always just held the round knurled nut stationary with my fingers while
using the switch body to tighten. Worked every time.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Joel Jacobs" <jj(at)sdf.lonestar.org>
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: DC rated switches
>
> Channel locks would mar them. I did find this wrench that looks like it
> might work but hesitant to order one if I'm not sure. Actually I'm
leaning
> toward trying to make one. I was thinking lightly coat the nut with
grease,
> lay it on a flat surface, glob some JB weld around the nut and slip a
piece
> of 1/2" copper water pipe over that and let it set up a bit...
>
http://www.stewmac.com/shop/Electronics,_pickups/Tools:_Toggle_switch_wrench
> .html
>
> Joel
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "George Neal E Capt AU/CCP" <Neal.George(at)maxwell.af.mil>
> To:
> Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: DC rated switches
>
>
>
> >
> > Channel Locks? :)
> >
> > Neal
> > RV-7 N8ZG
> > Fuselage ordered
> >
> > >
> > The only problem I can see is the nut that holds them in the panel is
not
> a
> > hex nut. It's a round knurled nut and I haven't found a tool to tighten
> it
> > yet.
> >
> > Joel
> > <
> >
> >
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | BobsV35B(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: DC rated switches |
In a message dated 1/31/2005 4:19:33 P.M. Central Standard Time,
923te(at)cox.net writes:
I always just held the round knurled nut stationary with my fingers while
using the switch body to tighten. Worked every time.
Good Evening 923te,
May we assume then that you do not use the fitted washer that will key the
switch to the panel?
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
AKA
Bob Siegfried
Ancient Aviator
Stearman N3977A
Brookeridge Airpark LL22
Downers Grove, IL 60516
630 985-8502
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Shrink tube expanding? |
Ron:
Was the silicone sealant fully cured before you applied the heat shrink? My
suspicion is that the acetic acid in the uncured sealant has migrated into
the heat shrink tube and caused it to swell.
Best regards,
Rob Housman
Europa XS Tri-Gear A070
Airframe complete
Irvine, CA
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of Ronald J.
Parigoris
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Shrink tube expanding?
Live on Long Island NY. Did a repair on my cell phone charger over the
summer where
the charge wire enters the banana pin, did a nice job and used silicone and
some
shrink tube. Left in car when it got down to ~ 0F and the heat shrink
expanded a bit
where it slid down the cord. When it warmed up it stayed expanded. Heat did
shrink it
back down, but this would not be a nice thing for a aeroplane. It was some
heat
shrink i had purchased from Active Electronics.
Is there a certain type of heat shrink tube should be using?? Or apply in a
certain
manor to prevent this?
Thx.
Ron Parigoris
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: DC rated switches |
A little Loctite 242 might help keep it together.
>
>
>In a message dated 1/31/2005 4:19:33 P.M. Central Standard Time,
>923te(at)cox.net writes:
>
>I always just held the round knurled nut stationary with my fingers while
>using the switch body to tighten. Worked every time.
>
>
>Good Evening 923te,
>
>May we assume then that you do not use the fitted washer that will key the
>switch to the panel?
>
>Happy Skies,
>
>Old Bob
>AKA
>Bob Siegfried
>Ancient Aviator
>Stearman N3977A
>Brookeridge Airpark LL22
>Downers Grove, IL 60516
>630 985-8502
>
>
Scott Bilinski
Eng dept 305
Phone (858) 657-2536
Pager (858) 502-5190
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Ronald J. Parigoris" <rparigor(at)SUFFOLK.LIB.NY.US> |
| Subject: | Re: Shrink tube expanding? |
Hello Rob
> " My suspicion is that the acetic acid in the uncured sealant has migrated
> into
> the heat shrink tube and caused it to swell."
I put the silicone into the heat shrink tube after it was shrunk.
There was at least 1/2 inch of the tube that was on the wire with no sealant on
it, and that got to be a pretty poor fit. reheating it shrunk it right up again.
Ron Parigoris
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Jerry Grimmonpre" <jerry(at)mc.net> |
| Subject: | Re: DC rated switches |
If memory serves right ... these thin hex nuts are sold at ACE in the small
parts dept, aviation aisle.
My 2worth ...
Jerry Grimmonpre
7A
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <b.nuckolls(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Tools for knurled switch nuts |
>
>For those that may be interested, I've found some nice toggle switches with
>actual DC ratings stated. The 15 and 20 amp ones are quite inexpensive.
>The 30 and 50 amp ones are a bit pricey. Have a look.
>http://www.mouser.com/catalog/620/1021.pdf
>I ordered a S-1F a while back just to check it out and it seems like a well
>built switch. I think I'm going to use these. The only problem I can see
>is the nut that holds them in the panel is not a hex nut. It's a round
>knurled nut and I haven't found a tool to tighten it yet.
>
>Joel
There are tools for the knurled switch nuts. I used to have one
but haven't seen it in years. When switches come in with the
knurled nuts, I replace them with 15/32-32 hex nuts which
are MUCH easier to tighten with ordinary tools.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Shrink tube expanding? |
| From: | "John Schroeder" <jschroeder(at)perigee.net> |
Ron -
There are a zillion brands/kinds of heat shrink out there. We used a piece
from a relatively known source today and the heat gun melted it thru on
one end!! It was no big deal because the piece was to be a buffer under a
strain relief of an AMP CPC. After using this shrink wrap for many moons,
I don't think it was our technique with the gun.
We also used several pieces of mil spec stuff where it really counted and
it shrinks better, shrinks more, shrinks tighter and is impossible to melt
even when a solder gun hits it momentarily.
I'd use mil spec stuff or at least "heavy duty" stuff where it counts:
over bare connections.
Cheers,
John
> It was some heat shrink i had purchased from Active Electronics.
>
> Is there a certain type of heat shrink tube should be using?? Or apply
> in a certain manor to prevent this?
>
> Thx.
> Ron Parigoris
>
>
--
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Eric M. Jones" <emjones(at)charter.net> |
| Subject: | RE: Magician with a EE |
> "How about NO fuses, practically no CB's NO relays, simple controls
> etc nearly all solid state with smarts built in...."
>leads me to believe he's probably a magician as well as an Electrical
Engineer. I'm sure we will one day see his own website, with his own
>manual and maybe his own self contained module that we'll have to pay for.
.
Paul Messinger ran out of room for circuit breakers in his airplane so he
replaced 20-30 of them with IR3310s which have trip characteristics that
surpass any CB or fuse AND can read out their current individually . That's
what he meant--all solid state--relays too. I advocate this direction for
those who like to color outside the lines.
>Certainly there appears to be another agenda than just the selfless one Bob
has offered all these years.
Paul may or may not actually sell any of this. But "Selfless Bob"? That may
be stretching it a bit. Under that sack-cloth and sandals.....I'll bet he's
one of them capitalists.
Regards,
Selfless Eric M. Jones
www.PerihelionDesign.com
113 Brentwood Drive
Southbridge MA 01550-2705
Phone (508) 764-2072
Email: emjones(at)charter.net
" I would have made a good Pope."
-- Richard M. Nixon (1913-1994)
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Tools for knurled switch nuts |
| From: | "John Schroeder" <jschroeder(at)perigee.net> |
>
> There are tools for the knurled switch nuts. I used to have one
> but haven't seen it in years. When switches come in with the
> knurled nuts, I replace them with 15/32-32 hex nuts which
> are MUCH easier to tighten with ordinary tools.
>
> Bob . . .
Bob -
Where can you get these nuts, and also some plain, thin washers to go with
them?
I can also use some 3/8" D and 1/4" D nuts and thin washers.
Thanks,
John
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Ken <klehman(at)albedo.net> |
| Subject: | Re: DC rated switches |
clamav-milter version 0.80j
on juliet.albedo.net
Hi Joel
To my surprise after finger tightening the knurled nuts on the Carling
switches, I was able to tighten the knurled nuts with the end of a pair
of pliers withough damaging the paint. I used the end not the sides of
the jaws. In some cases you can also slip a wrench behind the panel and
tighten the hex nut if you use a hex nut behind the panel to adjust the
depth of the switch in the panel.
Ken
Joel Jacobs wrote:
>
>For those that may be interested, I've found some nice toggle switches with
>actual DC ratings stated. The 15 and 20 amp ones are quite inexpensive.
>The 30 and 50 amp ones are a bit pricey. Have a look.
>http://www.mouser.com/catalog/620/1021.pdf
>I ordered a S-1F a while back just to check it out and it seems like a well
>built switch. I think I'm going to use these. The only problem I can see
>is the nut that holds them in the panel is not a hex nut. It's a round
>knurled nut and I haven't found a tool to tighten it yet.
>
>Joel
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Dj Merrill <deej(at)thayer.dartmouth.edu> |
| Subject: | Re: Cold Cathode and Electroluminescent Lighting |
Richard Dudley wrote:
>
> Bob,
> I found a local company in Orlando who sells both EL tape and the
> inverters to power the tape. It looked attractive. I purchased a length
Hi Richard,
Which company?
Thanks,
-Dj
--
Dj Merrill
deej(at)thayer.dartmouth.edu
"TSA: Totally Screwing Aviation"
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Brian Kraut" <brian.kraut(at)engalt.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Tools for knurled switch nuts |
I have a thin wrench that I made that I use to tighten the nut on the back
side of the panel. It looks best when you put on the knurled nut to leave
just a few threads showing on the front of the switch then tighten the hex
nut on the other side of the panel. It also keeps you from slipping and
scratching the panel. Someimes you have to be creative in the order you
install things so you can get to the back of all of the switches.
Brian Kraut
Engineering Alternatives, Inc.
www.engalt.com
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of Robert
L. Nuckolls, III
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Re: Tools for knurled switch nuts
>
>For those that may be interested, I've found some nice toggle switches with
>actual DC ratings stated. The 15 and 20 amp ones are quite inexpensive.
>The 30 and 50 amp ones are a bit pricey. Have a look.
>http://www.mouser.com/catalog/620/1021.pdf
>I ordered a S-1F a while back just to check it out and it seems like a well
>built switch. I think I'm going to use these. The only problem I can see
>is the nut that holds them in the panel is not a hex nut. It's a round
>knurled nut and I haven't found a tool to tighten it yet.
>
>Joel
There are tools for the knurled switch nuts. I used to have one
but haven't seen it in years. When switches come in with the
knurled nuts, I replace them with 15/32-32 hex nuts which
are MUCH easier to tighten with ordinary tools.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | <kcorr(at)charter.net> |
| Subject: | Re: RE: Slippery Stuff |
Just a quick note to you. I work for a electrical supply house. The wire lube
we sell is water based and made by Ideal which is one of several manufacturers.
This dries and leaves film on everyting it comes in contact with. I don't
think it will attach the plastic tubing you are using as it is commonly used
in PVC conduit, but you will want to investigate further if you go this route.
Good Luck
Kent Orr
>
> From: Steve Thomas <lists(at)stevet.net>
> Date: 2005/01/29 Sat PM 06:52:57 GMT
> To: "Eric M. Jones"
> Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: RE: Slippery Stuff
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Richard Dudley <rhdudley(at)att.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Cold Cathode and Electroluminescent Lighting |
Dj,
The company is Luxury Lighting; www.LuxuryLighting.net and 866-681-0072 .
RHDudley
Dj Merrill wrote:
>
>Richard Dudley wrote:
>
>
>>
>>Bob,
>>I found a local company in Orlando who sells both EL tape and the
>>inverters to power the tape. It looked attractive. I purchased a length
>>
>>
>
>Hi Richard,
> Which company?
>
>Thanks,
>
>-Dj
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Open letter to the list |
> Greg, I complained about as much as anyone about Van's
> conscious decision
> not to document builder complaints and suggestions (up until
> a year or two
> ago when they got their a**s up out of the reach of the
> alligators and could
> start doing it. There were problems that I was having that
> untold others
> had also suffered and that should have been fixed, not let
> continue. I
> finally got wiser and shut up complaining and just focused on
> non-complaining submissions of revised drawings, areas to fix, etc.
Sure, we all bitched about Van. I always mused that Van left those hurdles
in as a rite of passage. Most backed off when they realized it was an
integral part of the value we found in the RVs. An unexpected side effect
was the growth of a huge support network with a family atmosphere. And not
just on the the list but in builder groups, EAA chapters, fly-ins and
virtually anywhere 2 RVers met. I've yett to meet an RV builder who wouldn't
help another. This list environment is different. Not wrong, but certainly
different. Maybe it's because we don't wear Aero-Electric stickers at
fly-ins.
>
> You are complaining, in like vein, about lack of availability
> of concise
> info on electrical system design and installation.
>
Not a complaint, just a wish that someone would fill the void. I guess it's
going to take a profit motive for it to happen. But then you get that whole
"open source vs greedy capitalist" thing going. Oh well!
> It's not a perfect world, is it? It only gets better when
> people contribute
> something to make it better. Thank God for these lists and
> the great people
> who help us in our awesome task of building some great flying
> machines.
>
> David Carter
> RV-6
> Nederland, Texas
Well put. If you get over to Hooks be sure to stop by and chat. There aren't
many of us slow-build -6's left
Regards,
Greg Young - Houston (DWH)
RV-6 N6GY - project Phoenix
Navion N5221K - just an XXL RV-6A
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "James E. Clark" <james(at)nextupventures.com> |
| Subject: | Open letter to the list |
Comments below ....
James
{SNIP}
| >
|
| I completely understand where you are coming from on this. I
| had exactly the same thinking when I started wiring. I only
| wanted a cookbook and a parts list. Trying to figure out the
| electron thing was really not my bag, baby.
|
| Since I'll be running an electrically dependent engine, I knew
| that getting the design right was important. The engine
| supplier provides exactly what I was looking for - a parts
| list and a cookbook, and it is working fine in many airplanes.
I was intending to mention that example but forgot. You don't HAVE to go
with it but it is there and thus you have a basis from which to "improve".
|
| However, there were just a few things I wanted to do differently
| in my airplane, which led me to the aeroelectric connection book.
| Yes, it's been an investment in trying to understand things, and
| gather the bits and pieces. My schematic is a work in progress.
| I am modifying and refining it with the help of many on this list.
| I feel when it is completed it will be exactly what I am
| looking for. Since it is based on a technically sound
| foundation, one of the Z figures, most of the work has been
| on implementation details.
I too use the Book. And I too will be using a "Z". What I mean is to not
SKIP the Book but figuring out a way to get stuff at the "next level".
Bob has brought us to the 90 yard line. Just looking make it easier for the
last 10 yards.
|
| The work required to do the wiring is actually less than I
| had anticipated, and it is really a very rewarding part of
| the construction. I think I would have missed a very fun
| part of the project had I simply followed a cookbook.
The key is making it more fun as you make it right.
James
|
| --
| Mickey Coggins
| http://www.rv8.ch/
| #82007 Wiring
|
|
|
|
|
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Gordon or Marge Comfort" <gcomfo(at)tc3net.com> |
| Subject: | Open letter to the list |
-----Original Message-----
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com]
Bob: You might check out a magazine titled "Experimental Aircraft
Technology" by Enchanted Publications, LLC in White Sands, NM. Perhaps
they would be receptive to articles submitted to them about electrical
matters. The editors name is Brett Hahn and the e-mail address is:
. They are new and I hope they succeed. There is
some involvement with racing, so performance is important to the group.
I believe Hahn has worked on a sport class White Lightening that has
appeared at Reno. They have an impressive list of contributors
including Darryl Greenamyer and Jon and Tricia Sharp. Subscription phone
number is 505-635-7444. Nice guys.
Gordon Comfort
N363GC
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Joel Jacobs" <jj(at)sdf.lonestar.org> |
| Subject: | Re: DC rated switches clamav-milter version |
0.80j on juliet.albedo.net
Thanks Ken and Brian,
Yes I forgot to mention there are two nuts with the switch and one is a hex
nut. I like the looks of the knurled one for the outside. I had not
considered tightening the hex nut from behind but that sounds like the way
to go..
Joel
----- Original Message -----
From: "Ken" <klehman(at)albedo.net>
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: DC rated switches clamav-milter version
0.80j on juliet.albedo.net
>
> Hi Joel
> To my surprise after finger tightening the knurled nuts on the Carling
> switches, I was able to tighten the knurled nuts with the end of a pair
> of pliers withough damaging the paint. I used the end not the sides of
> the jaws. In some cases you can also slip a wrench behind the panel and
> tighten the hex nut if you use a hex nut behind the panel to adjust the
> depth of the switch in the panel.
> Ken
>
> Joel Jacobs wrote:
>
> >
> >For those that may be interested, I've found some nice toggle switches
with
> >actual DC ratings stated. The 15 and 20 amp ones are quite inexpensive.
> >The 30 and 50 amp ones are a bit pricey. Have a look.
> >http://www.mouser.com/catalog/620/1021.pdf
> >I ordered a S-1F a while back just to check it out and it seems like a
well
> >built switch. I think I'm going to use these. The only problem I can
see
> >is the nut that holds them in the panel is not a hex nut. It's a round
> >knurled nut and I haven't found a tool to tighten it yet.
> >
> >Joel
> >
> >
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <b.nuckolls(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Electrical System Design |
>
>
>Hi Chuck,
>
>The regulator I mention is the B&C LR16-14 listed on their site for $228.
>This regulator is specifically mentioned in Chapter 4 of Bob's book Page
>4-7. The implication is that it is the most complete and easiest regulator
>to use. As I see it the chapter is aimed at describing why Auto gear is not
>a great idea in an aircraft. I do see the point, but the external regulator
>alone is worth more than the whole box and dice from Vans. The basic
>diagrams also feature the regulator.
I designed the earliest versions of the LR series regulators
for B&C and most of the original design philosophy persists in
present versions. We debated at length whether to offer three
separate components (regulator, ov protection, lv warning) or
some intermediate combinations. Certainly ANY externally regulated
alternator will function just fine with about ANY external regulator.
The final decision was driven by a philosophy that encouraged
builders to have ALL THREE devices as a part of their power
generation system. Further, if the builder's time was worth
anything and assuming there's value in reducing risk of installation
errors, the decision was made to put all three devices in a
single enclosure. So, for about 15 years I've fielded complaints
about the cost of this product . . . and offered the idea
that it's really three $75.00 products already assembled for
you in one box.
To be sure, this product line is getting long in the tooth
and if B&C expects to maintain the hard won popularity of
the product, they should be looking at the next generation
devices. The trend in virtually every product using
electronics is more capability for less money next week.
I understand that Zeftronics already offers similar capability
in an integrated alternator controller for about half the price.
I asked Bill a few years ago what he was planning to do to
obsolete this product and didn't get an answer.
The Z-figures feature the LR series regulators but alternatives
are offered too. One can assemble generic components like the
stone simple Ford regulator, an ov protection system and
active notification of low voltage and achieve the same level
of performance (if not convenience) for under $100 total.
>The alternator in question is the B&C L60. $595 on their website. I would
>assume that it is the easiest to use on a B&C regulator. It also makes use
>of the technology mentioned in Ch-3. Balanced, better bearings, external
>regulation etc. May not be the cheapest way to go.
If you purchase a brand new ND alternator from any source
and spend the time and effort to achieve a condition
equivalent to the B&C L-40 or L-60 alternators, I'll
bet the total $time$ expended will exceed the
price from B&C.
Numbers of folk have offered their own solutions to
modifying various alternators based on their own
experiences and suggested that these alternatives
offer better value. It's a judgement call for every
builder to decide how the economics of $time$ fit
into their project decisions. It's often been suggested
that the average builder (whatever that is) would spend
less total $time$ acquiring an airplane if they
got a part time job and used the money from that job
to pay for an airplane as opposed to building it.
It's an acknowledge fact that all education is
expensive and the root commodity we all have to invest
in getting smarter is $time$. The purchased airplane
only makes you better plying the skills of your part
time job while building it adds to your knowledge and
skills base. So I presume that all of you are driven
more by the pleasure of finding things out than you
are for the simple task of acquiring and owning an airplane.
>Point taken on the batteries and alternators, however on page Z-2 you will
>see some of the comments that would lead me to make these statements.
>
>I suspect the issues come as there are at least two types of people that
>lurk here. Some want to advance the state of the art. Some want to build
>safe, cheap, reliable airplanes. Both are just as important, but sometimes
>there is going to be a difference in opinion.
If we were good economists and had real numbers by
which one could compare all the options, I suspect that
the value judgements would be much easier to make.
Opinions would become clearer as to value to any
particular task. The whole fuse-block concept was
driven by the obvious savings of both $time$ and
panel space. The hurdles to jump were based on opinions
that there was value in pushing and pulling on breakers
while trying to extricate one's bod and machine from
a stressful situation. This is where the economics of
skills and ability to make troubleshooting decisions
with one half of the brain while continuing to be
a good pilot with the other drove the architecture.
It seems better to design so that you DON'T CARE
if a particular component has just crapped than
to stack plan-b on top of plan-c but only if plan-k
is in effect and oh yeah, keep the airplane pointed
in the right direction while doing this mental
exercise.
With respect to cost-benefit analysis, I've often
made the case that (1) if you believe the technical
features of the B&C products worthy of desire then
you'll spend more $time$ achieving them on your own
than by simply purchasing them ready to install.
And (2) if you believe there is value in considering
the service history on B&C belt driven alternators
(less than 1% return for any reason on the whole fleet
of alternators produced over the last 15+ years) then
perhaps the make/buy/substitute decision is easier
yet.
We KNOW that alternators are the most highly stressed
part in the electrical system and that they figure
prominently in many dark-n-stormy-night stories.
So, I'll simply suggest that you can't have your
cake and eat it too. If the dark-n-stormy-night
stories accomplish the author's goal of scaring
you into preventative actions, then what actions
are appropriate? Best stuff with proven track records
or slightly better stuff scarfed off a junk yard
car and pushed through somebody's overhaul shop?
Well, it DEPENDS on your levels of skill and how
to intend to use the airplane. We all have those
very personal decisions to make and risks to assume.
Yes, it's HARD . . . and this is what makes it
largely impossible to do turn-key designs for
every contingency. There are turn-key designs out
there and thousands of airplanes flying them.
When I set out to do the 'Connection, it was not
to compete with Tony B or Van's idea of what it
takes to make an airplane function. I wanted to
open ALL the doors we could find and attempt
to explain the physics of what goes on for each
of those discoveries. Only then could we propose
to go beyond what the turn-key or spam-can systems
have offered for decades. I apologize if anyone
believes I've mis-represented the 'Connection but
it does say right on the cover, that we're going
to DESIGN a system . . . not sell you a cookie-
cutter approach. If that's what anyone needs, please
do take advantage of the EXP-Bus, Van's kits,
and/or Tony B's books.
I wouldn't propose to push anyone . . . but I think
the numbers for performance history combined with
arguments for failure tolerant design and operation
are pretty clear. Further, they go a long way toward
making sure you will not be sharing your own
dark-n-stormy-night story with any of us soon.
However, if your project is going to fly day-vfr only
and you don't mind tinkering with stuff to keep
it working, perhaps the approaches offered by the
'Connection are not for you. We've always had
a satisfaction guaranteed policy. One can return
their book for a refund. I did get one back a few
years ago . . . it took quite some time to
decide that the 'Connection what not for him.
The book was dog eared and coffee stained. But
he got his money back anyhow.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <b.nuckolls(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Tools for knurled switch nuts |
>
>
> >
> > There are tools for the knurled switch nuts. I used to have one
> > but haven't seen it in years. When switches come in with the
> > knurled nuts, I replace them with 15/32-32 hex nuts which
> > are MUCH easier to tighten with ordinary tools.
> >
> > Bob . . .
>
>Bob -
>
>Where can you get these nuts, and also some plain, thin washers to go with
>them?
B&C has the nuts. They're not in the catalog but I think they would
sell you some.
>I can also use some 3/8" D and 1/4" D nuts and thin washers.
Are these switch nuts? The 1/4" size for miniature toggles
come in three common threads one of which is metric.
I'm not familiar with a 3/8 switch nut. Need more info.
Take a peek at lower left corner of
http://www.mouser.com/catalog/620/1155.pdf
Are these what you're looking for? There are some
washers in upper right corner of page too.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <b.nuckolls(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Open letter to the list |
Gordon, good to hear from you my friend. I was thinking about you
and Marge when we returned to OSH for the first time in 10 years.
Since we were not strapped down in a booth, it seemed unlikely that
we would cross paths.
Thanks for the heads up. I took a peek at the Extechmag.com
website. Interesting. I'll sign up for a subscription today
and see if I might like to participate in their efforts.
We'll be going back to OSH this year too. We need to make
arrangements to get connected.
Bob . . .
>-----Original Message-----
> [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com]
>
>Bob: You might check out a magazine titled "Experimental Aircraft
>Technology" by Enchanted Publications, LLC in White Sands, NM. Perhaps
>they would be receptive to articles submitted to them about electrical
>matters. The editors name is Brett Hahn and the e-mail address is:
>. They are new and I hope they succeed. There is
>some involvement with racing, so performance is important to the group.
>I believe Hahn has worked on a sport class White Lightening that has
>appeared at Reno. They have an impressive list of contributors
>including Darryl Greenamyer and Jon and Tricia Sharp. Subscription phone
>number is 505-635-7444. Nice guys.
>
>Gordon Comfort
>N363GC
>
>
>--
>Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
>
>
>-- incoming mail is certified Virus Free.
>Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Bob . . .
--------------------------------------------------------
< Throughout history, poverty is the normal condition >
< of man. Advances which permit this norm to be >
< exceeded -- here and there, now and then -- are the >
< work of an extremely small minority, frequently >
< despised, often condemned, and almost always opposed >
< by all right-thinking people. Whenever this tiny >
< minority is kept from creating, or (as sometimes >
< happens) is driven out of a society, the people >
< then slip back into abject poverty. >
< >
< This is known as "bad luck". >
< -Lazarus Long- >
<------------------------------------------------------>
http://www.aeroelectric.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Hans Teijgeler" <hans(at)jodel.com> |
| Subject: | Dual Electronic Starting Issues |
Hi list,
I guess I am one of the 1300 silent ones on this list. Joined fairly
recently and trying to catch up as much as I can.
Quick introduction: I am working on a Subaru powered Jodel DR1050. It has
flown last summer, before I decided to redo the engine and fit an NSI rather
than my own contraption. The first iteration was single strand everything
(battery, alternator, computer, ignition), the NSI has a lot of redundancy
built in.
Sanity check please guys?
I've been going over the NSI wiring diagrams and came away impressed by the
complexity of it all. Switches, keyed switches, backup switches that
overrule other switches. All very neat and dandy, and each of the systems
can take over other parts without the systems "downstream" noticing
anything.
But oh boy, what a lot of complexity. A dozen relays, two dozen diodes,
switches all over the place, and a dizzified pilot scratching his head on
his way down to terra firma with a frozen prop.
Personally, I was thinking more along the following lines:
(Keep it simple)
Battery A feeds engine bus A and EFI pump A
Battery B feeds engine bus B and EFI pump B
The engine bus will run the computer, ignition, injectors, the lot. All
except the fuel pumps.
So four switches: EFI/IGN A and B and pump A and B.
NO crossovers between the systems.
This means that in case of a double-failure (and one occuring in each
system) I am screwed, where the original NSI will likely purr on. I can live
with that.
What remains then:
* The main electrical bus
* The alternator
* The starter
The main bus I want to connect to either battery A or B via a toggle switch
(with relay to prevent the switch from going ballistic)
The alternator I wanted to connect to both batteries via a pair of 60 amp
diodes and a pair of disconnect-relays (and yes, if I completely isolate
battery A from the alternator circuit, I will use battery B to power that
relay and vice versa)
The starter would get its main power supply via either one of two external
starter solenoids. The external solenoids and the internal one are to be fed
by a push (starter) button and a toggle switch to select battery A or B.
And, coming back to the original subject: I guess it makes sense to start
the engine with the computer on one battery and selecting the other battery
for the starter.
Any comments are welcome!
Thanks,
Hans Teijgeler
www.jodel.com
PH-MGA, Jodel DR1050, Subaru engine
> -----Oorspronkelijk bericht-----
> Van: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-
> aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] Namens Duane Zavadil
> Verzonden: maandag 31 januari 2005 6:02
> Aan: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
> Onderwerp: Re: AeroElectric-List: Dual Electronic Starting Issues
>
>
>
> That is interesting - maybe with diodes to prevent backfeeding. Probably
> just one more part to break though. When diodes go bad, they go open!
>
> I like Frank's idea of a switchable voltmeter to check the backup battery
> and Georges point about nothing between the battterys and the unit other
> than a switch. I think that is the way it is now. I'll take a look at
> the schematics that George forwarded. Thanks for all the help!
> ---------- Original Message ----------------------------------
> From: TimRhod(at)aol.com
> Date: Sun, 30 Jan 2005 17:30:15 EST
>
> >
> >Does it make any sense in a duel battery duel electronic ignition setup
> to
> >run two wires from each battery to each electronic ignition.?
> >
> >
>
>
> Sent via the WebMail system at hometownaccess.net
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Ron Raby" <ronr(at)advanceddesign.com> |
| Subject: | standby regulator for sale |
To everyone:
I have a B&C SB1B-14 regulator. I took it of my firewall fast build. It has
never been used. I will sell it for $135.
Please contact me of list if interested.
Regards
Ron Raby
Lancair ES
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "923te" <923te(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: DC rated switches clamav-milter version |
0.80j on juliet.albedo.net
Why don't you just trade places.? Put teh hex nut on the front of the panel
and the knurled nut on the back of the panel.
>
> Thanks Ken and Brian,
> Yes I forgot to mention there are two nuts with the switch and one is a
hex
> nut. I like the looks of the knurled one for the outside. I had not
> considered tightening the hex nut from behind but that sounds like the way
> to go..
> Joel
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Tools for knurled switch nuts |
| From: | "John Schroeder" <jschroeder(at)perigee.net> |
>> Where can you get these nuts, and also some plain, thin washers to go
>> with
>> them?
>
> B&C has the nuts. They're not in the catalog but I think they would
> sell you some.
>
>> I can also use some 3/8" D and 1/4" D nuts and thin washers.
>
> Are these switch nuts? The 1/4" size for miniature toggles
> come in three common threads one of which is metric.
> I'm not familiar with a 3/8 switch nut. Need more info.
> Take a peek at lower left corner of
Bob -
Thanks for the info. For some reason, I could not find this page in Mouser
when I did a search for washers. The ones I pulled up were non- stock
items.
The 3/8" mounting is on a 1000 ohm pot I'm using for a dimmer.
I'm mostly interested in thin washers to protect the engraved overlays on
the panels. The lock washer that are supplied with a lot of the switches
and pots would really scar the overlays. I did find a source for washers,
but they have a zillion and you have to ask for a quote on every item.
I'll let you know if this source pans out. http://www.bokers.com/ is the
place.
Thanks for the help,
John Schroeder
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Mervin Friesen" <mefriese(at)hsd.ca> |
I'm quite new to this list and am slowly learning about the requirements of a safe
electrical system. I'm building a Sonex with a Jabiru 2200 engine. I plan
on keeping it simple with an EIS, com radio, and intercom. The plans come with
an electrical diagram. Several Sonex builder websites show what they have done.
But in comparing them with the Z appendix diagrams, I see extra things like
diodes, ov protection, and alternator protectors.
Has any one worked through a simple system with a Jabiru engine? Has any one thought
of adding a Z style diagram for the increasingly popular Jabiru? I'd appreciate
suggestions on electrical design for a system such as mine.
Thanks,
Mervin Friesen
Sonex 122
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Leo J. Corbalis" <leocorbalis(at)sbcglobal.net> |
| Subject: | Re: DC rated switches |
Get thee to an electronics store or mail order and buy some hex nuts for
yours witches. If you insist on using the knurled rings, cut a hole in thin
aluminum just larger than the outside diameter of the ring. Hand tighten
then put the alum shield over it and use your channellocks an twist. When
the pliers slip the alum shield will save the panel.
Leo
----- Original Message -----
From: "Joel Jacobs" <jj(at)sdf.lonestar.org>
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: DC rated switches
>
> Channel locks would mar them. I did find this wrench that looks like it
> might work but hesitant to order one if I'm not sure. Actually I'm
leaning
> toward trying to make one. I was thinking lightly coat the nut with
grease,
> lay it on a flat surface, glob some JB weld around the nut and slip a
piece
> of 1/2" copper water pipe over that and let it set up a bit...
>
http://www.stewmac.com/shop/Electronics,_pickups/Tools:_Toggle_switch_wrench
> .html
>
> Joel
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "George Neal E Capt AU/CCP" <Neal.George(at)maxwell.af.mil>
> To:
> Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: DC rated switches
>
>
>
> >
> > Channel Locks? :)
> >
> > Neal
> > RV-7 N8ZG
> > Fuselage ordered
> >
> > >
> > The only problem I can see is the nut that holds them in the panel is
not
> a
> > hex nut. It's a round knurled nut and I haven't found a tool to tighten
> it
> > yet.
> >
> > Joel
> > <
> >
> >
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Leo J. Corbalis" <leocorbalis(at)sbcglobal.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Shrink tube expanding? |
I found that the stuff in 91 octane car gas will expand some kinds of clear
shrink tubes back to full size. I wanted to protect the gallon numbers on a
dip tube. Other stuff worked fine. Moral = TEST first
Leo
----- Original Message -----
From: "John Schroeder" <jschroeder(at)perigee.net>
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Shrink tube expanding?
>
> Ron -
>
> There are a zillion brands/kinds of heat shrink out there. We used a piece
> from a relatively known source today and the heat gun melted it thru on
> one end!! It was no big deal because the piece was to be a buffer under a
> strain relief of an AMP CPC. After using this shrink wrap for many moons,
> I don't think it was our technique with the gun.
>
> We also used several pieces of mil spec stuff where it really counted and
> it shrinks better, shrinks more, shrinks tighter and is impossible to melt
> even when a solder gun hits it momentarily.
>
> I'd use mil spec stuff or at least "heavy duty" stuff where it counts:
> over bare connections.
>
> Cheers,
>
> John
>
>
> > It was some heat shrink i had purchased from Active Electronics.
> >
> > Is there a certain type of heat shrink tube should be using?? Or apply
> > in a certain manor to prevent this?
> >
> > Thx.
> > Ron Parigoris
> >
> >
>
>
> --
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Ken <klehman(at)albedo.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Dual Electronic Starting Issues |
clamav-milter version 0.80j
on juliet.albedo.net
Hi Hans, nice to hear from you.
I think you could simplify it more if you wanted. Which engine and
computer are you using this time?
>snip
>The alternator I wanted to connect to both batteries via a pair of 60 amp
>diodes and a pair of disconnect-relays (and yes, if I completely isolate
>battery A from the alternator circuit, I will use battery B to power that
>relay and vice versa)
>
>
Have you considered one diode at most to the second battery only, and
only one contactor to isolate the alternator in case it goes
overvoltage. If a battery can't power its own contactor then I think
it's best to leave it disconnected rather than using the other battery
to close its contactor. I am assuming that we are talking about normally
open contactors. AFAIK there is no problem charging two parallel
batteries without using any diodes. Have you looked at the ABMM aux batt
management module?
>The starter would get its main power supply via either one of two external
>starter solenoids. The external solenoids and the internal one are to be fed
>by a push (starter) button and a toggle switch to select battery A or B.
>
>And, coming back to the original subject: I guess it makes sense to start
>the engine with the computer on one battery and selecting the other battery
>for the starter.
>
>
I did not go that way. I believe the Subaru computer will start the
engine if there is enough juice to turn the engine over. Quite different
than some of the aviation systems that have been discussed here.
It seems like you may be trying to cater to a shorted battery and maybe
an inflight restart for a non-windmilling engine but I'm not sure how
realistic that is. Batteries tend to go open circuit internally or have
a bad external connection. Or a cell might short. But none of that is
likely to stop an operating engine. Cranking would be assured with
paralleled batteries. I guess I don't really see the value in separate
selectable starter contactors from each battery. I do see an advantage
in paralleling the batteries for starting, especially if you use small
batteries.
I hard wired my engine computers to a battery (not through a battery
contactor). Batteries are pretty good at dampening voltage excursions
and protecting the electronics and that is really how the car computer
was designed to be connected. Instead of conventional battery contactors
I used one contactor to feed the auxillary non-engine things like lights
and the starter. Seemed reasonable to me.
I altered my switch design a bit after considering the procedure for an
engine failure. I've got 5 engine related switches all in a row plus two
alternator switches above that but the checklist is to insure/put them
all up if the engine is not running properly. Those 5 switches insure
both ignitions, fuel pumps, and both efi systems are on. No single
switch or wire failure can kill both systems. If the engine isn't
running properly at that point I can turn a fuel valve to pressurize the
second fuel rail (which has a separate filter) but that is the only
circumstance that will ever require a fuel valve to be operated. So two
actions which can be accomplished without looking, then find a place to
land it if need be. The point is that one can have similar to a z-14
system with dual batteries, alternators, computers and ignitions that
should be much simpler to operate than any carbuerated aircraft.
The small batteries and alternators came in no heavier and cheaper than
some flooded cell single alternator installations. The two sources that
helped me most with this were of course Bob and the folks on this list,
and Garfield, so a thank you to all for sharing the learning experience
is appropriate. It took a few years but I only plan to do this once and
I wanted a step above the "cookie cutter" approach, at least in my mind.
Next step is to put gas in it when the weather warms up. Hope it works ;)
Ken
ej22
________________________________________________________________________________
I know this may not be the best forum for this but you all have a lot of
aviation contacts.
I have a friend who is looking for a Sonex kit someone has started on and
wants to sell.
I'm building a 601xl and don't know a lot of people in the Sonex circles.
Thanks,
Mike Sigman
N7092N
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "John Swartout" <jgswartout(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | E-Mag/P-Mag Electronic Ignition |
Well, it's time to fish or cut bait. I'm about to install in my Zenith
CH-801 the Mattituck-built ECI O-360 I bought without magnetos 15 months
ago with the intention to use dual electronic ignition. But after
getting brain freeze from reading the archives on building fail-safe
electrical redundancy to support all-EI engines (e.g. B&C L40 and LR-3,
plus an SD-8 aux alternator--for $1100-!-and possibly 2 batteries--talk
about weight, expense and complexity!) the idea of installing two
self-contained P-Mags that don't depend on the electrical system looks
pretty appealing. But like Hydra, you cut off one head and two more
grow in its place. I'm sure Bob or Paul or another of the suave EE's on
this list knows what kind of components go into an electronic ignition.
I don't.
So two questions:
Will these components stand up as well as a magneto to the heat and
vibration of being mounted on the engine?
How do you know when it's time to replace an electronic ignition?
Thanks a million in advance.
John
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | D Fritz <dfritzj(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | solid state relays |
Question for the group: anyone know of a source of SS relays that work up to about
7 Amp and work in a SPDT fashion? Does such a beast exist? All I seem to
find out there are SSRs that work as SPST. I'm working on a roll your own trim
relay deck.
Thanks,
Dan Fritz
---------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | James Freeman <flyeyes(at)mac.com> |
| Subject: | Re: solid state relays |
On Feb 1, 2005, at 8:31 PM, D Fritz wrote:
>
> Question for the group: anyone know of a source of SS relays that
> work up to about 7 Amp and work in a SPDT fashion? Does such a beast
> exist? All I seem to find out there are SSRs that work as SPST. I'm
> working on a roll your own trim relay deck.
>
> Thanks,
> Dan Fritz
>
>
There are others more qualified to comment than I am, but I'm curious
why you need 7 amps. That seems like a lot for most trim motors.
Have you considered an H-bridge IC like the the LMD 18200? see:
http://www.national.com/ds/LM/LMD18200.pdf
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Wayne Sweet" <w_sweet(at)comcast.net> |
| Subject: | Re: E-Mag/P-Mag Electronic Ignition |
Klaus Savior has a simple backup battery wiring diagram which is charged
through a diode for a dual CDI LSE system. I have it and had to use it one
trip when I lost the alternator (connection broke). I also installed a
voltmeter switch selectable to check the backup battery voltage. It is used
to start so no kick-back (this has not been an issue with LSE CDI system, as
far as I know). The backup battery system cost me ~$100, the cost of the 7.6
AH B&C battery.
Wayne
----- Original Message -----
From: "John Swartout" <jgswartout(at)earthlink.net>
Subject: AeroElectric-List: E-Mag/P-Mag Electronic Ignition
>
>
> Well, it's time to fish or cut bait. I'm about to install in my Zenith
> CH-801 the Mattituck-built ECI O-360 I bought without magnetos 15 months
> ago with the intention to use dual electronic ignition. But after
> getting brain freeze from reading the archives on building fail-safe
> electrical redundancy to support all-EI engines (e.g. B&C L40 and LR-3,
> plus an SD-8 aux alternator--for $1100-!-and possibly 2 batteries--talk
> about weight, expense and complexity!) the idea of installing two
> self-contained P-Mags that don't depend on the electrical system looks
> pretty appealing. But like Hydra, you cut off one head and two more
> grow in its place. I'm sure Bob or Paul or another of the suave EE's on
> this list knows what kind of components go into an electronic ignition.
> I don't.
>
> So two questions:
> Will these components stand up as well as a magneto to the heat and
> vibration of being mounted on the engine?
>
> How do you know when it's time to replace an electronic ignition?
>
> Thanks a million in advance.
>
> John
>
>
>
Try www.SPAMfighter.com for free now!
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <b.nuckolls(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: E-Mag/P-Mag Electronic Ignition |
>
>
>Well, it's time to fish or cut bait. I'm about to install in my Zenith
>CH-801 the Mattituck-built ECI O-360 I bought without magnetos 15 months
>ago with the intention to use dual electronic ignition. But after
>getting brain freeze from reading the archives on building fail-safe
>electrical redundancy to support all-EI engines (e.g. B&C L40 and LR-3,
>plus an SD-8 aux alternator--for $1100-!-and possibly 2 batteries--talk
>about weight, expense and complexity!) the idea of installing two
>self-contained P-Mags that don't depend on the electrical system looks
>pretty appealing. But like Hydra, you cut off one head and two more
>grow in its place. I'm sure Bob or Paul or another of the suave EE's on
>this list knows what kind of components go into an electronic ignition.
>I don't.
>
>So two questions:
> Will these components stand up as well as a magneto to the heat and
>vibration of being mounted on the engine?
No reason why not. At RAC we routinely designed electronics that
went through environments you wouldn't put a crowbar through.
I've talked with these guys and I plan to visit them this spring.
I've got a couple of builders who are planning to install
variations on the theme and keep me updated with their experiences.
At this time, I'd judge your risks of purchasing these products
to be quite low.
> How do you know when it's time to replace an electronic ignition?
Same way you know to replace a mag . . . it fails pre-flight run-up.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | rv-9a-online <rv-9a-online(at)telus.net> |
| Subject: | Re: E-Mag/P-Mag Electronic Ignition |
I'm installing an e-mag/p-mag pair into my RV-9A, mounted to an
AeroSport O-320.
I modified my electrical system to include a DPDT switch that will allow
the power to be switched to both mags.
This allows testing of the PMAG internal generator during run-up.
Also, the down or 'AUX' position of the switch on the E-MAG side is
wired to my Dynon EFIS internal backup battery. This allows me to
hand-prop the engine when the main battery is flat by powering up the
Dynon and switching the ignition to 'AUX' for startup.
With the Dynon OFF, the switch acts as power on/off for the mags.
It's a bit convoluted, but the run-up procedure is:
Dynon OFF
IGN ON
mag check (both work normally)
IGN OFF
mag check (only P-Mag works)
Dynon ON
IGN OFF
mag check (both work normally)
This procedure checks all operating modes and integrity of both mags.
It will also work for two E-Mags or two P-Mags with slightly different
results.
Since I already had a backup battery in the EFIS, I felt that it could
be used as emergency power for the ignition. I didn't diode couple the
main feed with the backup feed because a short circuit in the wiring
would take out both sources of power. Better to leave it in the hands
of the pilot to determine which source of power to use. If the breaker
for the E-Mag pops, I would NOT switch to AUX power. Only if I lost
main bus power would I do this.
Details can be viewed at
http://www3.telus.net/aviation/flying/RV-9A/rv-9a.html click the link
near the top. You'll need to download the free schematic software from
http://www.pcbexpress.com.
The first page of schematics has the mag wiring.
Vern Little
John Swartout wrote:
>
>Well, it's time to fish or cut bait. I'm about to install in my Zenith
>CH-801 the Mattituck-built ECI O-360 I bought without magnetos 15 months
>ago with the intention to use dual electronic ignition. But after
>getting brain freeze from reading the archives on building fail-safe
>electrical redundancy to support all-EI engines (e.g. B&C L40 and LR-3,
>plus an SD-8 aux alternator--for $1100-!-and possibly 2 batteries--talk
>about weight, expense and complexity!) the idea of installing two
>self-contained P-Mags that don't depend on the electrical system looks
>pretty appealing. But like Hydra, you cut off one head and two more
>grow in its place. I'm sure Bob or Paul or another of the suave EE's on
>this list knows what kind of components go into an electronic ignition.
>I don't.
>
>So two questions:
> Will these components stand up as well as a magneto to the heat and
>vibration of being mounted on the engine?
>
> How do you know when it's time to replace an electronic ignition?
>
>Thanks a million in advance.
>
>John
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Richard E. Tasker" <retasker(at)optonline.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Toggle switches with lock |
If you decide that you like these type switches, you can get a lot of
them at www.onlinecomponents.com for very reasonable prices.
Dick Tasker
Hans Teijgeler wrote:
>
>Also have a look at www.apem.com
>
>Their 600 series toggle switches (rated at 10A @ 30VDC) can be ordered with
>locking levers.
>
>Hans
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Kingsley Hurst" <khurst(at)taroom.qld.gov.au> |
> Has any one worked through a simple system with a Jabiru engine? Has
any one thought of adding a Z style diagram for the increasingly popular
Jabiru? I'd appreciate suggestions on electrical design for a system
such as mine.
Mervin,
Electrically, I know of no real difference between the Jabiru and Rotax
912 so suggest you check out Fig Z16.
Regards
Kingsley Hurst in Oz.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "James E. Clark" <james(at)nextupventures.com> |
| Subject: | Dual Electronic Starting Issues |
Have you considered Z-14?
I am using it and it **appears** to me to offer more with less complexity
than what you propose.
James
| -----Original Message-----
| From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-
| aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Hans Teijgeler
| Sent: Tuesday, February 01, 2005 11:31 AM
| To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
| Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Dual Electronic Starting Issues
|
|
|
| Hi list,
|
| I guess I am one of the 1300 silent ones on this list. Joined fairly
| recently and trying to catch up as much as I can.
|
| Quick introduction: I am working on a Subaru powered Jodel DR1050. It has
| flown last summer, before I decided to redo the engine and fit an NSI
| rather
| than my own contraption. The first iteration was single strand everything
| (battery, alternator, computer, ignition), the NSI has a lot of
| redundancy
| built in.
|
| Sanity check please guys?
|
| I've been going over the NSI wiring diagrams and came away impressed by
| the
| complexity of it all. Switches, keyed switches, backup switches that
| overrule other switches. All very neat and dandy, and each of the systems
| can take over other parts without the systems "downstream" noticing
| anything.
|
| But oh boy, what a lot of complexity. A dozen relays, two dozen diodes,
| switches all over the place, and a dizzified pilot scratching his head on
| his way down to terra firma with a frozen prop.
|
| Personally, I was thinking more along the following lines:
|
| (Keep it simple)
|
| Battery A feeds engine bus A and EFI pump A
| Battery B feeds engine bus B and EFI pump B
|
| The engine bus will run the computer, ignition, injectors, the lot. All
| except the fuel pumps.
|
| So four switches: EFI/IGN A and B and pump A and B.
|
| NO crossovers between the systems.
|
| This means that in case of a double-failure (and one occuring in each
| system) I am screwed, where the original NSI will likely purr on. I can
| live
| with that.
|
|
| What remains then:
| * The main electrical bus
| * The alternator
| * The starter
|
| The main bus I want to connect to either battery A or B via a toggle
| switch
| (with relay to prevent the switch from going ballistic)
|
| The alternator I wanted to connect to both batteries via a pair of 60 amp
| diodes and a pair of disconnect-relays (and yes, if I completely isolate
| battery A from the alternator circuit, I will use battery B to power that
| relay and vice versa)
|
| The starter would get its main power supply via either one of two
| external
| starter solenoids. The external solenoids and the internal one are to be
| fed
| by a push (starter) button and a toggle switch to select battery A or B.
|
| And, coming back to the original subject: I guess it makes sense to start
| the engine with the computer on one battery and selecting the other
| battery
| for the starter.
|
| Any comments are welcome!
|
| Thanks,
|
| Hans Teijgeler
| www.jodel.com
| PH-MGA, Jodel DR1050, Subaru engine
|
|
| > -----Oorspronkelijk bericht-----
| > Van: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-
| > aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] Namens Duane Zavadil
| > Verzonden: maandag 31 januari 2005 6:02
| > Aan: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
| > Onderwerp: Re: AeroElectric-List: Dual Electronic Starting Issues
| >
| >
| >
| > That is interesting - maybe with diodes to prevent backfeeding.
| Probably
| > just one more part to break though. When diodes go bad, they go open!
| >
| > I like Frank's idea of a switchable voltmeter to check the backup
| battery
| > and Georges point about nothing between the battterys and the unit
| other
| > than a switch. I think that is the way it is now. I'll take a look at
| > the schematics that George forwarded. Thanks for all the help!
| > ---------- Original Message ----------------------------------
| > From: TimRhod(at)aol.com
| > Date: Sun, 30 Jan 2005 17:30:15 EST
| >
| > >
| > >Does it make any sense in a duel battery duel electronic ignition
| setup
| > to
| > >run two wires from each battery to each electronic ignition.?
| > >
| > >
| >
| >
| > Sent via the WebMail system at hometownaccess.net
| >
| >
| >
| >
| >
| >
| >
| >
|
|
|
|
|
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Bryan Hooks" <bryanhooks(at)comcast.net> |
| Subject: | Cold Cathode and Electroluminescent Lighting |
Take this for what it's worth because I'm certainly no lighting expert,
but I ordered a few items from this company to test in my truck (before
ordering for the plane). I was not pleased with the quality of what
they sent. Some items didn't work, an inverter required re-wiring, and
some items were broken. They were happy to replace the broken item -
and I just got tired of dealing with it before I tried to get them to
replace the inverter or the items that didn't work. Just chalked it up
to a lesson learned. Cheap is sometimes just cheap.
Hopefully, mine is not the normal case and your results will vary.
-bryan
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of
bakerocb(at)cox.net
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Cold Cathode and Electroluminescent Lighting
1/30/2005
Hello Fellow Builders, I provide the below URL for your inspection and
comment.
http://www.elwirecheap.com/glowingstuff/index.html
I am not affiliated with this company in any way.
OC
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | D Fritz <dfritzj(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | Re: solid state relays |
"There are others more qualified to comment than I am, but I'm curious
why you need 7 amps. That seems like a lot for most trim motors.
Have you considered an H-bridge IC like the the LMD 18200? see:"
The pitch trim on the Velocity draws up to 2.8 Amps and the speed brake actuator
a whopping 5.5 Amps. I plan to build a trim relay deck to handle pitch, roll
trim as well as speed brake. So I figured go to 7 Amps and have some margin.
I'll look at the H-bridge, thanks.
Dan
---------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "923te" <923te(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Open letter to the list |
If it weren't for these guys and this list I would still be in the dark ages
I suppose.
My last brush with electronics was just the other day when I could often be
found riding my bicycle with a paper sack full of those Television tubes to
the grocery store around the block. They had a tube tester. I was always
fixing the family TV set in those days. Too bad the grocery store doesn't
still have electronics test facilities....:)
I really appreciate everyone's contribution to this list and hope no one
leaves including Paul Messinger.
Your Fellow Aviation Enthusiast,
Ned
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "DEAN PSIROPOULOS" <dean.psiropoulos(at)verizon.net> |
Len/listers:
I have a schematic for this type of flasher, it basically does the same thing as
the wig wag but without all the frills(turn it on and it alternately flashes
your two landing lights, that's all). The design is very simple and uses basically
4 solid state components that I purchased through Digi Key for less than
10 dollars! I didn't design the circuit but the designer is a Lancair builder
who published it in one of the electronic trade magazines. He was more than
happy to answer my question about using 100 watt aviation lights with it instead
of his 50 watt car halogens (it's plenty robust to operate at the higher
currents needed for the aviation lights). Since the schematic is public knowledge
I'm happy to share it with anyone who is interested in rolling their own
wig wag. Just contact me off list and I'll email you a scanned version of the
schematic and the basic circuit description.
Note: you need to have some basic knowledge of reading electronic schematics to
be able to do this, but this is a simple circuit that could even be built on
a radio schack perfboard if you really wanted to save money. Not for HID lights
(thier ballasts don't like being switched on and off that fast and... if you
have these really bright lights chances are you'll be seen, even in the daytime,
if you have them on)!
Dean Psiropoulos
RV-6A N197DM
Light at the end of the tunnel getting briter.
-----------------------------------------------Original message-------------------------------------
>Lenleg(at)aol.com wrote:
>RV-List message posted by: Lenleg(at)aol.com
>Anybody give me the contact info for Bob Haan ... producer of the Wig Wag????
>Thanks !!
>Len Leggette, RV-8A
>Greensboro, NC N910LL
>315 hrs
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | xl <xl(at)prosody.org> |
| Subject: | Re: COM static on 123.05 |
No COM noise until about 125 hours.
Then it was very annoying at certain frequencies.
I inspected all of the connections shields and grounds.
I tried filters on some power leads - no help with radiated noise.
I noticed that there was some play in the distributor caps.
I shimmed the clamps - and the noise went away.
Problem solved.
Joe E
N633Z @ BFI
160 hours, Jabiru 3300
http://www.cleanh2o.com/633z/
Joe E wrote:- 05 Jan 05
> I've been scratching my head and searching the archives about this
> problem. No static on 120.6 or 118.3. Static on 123.05 and 122.7.
> My COM worked fine for > 125 hours and now this. . . . . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Bill VonDane" <bill(at)vondane.com> |
| Subject: | Re: RV-List: Wig Wag |
I have come up with 4 different ways to do this with my wig-wag unit, which
has the same pinout as 'Lectric Bob's... You can check out my installation
instructions, which contain the wiring diagrams, here:
www.creativair.com/source/_inst/exfla.pdf
I sell either just the flasher, or kits with switches and connectors:
www.creativair.com
...or you can source your own parts and roll your own...
-Bill VonDane
bill(at)vondane.com
RV-8A ~ Colorado Springs
www.rv8a.com
----- Original Message -----
From: "DEAN PSIROPOULOS" <dean.psiropoulos(at)verizon.net>
Subject: RV-List: Wig Wag
--> RV-List message posted by: "DEAN PSIROPOULOS"
Len/listers:
I have a schematic for this type of flasher, it basically does the same
thing as the wig wag but without all the frills(turn it on and it
alternately flashes your two landing lights, that's all). The design is
very simple and uses basically 4 solid state components that I purchased
through Digi Key for less than 10 dollars! I didn't design the circuit but
the designer is a Lancair builder who published it in one of the electronic
trade magazines. He was more than happy to answer my question about using
100 watt aviation lights with it instead of his 50 watt car halogens (it's
plenty robust to operate at the higher currents needed for the aviation
lights). Since the schematic is public knowledge I'm happy to share it with
anyone who is interested in rolling their own wig wag. Just contact me off
list and I'll email you a scanned version of the schematic and the basic
circuit description.
Note: you need to have some basic knowledge of reading electronic schematics
to be able to do this, but this is a simple circuit that could even be built
on a radio schack perfboard if you really wanted to save money. Not for HID
lights (thier ballasts don't like being switched on and off that fast and...
if you have these really bright lights chances are you'll be seen, even in
the daytime, if you have them on)!
Dean Psiropoulos
RV-6A N197DM
Light at the end of the tunnel getting briter.
-----------------------------------------------Original
message-------------------------------------
>Lenleg(at)aol.com wrote:
>RV-List message posted by: Lenleg(at)aol.com
>Anybody give me the contact info for Bob Haan ... producer of the Wig
>Wag????
>Thanks !!
>Len Leggette, RV-8A
>Greensboro, NC N910LL
>315 hrs
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <b.nuckolls(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: RV-List: Wig Wag |
>
>I have come up with 4 different ways to do this with my wig-wag unit, which
>has the same pinout as 'Lectric Bob's... You can check out my installation
>instructions, which contain the wiring diagrams, here:
>www.creativair.com/source/_inst/exfla.pdf
>
>I sell either just the flasher, or kits with switches and connectors:
>www.creativair.com
>
>...or you can source your own parts and roll your own...
Nicely done Bill. Welcome to the fraternity of suppliers
to the only growing segment of general aviation. If you've
done a DIY article on this, I'd be pleased to post it on
aeroelectric.com
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls(at)cox.net> |
com>
>Good morning Bob,
>
>I took a liberty here and re-sending you the below e-mail as to you might
>not received last month. It would be great if you could write me your
>opinion and suggestions.
>
>Thanks a lot in advance,
>Garry V. Laznicka
>------------------------------------
>Bob,
>Thank you for your note and offer. I looked at the Appendix Z closely and
>what I'd like to adapt is the Figure Z-11 with these below modifications
>to get it to my comfort. I know that your teaching differs, but if this
>will damage nothing it should be acceptable. Regardless your comments are
>appreciated. First I have these questions:
Your changes are not major concern for functionality. I've
seen some very complex, ill conceived systems where a whole
bunch of things WORKED exactly as intended. The goal of this
or any other exercise using the AeroElectric Connection philosophy
is to do no more than is necessary to mitigate all anticipated
failures, to minimize parts count and $time$ to fabricate and
install, and minimize the amount of thinking the pilot is expected
to accomplish while things are not going right in the air.
This is what the Z-figures are all about.
January 23, 2005 - February 03, 2005
AeroElectric-Archive.digest.vol-dy