AeroElectric-Archive.digest.vol-eq
July 19, 2005 - July 30, 2005
voltage on my main buss and my essential buss. The EIS-4000 engine
monitor also gives voltage on the wire that powers it up (in my case the
essential buss). Neither of these required me to do anything other than
wire them up to the same power that I would have done otherwise. The
EIS also has alarm setpoints that can be applied to the voltage. I also
have two home grown low voltage monitors installed so if my alternator
goes offline I would think it'd be hard to miss.
Godspeed,
Phil Birkelbach - Houston Texas
RV-7 N727WB - Finishing Up
http://www.myrv7.com
Ken wrote:
>
>I understand - except that once the low voltage light comes on - will
>one have the discipline to act? I think a lot of the folks on this list
>would then want to see what the voltage is so that they believe the
>light. There is a human tendancy to not believe one indication and think
>that it must be the low voltage detector that has failed. In addition
>I'd find it comforting to be able to confirm proper voltage before
>takeoff with an electrically dependant engine as I have seen voltage
>regulators drift out of spec and cook batteries. I've also seen it where
>the airplane was able to be repaired on the ground with screwdriver,
>pliers, AND that panel mounted voltmeter because nothing else was
>available. So... rather than a loadmeter, I'd opt for a voltmeter
>capable of reading both battery voltages in addition to the low voltage
>warning devices ;) A load meter seems less useful to me and if I really
>really wanted one I'd rather use a hall sensor to avoid additional
>connections for a shunt. If there are no voltmeters then I see the value
>in a loadmeter to confirm low alternator output.
>
>Ken
>
>Robert L. Nuckolls, III wrote:
>
>
>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> I am bulding an all electric RV-9A with an electrically dependent
>>>Subaru engine. It has 2 batteries and the Subaru internal regulated
>>>alternator, and will be using the ExpBus.
>>> I am intending to measure Volts and Amps where needed to always
>>>monitor, at land (before leaving it) and in flight (to know if I have to
>>>land ASAP), if there are enough electrons to keep me out of a gliding
>>>experience.
>>> Regarding Amps, I am thinking to measure them in 3 places, the
>>>alternator output and the 2 batteries, in order to know "who" is charging
>>>and discharging and "how much" each. By an arithmetic sum, this will even
>>>give me the total current being used by the plane.
>>>Is this a good design? Where exactly should I hook the ammeter wires?
>>>Should I use shunts or Hall effect sensors? And to work as I want, I
>>>suspect I will have to put 3 separate indicators in my pannel, right?
>>>Regarding Volts, I believe I should measure them in 2 places, which are
>>>the 2 batteries. Is this right? And again, where exactly should I hook
>>>the voltmeter wires? And should I use 2 voltmeters or only one with a
>>>comuting switch?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>> Voltmeters and ammeters have minimal if any useful value for
>> flight operations. Your #1 concern as PILOT is: Are alternator(s)
>> supporting all of ship's loads and (2) are battery(ies) all on
>> line and being charged by the alternator?
>>
>> The very best WARNING tools for telling a PILOT that one of these
>> conditions is not being met is the low voltage warning light.
>> In your case (1 alt/dual bat) a low voltage warning fed from each
>> of the two battery busses would be useful. If either battery contactor
>> was open, the battery on that circuit would fall below the trip
>> point on the low voltage warning.
>>
>> If any one of those lights comes on, it's time to switch to a carefully
>> crafted, well maintained PLAN-B wherein you KNOW what endurance is
>> available to you for comfortable termination of flight.
>>
>> As a MECHANIC, it may be useful to know voltages and currents in
>> lots of places about the airplane and it's doubtful that any combination
>> of panel mounted devices and selector switches is going to tell you
>> everything you need to know to chase a rat out of the woodpile. So,
>> if probability is high that you'll need to get out the multimeter
>> to troubleshoot the airplane, then the decision as to how many places
>> you choose to monitor with your panel mounted instruments becomes
>> a toss-up.
>>
>> My suggestion is to MINIMIZE complexity, parts count, weight, and
>> cost of ownership of your airplane. A part that's NOT installed is
>> not a part that will need to be fixed later. A system that's not
>> installed is not going to be a distraction to you when you should
>> be concentrating on comfortable termination of flight.
>>
>> If it were my airplane, install the AMPs function as an alternator
>> loadmeter and provide some means by which each battery can be
>> probed independently - preferably with ACTIVE warning devices.
>> Everything else has an increasingly poor return on investment.
>>
>> Bob . . .
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: EI V/A Discharge light |
><plaurence@the-beach.net>
>
>Bob,
>
>Tim at B&C told me that the LR3 trips at approx 12.5 to
>12.7 V. The SB1A-14 trips at 13V.
>
>Peter
That tracks with the data from their information sheets.
It's been a long time ago and I don't recall now what
thinking preceded the decisions on set-points but either
is fine.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Phil White" <philwhite9(at)aol.com> |
| Subject: | Specs for FlightCom 403?? |
Anybody know about the audio quality of the FlightCom 403??
I emailed FlightCom asking for audio specs on the 403 stereo intercom,
and received the following reply:
>"I am sorry we do not have these specs
>Bruce"
Makes me think they don't much want to sell their products to builders!!
Subject: Tech specs for Flightcom 403
Can you provide Frequency responce (w/deviation in db), signal to noise
ratio? I have downloaded the manual, but it doesn't include this
information.
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Re: Dual Fuel Pumps and EFI |
| From: | "Glaeser, Dennis A" <dennis.glaeser(at)eds.com> |
>Now, can anyone tell me how to respond to a thread on the list
without having to
>copy the Subject line and paste it into a new message? I
couldn't find a "Post
>reply" button and I tried clicking the Re: (subject) line with
no joy.
>
>Thanks,
>John
I think the only way to do that is if you have the list messages or
digest sent to your email account :-( If you get individual messages
sent, you can reply easily, but if you get the digest, then you have to
delete all the stuff you don't want (or else the message gets really
long really fast).
If you use the web interface (like I do so my email inbox doesn't get
filled up) we're stuck with the cut/paste scenario.
Dennis Glaeser
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Specs for FlightCom 403?? |
Phil
> Anybody know about the audio quality of the FlightCom 403??
I regularly fly in a 2 seat Homebuilt with the Flightcom 403 as part of
Avionics install. It works well and quality sounds good.
With respect regarding the following statement...
> Makes me think they don't much want to sell their products to builders!!
Why do you say that? Their product seems OK to me and I've heard no bad
reports. Regarding the following point:
> Can you provide Frequency responce (w/deviation in db), signal to noise
> ratio?
Is it out of interest you ask, or is it part of a selection criteria?
It would have been agreeable if the information had been given but it's
certainly not mission critical data. The cockpit environment of any Aircraft
is hostile at most times relating to noise and I'm not sure that knowing the
information you asked is that relevant. Squelch selection will effect any
audio performance and will be based on the operating cycle the aircraft is
being flown.
It certainly doesn't merit an opinion that this Company is not interested.
Said in a spirit of politeness!
Regards
Gerry
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Bill Schlatterer" <billschlatterer(at)sbcglobal.net> |
| Subject: | B&C conversation on operating SD8 |
Just thought SD8 owners might be interesting in what Tim at B&C had to say
about the SD8 operating procedures. Might want to read bottom up.
Bill S
7a Ark fuse panel
-----Original Message-----
From: Tim Hedding [mailto:tim(at)bandc.info]
Subject: RE: B&C reply
Bill,
Either procedure will work but the procedure you describe is the most
efficient use of available energy. In this case load management decisions
are made in advance by the builder, not left up to the pilot and the
particular flight conditions. Careful choosing of the items on the E-bus is
important. Otherwise there may be something over on the primary bus you want
to get to.
Having both alternators on shouldn't hurt any thing. One can't "back-feed"
the other. Though I haven't tested this particular scenario, I suspect the
alternators will not load share proportionally because of different overall
gain on the alternator/regulator pairs. Depending on regulator set-points
and gains it might be possible for the SD8 to be fully loaded continuously
while the L40 is lightly loaded.
Also, because of the nature of the regulators, you may find the bus noisier
with the SD8 ON. It uses a switched full-wave bridge rectifier that
generates more noise than the L40.
The SD8 uses two sealed ball bearings. Being spline driven, there are
insignificant radial bearing loads regardless of output. Net torque required
at zero output should be only enough to overcome friction. Even though the
rotor "cogs" around because of the magnets, the energy applied to climb the
magnetic force at each pole should be equal to the energy returned going off
the backside of the pole.
As output goes up, driving torque will go up. Horsepower required will be 1
Horsepower for each 746 watts x efficiency. If the SD8 is 65% efficient,
full output will be had for around 1/4 Horsepower.
Masking of primary alternator failure as you describe is possible during
periods of low bus loads.
Hope I haven't confused you more.
Tim
-----Original Message-----
From: Bill Schlatterer [mailto:billschlatterer(at)sbcglobal.net]
Subject: RE: B&C reply
Tim, thanks for the reply but it doesn't quite add up to me yet. According
to Bob, first response to a LV/OV warning would be to 1) shut down the main
alternator, 2) endurance bus on, 3) master to off to kill whatever is on on
the primary buss and immediately drop to the endurance buss load to extend
the battery life. 4) Now SD8 on, hopefully with less than 8 amps draw on
the endurance bus. The diode is already pointed at the E-bus which is
without power, not because of a diode failure but because you have killed
the master bat switch. In this case, a diode failure would be the same as
turning the master off.
Again, this is using Z13 with your 40amp and LRC13, so there is an always
hot bus then a E-bus switch to the E-bus with the diode between the e-bus
and the primary/main. SD8 goes to the battery side/always hot side of the
starter switch so it will charge the battery and run the always hot and
E-buss with the master off..... I think?
Couple of points to confirm:
If everything is running fine and I just turn on the SD8, nothing should
happen except that I get the normal 40A off the main alternator plus 8-10
from the SD8! True?
Being gear driven, the SD8 is always spinning anyway so is there any
additional wear/load to keep it running?
I understand that the reason not to leave it running is that it would mask a
primary alternator failure. Sounds true?
Thanks for your help, the subject is a little confusing to me at this point.
Bill S
-----Original Message-----
From: Tim Hedding [mailto:tim(at)bandc.info]
Subject: B&C reply
Bill,
The standby alternator is normally OFF in this system. The warning lamp can
be left out, or better, wire it through a second pole on the standby
alternator master switch so that if the standby alternator is selected OFF,
the lamp won't stay lit. The light will still come ON if the standby
alternator is selected ON and the breaker trips. The installation
instructions were written with the idea in mind that the SD8 is the only
charging system in the airplane such as in Day/VFR aerobatic airplanes.
Normally, the Alternate E-bus Feed switch is OFF, even if the standby
alternator is ON. The Alternate E-bus Feed is turned on if the E-bus feed
diode opens and leaves the E-bus without power.
Make sense?
Tim Hedding
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | B&C conversation on operating SD8 |
| From: | "Hinde, Frank George (Corvallis)" <frank.hinde(at)hp.com> |
Interesting,
Here is what I am thinking of doing.
Use the engine monitor to measure the current from the main alternator
(SD8 will normally be off). Set an alarm at below the normal day VFR
loads (all electric airplane this will be roughly 5 amps). Use the
normal OV warning light from the main alt as a digital input to the
engine monitor. Both of these alarms will be annunciated thru the
headset.
With this annunciation, shut down the field supply to the main alt and
the kilovolt contactor...Thus main alt is completely out of circuit.
Switch on SD8 which will be wired directly to the endurance bus.
Those are plans so far.
Frank
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Bill
Schlatterer
Subject: AeroElectric-List: B&C conversation on operating SD8
-->
Just thought SD8 owners might be interesting in what Tim at B&C had to
say about the SD8 operating procedures. Might want to read bottom up.
Bill S
7a Ark fuse panel
-----Original Message-----
From: Tim Hedding [mailto:tim(at)bandc.info]
Subject: RE: B&C reply
Bill,
Either procedure will work but the procedure you describe is the most
efficient use of available energy. In this case load management
decisions are made in advance by the builder, not left up to the pilot
and the particular flight conditions. Careful choosing of the items on
the E-bus is important. Otherwise there may be something over on the
primary bus you want to get to.
Having both alternators on shouldn't hurt any thing. One can't
"back-feed"
the other. Though I haven't tested this particular scenario, I suspect
the alternators will not load share proportionally because of different
overall gain on the alternator/regulator pairs. Depending on regulator
set-points and gains it might be possible for the SD8 to be fully loaded
continuously while the L40 is lightly loaded.
Also, because of the nature of the regulators, you may find the bus
noisier with the SD8 ON. It uses a switched full-wave bridge rectifier
that generates more noise than the L40.
The SD8 uses two sealed ball bearings. Being spline driven, there are
insignificant radial bearing loads regardless of output. Net torque
required at zero output should be only enough to overcome friction. Even
though the rotor "cogs" around because of the magnets, the energy
applied to climb the magnetic force at each pole should be equal to the
energy returned going off the backside of the pole.
As output goes up, driving torque will go up. Horsepower required will
be 1 Horsepower for each 746 watts x efficiency. If the SD8 is 65%
efficient, full output will be had for around 1/4 Horsepower.
Masking of primary alternator failure as you describe is possible during
periods of low bus loads.
Hope I haven't confused you more.
Tim
-----Original Message-----
From: Bill Schlatterer [mailto:billschlatterer(at)sbcglobal.net]
Subject: RE: B&C reply
Tim, thanks for the reply but it doesn't quite add up to me yet.
According to Bob, first response to a LV/OV warning would be to 1) shut
down the main alternator, 2) endurance bus on, 3) master to off to kill
whatever is on on the primary buss and immediately drop to the endurance
buss load to extend the battery life. 4) Now SD8 on, hopefully with
less than 8 amps draw on the endurance bus. The diode is already
pointed at the E-bus which is without power, not because of a diode
failure but because you have killed the master bat switch. In this
case, a diode failure would be the same as turning the master off.
Again, this is using Z13 with your 40amp and LRC13, so there is an
always hot bus then a E-bus switch to the E-bus with the diode between
the e-bus and the primary/main. SD8 goes to the battery side/always hot
side of the starter switch so it will charge the battery and run the
always hot and E-buss with the master off..... I think?
Couple of points to confirm:
If everything is running fine and I just turn on the SD8, nothing should
happen except that I get the normal 40A off the main alternator plus
8-10 from the SD8! True?
Being gear driven, the SD8 is always spinning anyway so is there any
additional wear/load to keep it running?
I understand that the reason not to leave it running is that it would
mask a primary alternator failure. Sounds true?
Thanks for your help, the subject is a little confusing to me at this
point.
Bill S
-----Original Message-----
From: Tim Hedding [mailto:tim(at)bandc.info]
Subject: B&C reply
Bill,
The standby alternator is normally OFF in this system. The warning lamp
can be left out, or better, wire it through a second pole on the standby
alternator master switch so that if the standby alternator is selected
OFF, the lamp won't stay lit. The light will still come ON if the
standby alternator is selected ON and the breaker trips. The
installation instructions were written with the idea in mind that the
SD8 is the only charging system in the airplane such as in Day/VFR
aerobatic airplanes.
Normally, the Alternate E-bus Feed switch is OFF, even if the standby
alternator is ON. The Alternate E-bus Feed is turned on if the E-bus
feed diode opens and leaves the E-bus without power.
Make sense?
Tim Hedding
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Eric M. Jones" <emjones(at)charter.net> |
| Subject: | Re: DC fans problem |
>>
>>
>>
>>
> >Eric, would you recommend one of these Transient Voltage Suppressors
> >[Bidirectional transorb P6KE18CA] for
> >a Commercial Aviation Products 12VDC flap actuator (Model D145-00-36-3)?
> >John
>
>John,
>
>>Yes, I would.... Although Bob N. objects to sprinking these things around,
>he comes from a large family of muggles who don't believe in wizardry at
>all..
>Nope, I prefer confidence in my instruments and the repeatable
>experiment. Haven't found a "glitch" with enough energy in it to
>wake up a snoozing mosquito much less justify extra-ordinary
>prophylaxis. (See my post on the DC fan "problem" of last week).
>If one has concerns for the nano-transient, certainly a single
>trap device at the bus would be sufficient. The best trap
>is the ship's battery. Very narrow, fast rise time events
>have a difficult time getting past a capacitor too.
The best way to stop transient is "at the source". This is far more
efficient, since the farther a transient goes, the less you know about it
AND the more it radiates--even if it gets weaker.
>I'm still waiting for details of a bench test that demonstrates
>the value of adding one of these things ANYWHERE much less
>all over the airplane. Thus far all I've noticed are quotations
>from the manuals (produced by folks who sell Transorbs) that
>highly recommend a multi-junction vaccination of every electrical
>system. In light of those recommendations, I'm still marveling
>at how we managed to get along without them for nearly 90 years
>of sticking DC powered electro-whizzies in airplanes.
Well, 90 years ago (when we were just "a Hershey bar in daddy's back
pocket"), There were no integrated circuits, 2-volt microprocessors,
untra-sensitive this or that and all that square wave data that Fouriers its
way into an infinity of frequencies. The issue of EMC developed because of
the huge increase in the use of electronics, and their importance to the
user. When I began developing electronic (medical) devices, this was not
really an issue. I'm sure it was the same in the avionics biz.
> It's only recently that our systems have become sprinkled with
>such devices . . . in the latest and greatest of composite
>airplanes. Sadly, the threat is of our own design. We built a machine
>from materials having 1000 times the resistance of aluminum and
>found that the energy in a lightning strike will wake deaf dogs
>from a mile away. I didn't find a use for Transorbs in over 20 years
>of aviation systems design until DO-160 added a new section on
>indirect lightning effects where the energies applied to my
>electro-whizzy were on the order of 600v with a 2 ohm source
>impedance (300 amps)!
>Now, if anyone anticipates close encounters with strikes of the
>worst kind, all bets are off . . . I don't care how many Transorbs
>you sprinkle around the airplane if you haven't tested effectiveness
>in the lab. But for everything else, show me the schematic, parts
>list and measurements of the energies observed. I keep getting
>assurances that the evils exist but to date, not a single repeatable
>experiment to support the hypothesis....Bob . . .
Testing the effectiveness in a properly equipped lab is visciously
expensive. So we fall to "Best Practices". One can always claim that "...not
a single repeatable experiment to support the hypothesis...." Madman Muntz
would wander his TV development labs with wire cutters and remove parts.
Often the TV would just keep working. If the TV quit working he would tell
the engineer to solder it back in. I could certainly remove 50% of the
rivets in my airplane and it would fly just as well--at least for a while.
It is easy to show that a transient gets generated, but very difficult or
impossible to show it has a particular effect. But the subtle performance of
everything around it degrades in ways that are hard to quantify. So I say
just put the transorb in. The least that will happen is that the
survivability of the electrical system will improve a little.
The MAC 8A trim box has no capacitors across the motor brushes nor from
brush to ground. I added the caps but "...not a single repeatable experiment
to support the hypothesis...." was found. I didn't look at the system before
or after the modification with an oscilloscope or a spectrum analyzer.
Reasonable men can disagree on this, but my experience is that using "Best
Practices" avoids having to deal with unforseen and unpredictable issues
downstream. After completing a project, troubleshooting can be much simpler
if all the little details have been handled along the way.
(By the way...I'm still dissolving the epoxy from the Powerlink Jr. More
later).
Regards,
Eric M. Jones
www.PerihelionDesign.com
113 Brentwood Drive
Southbridge MA 01550-2705
(508) 764-2072
What the West really has to offer is honesty. Somehow, in the midst of their
horrid history, the best among the Gaijin learned a wonderful lesson. They
learned to distrust themselves, to doubt even what they were taught to
believe
or what their egos make them yearn to see. To know that even truth must be
scrutinized, it was a great discovery....
-- David Brin, "Dr. Pak's Preschool"
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Charlie England <ceengland(at)bellsouth.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Specs for FlightCom 403?? |
It's unfortunate they weren't interested in supplying the requested
info. Having said that, it's a virtual certainty that signal to noise
will be far better than needed in an a/c and unless they intentionally
did something to limit freq response, it will exceed your needs as well.
Off-the-shelf electronic parts are so good these days you have to try to
make specs worse than needed. It is possible that they might
intentionally limit freq response to the speech range to make
communications clearer, but they should be willing to tell you if that's
the case. With a stereo intercom limiting the freq response would
obviously be counter-productive.
Charlie
Phil White wrote:
>
>Anybody know about the audio quality of the FlightCom 403??
>
>I emailed FlightCom asking for audio specs on the 403 stereo intercom,
>and received the following reply:
>
> >"I am sorry we do not have these specs
>
> >Bruce"
>
>Makes me think they don't much want to sell their products to builders!!
>
>To: service(at)flightcom.net
>Subject: Tech specs for Flightcom 403
>Can you provide Frequency responce (w/deviation in db), signal to noise
>ratio? I have downloaded the manual, but it doesn't include this
>information.
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: DC fans problem |
>The best way to stop transient is "at the source". This is far more
>efficient, since the farther a transient goes, the less you know about it
>AND the more it radiates--even if it gets weaker.
Very true . . . but assuming also that the transient is worthy
of consideration. The one I saw on the "problem" fan was
trivial to the extreme.
> >I'm still waiting for details of a bench test that demonstrates
> >the value of adding one of these things ANYWHERE much less
> >all over the airplane. Thus far all I've noticed are quotations
> >from the manuals (produced by folks who sell Transorbs) that
> >highly recommend a multi-junction vaccination of every electrical
> >system. In light of those recommendations, I'm still marveling
> >at how we managed to get along without them for nearly 90 years
> >of sticking DC powered electro-whizzies in airplanes.
>
>Well, 90 years ago (when we were just "a Hershey bar in daddy's back
>pocket"), There were no integrated circuits, 2-volt microprocessors,
>untra-sensitive this or that and all that square wave data that Fouriers its
>way into an infinity of frequencies. The issue of EMC developed because of
>the huge increase in the use of electronics, and their importance to the
>user. When I began developing electronic (medical) devices, this was not
>really an issue. I'm sure it was the same in the avionics biz.
Correct . . . but from day-one every silicon circuit destined to
reside in an airplane was built to design rules suggested
by DO160/MS704. We ASSUMED robust transients and designed
the system to to stand them off. A relatively trivial task.
I've been tying silicon to busses for years and have never
felt the slightest inclination to tell users of my products that
they might want to sprinkle some added protection around
the airplane . . . had I done so, my boss would no doubt
have heard about it in short order!
I've tied all manner of silicon to the raw bus on all
manner of airplane with nary a concern for telling a pilot
or systems integrator that he should "pamper" my product
in any way.
> >It's only recently that our systems have become sprinkled with
> >such devices . . . in the latest and greatest of composite
> >airplanes. Sadly, the threat is of our own design. We built a machine
> >from materials having 1000 times the resistance of aluminum and
> >found that the energy in a lightning strike will wake deaf dogs
> >from a mile away. I didn't find a use for Transorbs in over 20 years
> >of aviation systems design until DO-160 added a new section on
> >indirect lightning effects where the energies applied to my
> >electro-whizzy were on the order of 600v with a 2 ohm source
> >impedance (300 amps)!
>
> >Now, if anyone anticipates close encounters with strikes of the
> >worst kind, all bets are off . . . I don't care how many Transorbs
> >you sprinkle around the airplane if you haven't tested effectiveness
> >in the lab. But for everything else, show me the schematic, parts
> >list and measurements of the energies observed. I keep getting
> >assurances that the evils exist but to date, not a single repeatable
> >experiment to support the hypothesis....Bob . . .
>
>Testing the effectiveness in a properly equipped lab is visciously
>expensive.
I wasn't suggesting that any OBAM aircraft builder embark on
a program to lightning proof his project. But there's no good
reason not to understand and deal logically with everything
less than lightning strikes. Transient energies for events
generated on board are small and easily managed.
>So we fall to "Best Practices". One can always claim that "...not
>a single repeatable experiment to support the hypothesis...." Madman Muntz
>would wander his TV development labs with wire cutters and remove parts.
>Often the TV would just keep working. If the TV quit working he would tell
>the engineer to solder it back in. I could certainly remove 50% of the
>rivets in my airplane and it would fly just as well--at least for a while.
Poor analogy. Madman Muntz wouldn't get to first base
on Lord Kelvin's ball field. "Best Practice" can be a
euphemism for "I don't really understand what's going on
here". Many folk working in and for the FAA operate with
the "Best Practice" rulebooks under their arms. Nobody
working for me would be allowed to sprinkle anything into
our products under the banner of "Best Practice".
"When you cannot express it in numbers, your knowledge
is of a meager and unsatisfactory kind: it may be the
beginning of knowledge, but you have scarcely, in your
thoughts, advanced to the stage of science." -LK
I would amplify that sentiment with the notion that it
doesn't rise to the level of engineering either.
>It is easy to show that a transient gets generated, but very difficult or
>impossible to show it has a particular effect.
So we make some unidentified, un-quantified allegations
and then act on the strength of the allegations? I could
expand the "Best Practice" mantra and suggest that shielding
every wire in the airplane breaks a potential coupling mode
for "noises" without ever having identified or quantified
the noise.
99.9% of the time the DO160/MS704 protocols have served us
well and they're not difficult to implement. I can't even
recall an EMC/Noise issue that turned out to be anything other
than a failure to accomplish due diligence under DO160/MS704.
There's trash on a biz-jet bus 1000x worse than the little
spike that comes out of that fan.
> But the subtle performance . . .
. . . "subtle" is a non-quantified, non-engineering term . . .
>
>of everything around it degrades in ways that are hard to quantify. So I say
>just put the transorb in. The least that will happen is that the
>survivability of the electrical system will improve a little.
>
>The MAC 8A trim box has no capacitors across the motor brushes nor from
>brush to ground. I added the caps but "...not a single repeatable experiment
>to support the hypothesis...." was found. I didn't look at the system before
>or after the modification with an oscilloscope or a spectrum analyzer.
>
>Reasonable men can disagree on this, but my experience is that using "Best
>Practices" avoids having to deal with unforseen and unpredictable issues
>downstream. After completing a project, troubleshooting can be much simpler
>if all the little details have been handled along the way.
Putting caps on the brushes of PM motors is a well founded
practice measured and validated countless times. At the same
time, thousands of MAC actuators are flying with operators
reporting no problems. But we can pump up the "Best Practice"
mantra here too . . . how about offering common mode chokes
AND capacitors and recommend them for ALL motors? Those would
do just as much as a Transorb for clipping the nanospike
on the itty-bitty fan while running some additional insignificant
noises to ground as well. Shucks, let's put the transorbs in
too. I think I saw a drawing where the author recommended THREE
transorbs per motor! This could be the beginnings of a really
good motor filter business. See:
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/super_duper_filter.pdf
All we have to do is propagate the right kinds of allegations
and worries to folks who believe they are looking to us for
good advice. Where does one draw the line? I prefer to offer
solutions to real identifiable and quantified issues and
leave "Best Practice" marketing to others.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Old radio manual source |
See:
http://www.avionix.com/manuals.html
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Bruce Gray" <Bruce(at)glasair.org> |
| Subject: | Instrument Holes in DWF format |
I couldn't agree more. When I did my panel in ACAD I miked each gage to be
sure. There was a wide variation. None agreed with the factory drawings. The
one instrument I didn't have was my Davtron clock, I used the factory
drawings for that and went ahead and had the panel laser cut.
You guessed it, the only gage that didn't fit was the clock. The bolt
pattern was 0.10 off. When I called the factory to complain, they said they
knew the drawing was wrong but hadn't corrected it yet. I told them that
their procrastination had just cost me a finished instrument panel, so they
gave me a free clock.
Bruce
www.glasair.org
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Bob C. " <flyboy.bob(at)gmail.com> |
Are there lengths that should be avoided when installing "P" Leads? In other
words, are there lengths that potentially cause more "transmitted noise" . .
. or is that an issues with shielded "P" leads?
Thanks,
Bob Christensen
RV-8 Builder in SE Iowa
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Jim Stone" <jrstone(at)insightbb.com> |
Question concerning Z-27 (one nonimpulse mag and one electronic ign.). I like
the design of this diagram but I think it a bit odd that in the event of an engine
stoppage while airborne and no windmill due to low speed, the pilot would
have to turn the mag switch off to enable the start button. With an engine failure,
especially down low in the pattern, a pilot typically is checking all switches
(ignition particularly) to on.
Am I missing something here?
Thanks,
Jim Stone
HRII
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | B&C conversation on operating SD8 |
>
>
>Interesting,
>
>Here is what I am thinking of doing.
>
>Use the engine monitor to measure the current from the main alternator
>(SD8 will normally be off). Set an alarm at below the normal day VFR
>loads (all electric airplane this will be roughly 5 amps). Use the
>normal OV warning light from the main alt as a digital input to the
>engine monitor. Both of these alarms will be annunciated thru the
>headset.
>
>With this annunciation, shut down the field supply to the main alt and
>the kilovolt contactor...Thus main alt is completely out of circuit.
>
>Switch on SD8 which will be wired directly to the endurance bus.
>
>Those are plans so far.
>
>Frank
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
>[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Bill
>Schlatterer
>To: Aeroelectric List
>Subject: AeroElectric-List: B&C conversation on operating SD8
>
>-->
>
>Just thought SD8 owners might be interesting in what Tim at B&C had to
>say about the SD8 operating procedures. Might want to read bottom up.
>
>Bill S
>7a Ark fuse panel
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Tim Hedding [mailto:tim(at)bandc.info]
>To: Bill Schlatterer
>Subject: RE: B&C reply
>
I'll embellish Tim's thoughts a bit . . .
>Bill,
>
>Either procedure will work but the procedure you describe is the most
>efficient use of available energy. In this case load management
>decisions are made in advance by the builder, not left up to the pilot
>and the particular flight conditions. Careful choosing of the items on
>the E-bus is important. Otherwise there may be something over on the
>primary bus you want to get to.
Good thought . . . "Plan-B" isn't a plan until one has
considered and accommodated all of the requirements.
>Having both alternators on shouldn't hurt any thing. One can't
>"back-feed"
>the other. Though I haven't tested this particular scenario, I suspect
>the alternators will not load share proportionally because of different
>overall gain on the alternator/regulator pairs. Depending on regulator
>set-points and gains it might be possible for the SD8 to be fully loaded
>continuously while the L40 is lightly loaded.
Correct
>Also, because of the nature of the regulators, you may find the bus
>noisier with the SD8 ON. It uses a switched full-wave bridge rectifier
>that generates more noise than the L40.
Every bus is VERY noisy . . . how big is "very", Mil-Std-704
tells us to EXPECT alternator trash with pk-pk values up
to 10% of bus voltage. An L-40 or and SD-8 installed per
recommendations and with a battery on line will not exceed
this expectation for either product. The noises inherent
in the design of either alternator are insignificant.
>The SD8 uses two sealed ball bearings. Being spline driven, there are
>insignificant radial bearing loads regardless of output. Net torque
>required at zero output should be only enough to overcome friction. Even
>though the rotor "cogs" around because of the magnets, the energy
>applied to climb the magnetic force at each pole should be equal to the
>energy returned going off the backside of the pole.
>
>As output goes up, driving torque will go up. Horsepower required will
>be 1 Horsepower for each 746 watts x efficiency. If the SD8 is 65%
>efficient, full output will be had for around 1/4 Horsepower.
>
>Masking of primary alternator failure as you describe is possible during
>periods of low bus loads.
Didn't see the conversation that started this thread but
I infer that someone was considering running both the SD-8
and L-40 at the same time . . . I've never recommended this
for exactly this reason. Loss of one alternator can be
masked by proper operation of the other. Happens on light
twins all the time.
Active notification of low voltage is the simplest, most
direct indication of poor alternator performance. There is
no imperative to speedy action when the low voltage light
comes on. If you're in the middle of an approach, ignore
it. If you're in cruising flight, finish your cup of coffee
before reacting to the light. This delay will not affect the
outcome of your flight. Hence, there is no level of safety
offered by automatically switching things. Automating these
functions only drives up parts count and tends to take the
pilot out of the loop for something he needs to know about
and can be handled at a very sedate pace.
>Hope I haven't confused you more.
>
>Tim
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Bill Schlatterer [mailto:billschlatterer(at)sbcglobal.net]
>To: Tim Hedding
>Subject: RE: B&C reply
>
>Tim, thanks for the reply but it doesn't quite add up to me yet.
>According to Bob, first response to a LV/OV warning would be to 1) shut
>down the main alternator, 2) endurance bus on, 3) master to off to kill
>whatever is on on the primary buss and immediately drop to the endurance
>buss load to extend the battery life. 4) Now SD8 on, hopefully with
>less than 8 amps draw on the endurance bus.
Not "hopefully" but very much planned for . . . you have
absolute command and control over this situation and hope
has nothing to do with it.
> . . The diode is already
>pointed at the E-bus which is without power, not because of a diode
>failure but because you have killed the master bat switch. In this
>case, a diode failure would be the same as turning the master off.
This diode is NOT going to fail open.
>Again, this is using Z13 with your 40amp and LRC13 (LR3C?), so there is an
>always hot bus (yes, the battery bus) then a E-bus switch to the E-bus
> with the diode between the e-bus and the primary/main.
Yes, this is described in detail in Figure 17-2 and the
associated text.
>SD8 goes to the battery side/always hot
>side of the starter switch so it will charge the battery and run the
>always hot and E-buss with the master off..... I think?
Yup. You got it. It's a two layer electrical system.
With the battery master OFF and SD8 ON you have the
same electrical system flying in hundreds of LongEz
and VariEz airplanes. Closing the battery master and
adding an L-40 stacks another system on top of it
for full power, normal operations leaving the smaller
system in stand-by for dealing with the rare but
possible failure of the full-up system. There are other
significant features such as dual power paths to e-bus.
>Couple of points to confirm:
>
>If everything is running fine and I just turn on the SD8, nothing should
>happen except that I get the normal 40A off the main alternator plus
>8-10 from the SD8! True?
Only if the SD-8 regulator is set high enough. It MAY
not pick up ANY load if set lower.
>Being gear driven, the SD8 is always spinning anyway so is there any
>additional wear/load to keep it running?
No.
>I understand that the reason not to leave it running is that it would
>mask a primary alternator failure. Sounds true?
Yes.
>Thanks for your help, the subject is a little confusing to me at this
>point.
Suggest you review chapter 17.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | B&C conversation on operating SD8 |
| From: | "Hinde, Frank George (Corvallis)" <frank.hinde(at)hp.com> |
My hands are trembling at the thought of disagreeing with Bob...Its of a
"David and Goliath" thing..:)
But I'm a little uncomfortable at this statement...
Active notification of low voltage is the simplest, most
direct indication of poor alternator performance. There is
no imperative to speedy action when the low voltage light
comes on. If you're in the middle of an approach, ignore
it. If you're in cruising flight, finish your cup of coffee
before reacting to the light. This delay will not affect the
outcome of your flight. Hence, there is no level of safety
offered by automatically switching things. Automating these
functions only drives up parts count and tends to take the
pilot out of the loop for something he needs to know about
and can be handled at a very sedate pace.
In the world of steam driven guages I would agree that low voltage
notification is the simplest but...
It's a second order issue, in other wods the volts drop because the
alternator has entered boat anchour teritory....The failure you are
detecting is not that the alternator has gone away, but that the battery
volts are dropping because the alt has gone.
Why is this significant?...Probably isn't if you set your trip point at
say 12.5V...Alt will normally make 14.5V and when it goes away the
battery volts will presumably get to below 12.5 pretty quickly.
However...In the modern day of the solid state engine manager you can
set an alarm on any parameter you want. So why not detect the loss of
current from the alternator directly and not wait for the battery volts
to drop?
In other words, put the current shunt in the main alternator line and
set the alarm on low current...If your normal day VFR is say 10amps, set
the alarm at 5.
While your at it also set an alarm on the battery volts as your engine
manager will be monitoring that as well, you can then use this feature
to load manage your SD8...Assuming your not still drinking the
coffee..:).
Just a thought.
Frank
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: 'P' lead length |
| From: | "Matt Prather" <mprather(at)spro.net> |
Length (within reason) is not an issue with any correctly installed "P"
lead, shielded, or otherwise.
Matt-
>
>
> Are there lengths that should be avoided when installing "P" Leads? In
> other words, are there lengths that potentially cause more "transmitted
> noise" . . . or is that an issues with shielded "P" leads?
> Thanks,
> Bob Christensen
> RV-8 Builder in SE Iowa
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net> |
>
>Question concerning Z-27 (one nonimpulse mag and one electronic ign.). I
>like the design of this diagram but I think it a bit odd that in the event
>of an engine stoppage while airborne and no windmill due to low speed, the
>pilot would have to turn the mag switch off to enable the start button.
>With an engine failure, especially down low in the pattern, a pilot
>typically is checking all switches (ignition particularly) to on.
>Am I missing something here?
No. It is a different paradigm. But consider the following:
At what IAS will your engine stop cold when deprived
of any resource necessary to keep running?
Keep in mind that 99% plus cases of engine stoppage
is due to fuel starvation. Gross failures take up most
of the rest of the cases where a restart will be impossible.
I used to marvel at my instructor's admonitions during
a loss of power diagnosis that he wanted me to fiddle
with the magneto switch. "Hey dude, when that engine
falters, the three considerations in order of importance
are fuel, Fuel and FUEL.
Depending on nature and location of stoppage in the
system, getting fuel flow restored can be nearly
instantaneous or it can take several seconds . . .
(assuming that the root cause is miss-management of
controls.) If it's gross failure in the delivery
system, then you need to make that diagnosis quickly
so that you can shift from role as systems analyst
and get back to your duties as pilot.
If one chooses to use a non-impulse coupled magneto
with a modern alternative like an e-mag, then you
should develop the habit of putting an operating
force on both switches for starter engagement . . .
e-mag ON, junk-mag OFF, even if the junk-mag is
already off. Should you find yourself long on
daydreams and short on attention in the pattern,
this habit will offer some offset in total response
time to get things going again . . . and we all
wish you well. But in the final analysis, this
"quirky" requirement for positioning of switches
is not going to be a significant contributor to
the outcome of the days events.
A step up alternative is to put an impulse coupler
under the mag and the whole issue goes away. Better
yet, hang that buggy whip on the wall to tell your
grand kids about in years hence. Put igntion
systems on your engine that are in step with the
instruments on your panel. See:
http://emagair.com
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | mark supinski <mark.supinski(at)gmail.com> |
Hello All-
After reading the 'connection and pouring over the sample system
layouts, we've selected z-19 as the model which best fits our needs.
The design of the system from the electrical level is clear to me.
What has me scratching my head is the physical layout of the system.
Specifically, where am I mounting things like battery contactors, fuse
blocks, wig-wag flashers, etc? And, how am I mechanically mounting
these elements? The wig-wag flasher is a great example -- It's
intended to be plugged into board. Thus it has no mounting
provisions.
Any pointers on the above appreciated...
Mark
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | chad-c_sip(at)stanfordalumni.org |
| Subject: | Re: Physical layout |
Z-USANET-MsgId: XID243JgTP6z0339X30
The obvious answer (but I'll be the first to bite the bullet and say it) is
wherever you can fit things.
Things like batteries are often put in later with an eye on weight and
balance. If you're making a canard pusher they'll often go in the tail.
Depending on the kit you're making there may be lots or almost no room set
aside for running wires through all sorts of places.
As far as good practice in how to mount things, you may take a walkaround your
local air show and look at various ways things are done. Much of that is an
art form as much as a science and everyones got their own way of doing
things.
Good luck!
Chad
Chad Sipperley
Lancair IV-P turbine(under construction)
Phoenix, AZ
------ Original Message ------
From: mark supinski <mark.supinski(at)gmail.com>
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Physical layout
>
> Hello All-
>
> After reading the 'connection and pouring over the sample system
> layouts, we've selected z-19 as the model which best fits our needs.
> The design of the system from the electrical level is clear to me.
> What has me scratching my head is the physical layout of the system.
> Specifically, where am I mounting things like battery contactors, fuse
> blocks, wig-wag flashers, etc? And, how am I mechanically mounting
> these elements? The wig-wag flasher is a great example -- It's
> intended to be plugged into board. Thus it has no mounting
> provisions.
>
> Any pointers on the above appreciated...
>
> Mark
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Phil Birkelbach <phil(at)petrasoft.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Physical layout |
It would be helpful to know what kind of airplane you are building.
Godspeed,
Phil Birkelbach - Houston Texas
RV-7 N727WB - Finishing Up
http://www.myrv7.com
mark supinski wrote:
>
>Hello All-
>
>After reading the 'connection and pouring over the sample system
>layouts, we've selected z-19 as the model which best fits our needs.
>The design of the system from the electrical level is clear to me.
>What has me scratching my head is the physical layout of the system.
>Specifically, where am I mounting things like battery contactors, fuse
>blocks, wig-wag flashers, etc? And, how am I mechanically mounting
>these elements? The wig-wag flasher is a great example -- It's
>intended to be plugged into board. Thus it has no mounting
>provisions.
>
>Any pointers on the above appreciated...
>
>Mark
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | mark supinski <mark.supinski(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Physical layout |
Sorry 'bout that -- we're building a Mustang II. This design has a 25
gallon fuel tank 8 inches forward of the instrument panel. The
challenge being there is little / no internal firewall space to mount
things.
Mark
On 7/20/05, Phil Birkelbach wrote:
>
> It would be helpful to know what kind of airplane you are building.
>
> Godspeed,
>
> Phil Birkelbach - Houston Texas
> RV-7 N727WB - Finishing Up
> http://www.myrv7.com
>
>
> mark supinski wrote:
>
> >
> >Hello All-
> >
> >After reading the 'connection and pouring over the sample system
> >layouts, we've selected z-19 as the model which best fits our needs.
> >The design of the system from the electrical level is clear to me.
> >What has me scratching my head is the physical layout of the system.
> >Specifically, where am I mounting things like battery contactors, fuse
> >blocks, wig-wag flashers, etc? And, how am I mechanically mounting
> >these elements? The wig-wag flasher is a great example -- It's
> >intended to be plugged into board. Thus it has no mounting
> >provisions.
> >
> >Any pointers on the above appreciated...
> >
> >Mark
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: "P" lead length |
>
>Are there lengths that should be avoided when installing "P" Leads? In other
>words, are there lengths that potentially cause more "transmitted noise" . .
>. or is that an issues with shielded "P" leads?
No length issues. You DO want to ground the shield
at the engine end only . . . and I recommend you use
the shield to PROVIDE ground at the switch end make no
other connections at switch end as suggested in numerous
other texts.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: KMA20 installation manual or ?? |
>
>Hello,
>
>I'm installing a KMA20 and while I have the pin-out from
>aeroelectric.com I need a couple of questions answered.
>
>It appears that the KMA20 has a speaker input and a phone level input
>from each Comm. The TKM radio has a speaker output and a Comm. output.
>I'm assuming that I should not be connecting both of these, but I'm not
>sure.
>
>Does the KMA20 have a speaker level and a phone level input available
>just so you can connect a navcom that may only have one or the other.
>I'm worried that both of these inputs will be summed if I connect them
>both and the overall volume will be twice as loud as it should.
>
>Does anyone have a KMA20 install manual handy that may have the answer
>to this?
did you see my post a couple of days ago for the folks who
offer reprints of old installation manuals?
See:
http://www.avionix.com/manuals.html
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net> overvoltage protection |
| Subject: | Re: A question on my crossbar |
overvoltage protection
>
>Hi Bob
>
>It's obvious that you are a busy man and I thank you for your
>observations. No this is not a 40amp breaker. It's a small automotive
>relay with 40 amp rated contacts. It provides an OV disconnect for a 20
>amp PM alternator. The relay coil draws about 130 ma. The circuit
>breaker that feeds this relay coil, and that the Crowbar OVP trips, is
>a 2 1/2 amp (two and a half amp) breaker.
>
>The OVP is not from B&C. It is homemade according to the revision dated
>4/16/2 and constructed with the recommended Digi-key parts. Since you
>have confirmed that this is unexpected behaviour, I will do some more
>investigation and let you know what I find.
>
>This is on a modified Z-14 and it is not even on the battery that feeds
>the primary systems of my electrically dependant engine. This battery
>and PM alternator feeds the backup engine systems. I'll start by
>investigating whether the OVP for the other alternator behaves similarly
>and perhaps put a scope on the 22 uF capacitor and the SCR. If I don't
>learn anything useful and it is still exhibiting this behaviour, I'll be
>happy to donate it to the cause if you still want to see it but it is
>just a homemade unit.
Yes. Send it to me. First, I'll test it for performance
and then perhaps I'll make some mods and return it to
see if it makes any difference.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | <jlundberg(at)cox.net> |
Does anyone know where to buy coiled PTT wire. Its the cord that goes from the
PTT switch on the yoke to the mike key terminal on the mic jack.
Thx.
John
Los Angeles, CA
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Vern W." <vernw(at)ev1.net> |
| Subject: | Re: B&C conversation on operating SD8 |
Allow me to jump in here, Frank.
The moment a battery goes offline from it's alternator, it will go to
less than 12.5 volts right away, and I do mean IMMEDIATELY if it has any
kind of load on it (which it will).
It's not a matter of "bleeding" off voltage and having the battery "use
up" capacity before it gets to 12.5 volts without the alternator online, but
rather, that the battery immediately will go to it's "at rest" operating
voltage, and that's going to happen right away.
Any instrument panel load will pull the battery voltage down to trigger
the low-volt warning; in other words, you'll get the low voltage indication
at the moment the alternator goes open, and not "later" when the battery
runs down.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but amperage draw on the battery isn't going to
change when the alternator goes offline because whats drawing amps are the
avionics in your instrument panel, not the alternator. When the alternator
goes down, I don't think there would be any change in current draw but the
voltage will cause an immediate warning, and I think that's what you're
looking for.
Vern
----- Original Message -----
From: "Hinde, Frank George (Corvallis)" <frank.hinde(at)hp.com>
Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: B&C conversation on operating SD8
>
> My hands are trembling at the thought of disagreeing with Bob...Its of a
> "David and Goliath" thing..:)
>
> But I'm a little uncomfortable at this statement...
>
> Active notification of low voltage is the simplest, most
> direct indication of poor alternator performance. There is
> no imperative to speedy action when the low voltage light
> comes on. If you're in the middle of an approach, ignore
> it. If you're in cruising flight, finish your cup of coffee
> before reacting to the light. This delay will not affect the
> outcome of your flight. Hence, there is no level of safety
> offered by automatically switching things. Automating these
> functions only drives up parts count and tends to take the
> pilot out of the loop for something he needs to know about
> and can be handled at a very sedate pace.
>
>
> In the world of steam driven guages I would agree that low voltage
> notification is the simplest but...
>
> It's a second order issue, in other wods the volts drop because the
> alternator has entered boat anchour teritory....The failure you are
> detecting is not that the alternator has gone away, but that the battery
> volts are dropping because the alt has gone.
>
> Why is this significant?...Probably isn't if you set your trip point at
> say 12.5V...Alt will normally make 14.5V and when it goes away the
> battery volts will presumably get to below 12.5 pretty quickly.
>
> However...In the modern day of the solid state engine manager you can
> set an alarm on any parameter you want. So why not detect the loss of
> current from the alternator directly and not wait for the battery volts
> to drop?
>
> In other words, put the current shunt in the main alternator line and
> set the alarm on low current...If your normal day VFR is say 10amps, set
> the alarm at 5.
>
> While your at it also set an alarm on the battery volts as your engine
> manager will be monitoring that as well, you can then use this feature
> to load manage your SD8...Assuming your not still drinking the
> coffee..:).
>
> Just a thought.
>
> Frank
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: PTT coiled cord |
>
>
>Does anyone know where to buy coiled PTT wire. Its the cord that goes
>from the PTT switch on the yoke to the mike key terminal on the mic jack.
The ones we use in production are usually custom made.
Not cheap. You can find a variety of coil-cord products
in the wild that can be adapted. My personal favorite
are flash sync cords for photographic strobes. Used
camera stores will often have boxes full of coiled
cords of various kinds at very reasonable prices. You can
get them from places like Ebay too.
http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&category=64354&item=7523536455&rd=1
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Peter Mather" <peter(at)mather.com> |
| Subject: | Zeftronics vs B&C |
Can anyone give me pros and cons of the Zeftronics regulators such as R15V00-A
compared to the LR3C-14
Thanks
Peter
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | question on b-lead protection |
>I have a question on alternator circuit breakers. As I understand from
>your writings, you recommend using an alternator (B lead) breaker rated at
>20% more than the rated capacity of the alternator. My question is this;
>What are we protecting with that breaker, the wiring from the alternator
>to the bus or the alternator itself?
Circuit protection always goes on the SOURCE end of
the at-risk wire. In this case the at-risk wire is the
b-lead and the hazardous source is the BATTERY. An
alternator is incapable of burning its own b-lead.
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: | B&C conversation on operating SD8 |
| From: | "Hinde, Frank George (Corvallis)" <frank.hinde(at)hp.com> |
Oh I see, that explains why one uses batt volts to detect loss of
alt...cool.
I was considering putting the ammeter shunt in the B lead from the alt.
Thus if the alt dies the current in the B lead itself will go to zero.
That was how I was going to detect the failure. The disadvantage is that
I will loose amperage information if I loose the main alternator. Not
entirely great as I have to carefully manage loads when using the SD8.
OK I got it now...I will use volts and use the ammeter shut to detect
actual electrical load.
Thanks
Frank
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Vern
W.
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: B&C conversation on operating SD8
Allow me to jump in here, Frank.
The moment a battery goes offline from it's alternator, it will go
to less than 12.5 volts right away, and I do mean IMMEDIATELY if it has
any kind of load on it (which it will).
It's not a matter of "bleeding" off voltage and having the battery
"use up" capacity before it gets to 12.5 volts without the alternator
online, but rather, that the battery immediately will go to it's "at
rest" operating voltage, and that's going to happen right away.
Any instrument panel load will pull the battery voltage down to
trigger the low-volt warning; in other words, you'll get the low voltage
indication at the moment the alternator goes open, and not "later" when
the battery runs down.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but amperage draw on the battery isn't
going to change when the alternator goes offline because whats drawing
amps are the avionics in your instrument panel, not the alternator. When
the alternator goes down, I don't think there would be any change in
current draw but the voltage will cause an immediate warning, and I
think that's what you're looking for.
Vern
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Zeftronics vs B&C |
>
>Can anyone give me pros and cons of the Zeftronics regulators such as
>R15V00-A compared to the LR3C-14
The R15V00 does not include LV warning. You can achieve
the same functionality as LR3C-14 by installing an external
low voltage warning.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Peter Mather" <peter(at)mather.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Zeftronics vs B&C |
Bob
The new rev A version appears to include LV unless I'm mis-interpreting the spec.
Regards
Peter
----- Original Message -----
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net>
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Zeftronics vs B&C
Date: Thu, 21 Jul 2005 09:23:34 -0500
>
>
>
>
> >
> > Can anyone give me pros and cons of the Zeftronics regulators such as
> > R15V00-A compared to the LR3C-14
>
> The R15V00 does not include LV warning. You can achieve
> the same functionality as LR3C-14 by installing an external
> low voltage warning.
>
> Bob . . .
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Ernest Christley <echristley(at)nc.rr.com> |
| Subject: | Re: AeroElectric-List Digest: 18 Msgs - 07/20/05 |
>>Couple of points to confirm:
>>
>>If everything is running fine and I just turn on the SD8, nothing should
>>happen except that I get the normal 40A off the main alternator plus
>>8-10 from the SD8! True?
>>
>>
>
> Only if the SD-8 regulator is set high enough. It MAY
> not pick up ANY load if set lower.
>
>
>
>
>>I understand that the reason not to leave it running is that it would
>>mask a primary alternator failure. Sounds true?
>>
>>
>
> Yes.
>
>
Why couldn't you just set the regulator of the SD-8 (or any backup
alternator) to a voltage halfway between the battery and the primary.
Set the primary generator to 14.3, and the backup to 13.8. If the
primary fails, the voltage drops enough to provide active notification,
AND the backup comes on line immediately without pilot intervention.
Assuming the backup can handle it the load, tying it directly to the
endurance bus could even eliminate the need to switch off the master if
the pilot felt so inclined.
A dual color LED would go yellow then red as the voltage dropped from
14.3 to 13.8 to 12. On startup, there would just be a very brief
transition from red to yellow to off, as the electron pusher pulled the
battery back up from the starting drain (Would it be so brief as to be
unnoticeable?)
This doesn't sound like it would be very difficult to implement, but
would it work?
--
,|"|"|, |
----===<{{(oQo)}}>===---- Dyke Delta |
o| d |o www.ernest.isa-geek.org |
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Richard Sipp" <rsipp(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | Re: B&C conversation on operating SD8 |
This is exactly how my airplane operates. Low voltage light comes on within
10 seconds or so of engine or alt shutdown.
Dick Sipp
----- Original Message -----
From: "Vern W." <vernw(at)ev1.net>
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: B&C conversation on operating SD8
>
> Allow me to jump in here, Frank.
> The moment a battery goes offline from it's alternator, it will go to
> less than 12.5 volts right away, and I do mean IMMEDIATELY if it has any
> kind of load on it (which it will).
> It's not a matter of "bleeding" off voltage and having the battery "use
> up" capacity before it gets to 12.5 volts without the alternator online,
> but
> rather, that the battery immediately will go to it's "at rest" operating
> voltage, and that's going to happen right away.
> Any instrument panel load will pull the battery voltage down to trigger
> the low-volt warning; in other words, you'll get the low voltage
> indication
> at the moment the alternator goes open, and not "later" when the battery
> runs down.
> Correct me if I'm wrong, but amperage draw on the battery isn't going
> to
> change when the alternator goes offline because whats drawing amps are the
> avionics in your instrument panel, not the alternator. When the alternator
> goes down, I don't think there would be any change in current draw but the
> voltage will cause an immediate warning, and I think that's what you're
> looking for.
>
> Vern
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Hinde, Frank George (Corvallis)" <frank.hinde(at)hp.com>
> To:
> Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: B&C conversation on operating SD8
>
>
>> (Corvallis)"
>
>>
>> My hands are trembling at the thought of disagreeing with Bob...Its of a
>> "David and Goliath" thing..:)
>>
>> But I'm a little uncomfortable at this statement...
>>
>> Active notification of low voltage is the simplest, most
>> direct indication of poor alternator performance. There is
>> no imperative to speedy action when the low voltage light
>> comes on. If you're in the middle of an approach, ignore
>> it. If you're in cruising flight, finish your cup of coffee
>> before reacting to the light. This delay will not affect the
>> outcome of your flight. Hence, there is no level of safety
>> offered by automatically switching things. Automating these
>> functions only drives up parts count and tends to take the
>> pilot out of the loop for something he needs to know about
>> and can be handled at a very sedate pace.
>>
>>
>> In the world of steam driven guages I would agree that low voltage
>> notification is the simplest but...
>>
>> It's a second order issue, in other wods the volts drop because the
>> alternator has entered boat anchour teritory....The failure you are
>> detecting is not that the alternator has gone away, but that the battery
>> volts are dropping because the alt has gone.
>>
>> Why is this significant?...Probably isn't if you set your trip point at
>> say 12.5V...Alt will normally make 14.5V and when it goes away the
>> battery volts will presumably get to below 12.5 pretty quickly.
>>
>> However...In the modern day of the solid state engine manager you can
>> set an alarm on any parameter you want. So why not detect the loss of
>> current from the alternator directly and not wait for the battery volts
>> to drop?
>>
>> In other words, put the current shunt in the main alternator line and
>> set the alarm on low current...If your normal day VFR is say 10amps, set
>> the alarm at 5.
>>
>> While your at it also set an alarm on the battery volts as your engine
>> manager will be monitoring that as well, you can then use this feature
>> to load manage your SD8...Assuming your not still drinking the
>> coffee..:).
>>
>> Just a thought.
>>
>> Frank
>>
>>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Zeftronics vs B&C |
>
>Bob
>
>The new rev A version appears to include LV unless I'm mis-interpreting
>the spec.
I've looked the spec sheet over at:
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Mfgr_Data/Zeftronics/R15V00RevA-PIT.pdf
The way this is set up, I believe that "low volts" is inferred
by noting alternator shutdown. The low volts sensor is not an
independently powered monitor of actual bus voltage. The Zeftronics
implementation seems to be a more sophisticated version of the
alternator "idiot light" of years gone by.
I suspect the regulation and ovp features are just fine. I'd
still recommend a separate LV Warning system of some variety.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Phil Birkelbach <phil(at)petrasoft.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Physical layout |
I mounted one of those Wig-Wag flashers by using some E6000 and sticking
a piece of aluminum with a hole drilled in it to the side of the thing.
Nothing says you can't put the little beast in a wing root or under the
baggage floor or back in the fuselage.
You would want your battery contactor as close to the battery as
practical. My battery, battery contactor, starter contactor and
alternator contactor (internally regulated alternator) are on the
forward side of my firewall.
Fuse blocks are another question. Many people build nice hinged frames
to mount them too that can swing from under the panel. I have mine on
the firewall in front of the passenger rudder pedals. If you give up on
the idea of being able to replace fuses in flight then your options go
up. It's not a bad idea to keep the main buss pretty close to those
contactors too but in your case that may be difficult. How about face
down under the panel? A rough landing might dislodge a fuse or two :-)
but it'd be easier to get to than mine.
I have quite a bit of electro-whizzy things under the seat covers.
Things like flap and trim relays seem to go well there. It may be a
good place for the wig-wag widget too.
I'm not very familiar with the Mustang II so I am just throwing out
ideas. Sometimes the "where do I mount this?" question is the worst
part of the install. Figuring out where to run the wires is a close
second. Actually running the wire is the easy part. Tedious but easy.
Godspeed,
Phil Birkelbach - Houston Texas
RV-7 N727WB - Finishing Up
http://www.myrv7.com
mark supinski wrote:
>
>Sorry 'bout that -- we're building a Mustang II. This design has a 25
>gallon fuel tank 8 inches forward of the instrument panel. The
>challenge being there is little / no internal firewall space to mount
>things.
>
>Mark
>
>On 7/20/05, Phil Birkelbach wrote:
>
>
>>
>>It would be helpful to know what kind of airplane you are building.
>>
>>Godspeed,
>>
>>Phil Birkelbach - Houston Texas
>>RV-7 N727WB - Finishing Up
>>http://www.myrv7.com
>>
>>
>>mark supinski wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>>
>>>Hello All-
>>>
>>>After reading the 'connection and pouring over the sample system
>>>layouts, we've selected z-19 as the model which best fits our needs.
>>>The design of the system from the electrical level is clear to me.
>>>What has me scratching my head is the physical layout of the system.
>>>Specifically, where am I mounting things like battery contactors, fuse
>>>blocks, wig-wag flashers, etc? And, how am I mechanically mounting
>>>these elements? The wig-wag flasher is a great example -- It's
>>>intended to be plugged into board. Thus it has no mounting
>>>provisions.
>>>
>>>Any pointers on the above appreciated...
>>>
>>>Mark
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Richard Riley <richard(at)RILEY.NET> |
| Subject: | Doublechecking before I cut metal |
I'm just about to start cutting metal for my instrument panel and wanted to
do one, final sanity check.
Configuration:
Canard Pusher
Lycoming 540
L-60 and LR-3
SD-8
2 lightspeed electronic ignitions
All electric panel
2 17 AH batteries, Figure Z-13 plus Z-30, sd 8 regulator set to 13 volts
I believe I need holes in the panel for
1) DPDT DC power master switch (locking)
2) SPST Aux power
3) SPST momentary starter (pushbutton)
4) SPST Main alt field (mini, locking)
5) SPST Aux alt field (mini, locking)
Am I correct so far? Any other switch holes I need for the power
system? Of course, I also have the functional switches - fuel pump,
lights, etc.
What do I have to add to parallel the 2 batteries for starting?
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Dj Merrill <deej(at)thayer.dartmouth.edu> |
| Subject: | alternate air conditioning |
These guys may have hit upon an excellent air
conditioning option that would work well in small aircraft.
I wonder how much electricity it takes?
http://www.sltrib.com/utah/ci_2841984
Really cool invention brings teens awards
Physics students: They came up with an environmentally friendly,
economical air conditioner
By Jessica Ravitz
The Salt Lake Tribune
Riverton High School students Tyler Lyon, left, and Daniel Winegar won
Ricoh's Sustainable Development Award for their invention. (Danny Chan
La/The Salt Lake Tribune )
BLUFFDALE - The code name, Space Beast, was one they came up with in the
wee hours of the night.
Tyler Lyon, Daniel Winegar and Chad Thornley were overtired and
giddy as they tackled a science fair project. Their idea: Eliminate the
use of Freon in automobile air-conditioning systems by relying on the
Peltier effect - of course.
"We aren't planning our lives around making air conditioners," Lyon
explained. "We wanted to do something to help the environment and the
economy."
But what began as a Riverton High School physics class assignment
nearly two years ago has morphed into an award-winning, internationally
recognized invention.
Lyon and Winegar, two recent Riverton graduates - Thornley graduated
in 2004 and is now on an LDS Church mission - won the first-ever Ricoh
Sustainable Development Award in May when they competed against 1,400
other worldwide invitation-only entries at the Intel International
Science and Engineering Fair in Phoenix.
Aside from the $50,000 college scholarship the two 18-year-olds will
share, the budding engineers are jetting off to Japan today for a 10-day
visit on Ricoh's dime. The office equipment and electronics company, a
leader in the field of sustainable development, has invited the Utahns
to attend the World Expo, address Ricoh executives, tour their research
and development lab, meet with government officials - including the
Minister of the Environment - and sit down with Tokyo University professors.
"It's been a total, unbelievable dream," marveled Tyler's mom, Diane
Lyon, last week. "They're just typical boys. But when someone believes
in you, amazing things can happen."
Physics teacher Kari Lewis, who recently left Riverton High, said
trusting in Lyon and Winegar was easy.
"They came up with this idea . . . and they made it work," she said.
"It's a perfect solution to an incredible problem."
Today, the young inventors say, U.S. drivers use about 7.9 billion
gallons of fuel each year to run their air-conditioners, which draw
power from the engine. By adopting their contraption - which taps into
the electrical system, using fans to blow hot air through five Peltier
chips and then releasing cold air - they say the country stands to save
3.9 billion gallons of fuel annually, or about $10 billion based on
current gas prices.
Furthermore, the product would free drivers from Freon - which
despite improvements, remains an ozone-depleting chemical in current
air-conditioners. The Peltier chips, which they purchased on eBay for
$9.99 each, have a life span of 20 to 30 years and an unfaltering
cooling capacity. And like every component in the Space Beast, which can
be minimized in size to about 2 inches in width, the chips are recyclable.
As a young boy, Lyon's parents said he tore apart and reassembled
household electronics - CD players, clocks, an old stereo that didn't
work until he fixed it. And while Daniel's mom, LouAnn Winegar, was
grateful her son was "not a take-apart-person," she said her boy's love
for science, engineering and computers has been consistent.
"It's nice to see all of his years of interest and hard work being
recognized," she said.
The two-year process of fine-tuning, however, was not without its
glitches. When the teens were trying to convert a blow-dryer fan from AC
to DC power, a miswiring gave Lyon a doozy of a shock - "a low-enough
amp that it couldn't really stop my heart," he said. And there was that
computer power strip that they managed to ignite, before throwing it
outside in the snow, only to retrieve it two days later to recycle its
parts.
Despite the setbacks, and bouts of procrastination, the teens didn't
give up. When they weren't playing computer games, skiing, snowboarding
or, in Lyon's case, rock-climbing, they buckled down, sometimes working
through the night. Their focus nearly cost them graduation - they had to
scramble to make up work in other classes - but they accomplished what
others couldn't.
After they had already begun their work, Lyon and Winegar learned
about a 1964 General Motors analysis that explored the idea before the
car company concluded it wasn't possible.
Going in with open minds, however, the teens were not deterred and
pulled off what GM rejected.
"Nobody told them it couldn't be done," Robert Lyon, Tyler's dad, said.
The first time he felt a cold gust of air successfully come through
the system, Winegar said he remembers saying: "We may actually have
something here."
Looks like they do. A Salt Lake City attorney is working to secure a
patent. The Environmental Protection Agency called to express interest
Tuesday morning. And though repeated attempts to communicate with Gov.
Jon Huntsman Jr. have gone unanswered, high officials in Japan - an
ocean away - are awaiting the arrival of Riverton's young inventors.
--
Dj Merrill
Sportsman 2+2 Builder #7118
"TSA: Totally Screwing Aviation"
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Jim Stone" <jrstone(at)insightbb.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Doublechecking before I cut metal |
Richard,
Don't cut yet. Keep working the plan. When you can draw it all out in
detail and are happy with it and understand it all, cut your panel. Until
that time, you risk having to redo it. I spent years monitoring this list,
rereading the Aeroelectric connection before I was at the point of cutting.
Good luck,
Jim Stone
----- Original Message -----
From: "Richard Riley" <richard(at)RILEY.NET>
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Doublechecking before I cut metal
>
> I'm just about to start cutting metal for my instrument panel and wanted
> to
> do one, final sanity check.
>
> Configuration:
>
> Canard Pusher
> Lycoming 540
> L-60 and LR-3
> SD-8
> 2 lightspeed electronic ignitions
> All electric panel
>
> 2 17 AH batteries, Figure Z-13 plus Z-30, sd 8 regulator set to 13 volts
>
> I believe I need holes in the panel for
>
> 1) DPDT DC power master switch (locking)
> 2) SPST Aux power
> 3) SPST momentary starter (pushbutton)
> 4) SPST Main alt field (mini, locking)
> 5) SPST Aux alt field (mini, locking)
>
> Am I correct so far? Any other switch holes I need for the power
> system? Of course, I also have the functional switches - fuel pump,
> lights, etc.
>
> What do I have to add to parallel the 2 batteries for starting?
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: "P" lead length |
| From: | "John Schroeder" <jschroeder(at)perigee.net> |
wrote:
> No length issues. You DO want to ground the shield at the engine end
> only . . . and I recommend you use
> the shield to PROVIDE ground at the switch end make no other
> connections at switch end as suggested in numerous
> other texts.
Bob -
Do you have a wiring diagram for this?
The reason I ask is that we wired the mags as shown in one of your
wirebook sheets and it does not seem to work. The mag stays grounded
regardless of the position of the toggle switch.
Using single conductor, shielded, 18AWG, it is wired: Conductor (p-lead)
from the stud on the mag to pin 2 of the 1-3 switch. Shield from pin 3 of
the switch to a screw on the mag.
I can send a .dwg or .pdf file if you wish.
Thanks,
John Schroeder
--
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | alternate air conditioning |
| From: | "RV Builder (Michael Sausen)" <rvbuilder(at)sausen.net> |
Interesting. The technology certainly isn't new but the implementation is. I would expect it to use a fair amount of power. These have been used in fish tanks for some time. See <http://www.drsfostersmith.com/Product/Prod_Display.cfm?pcatid4902&inm1&N2004+113768+113565> for just one example.
One thing the article forgot to mention is it takes engine power to spin the
alternator and make the electricity that the thing uses. Now if it is more efficient
than the existing freon based system (doubtful) then we might have something.
Michael Sausen
-10 #352 Wings (After OSH)
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Dj Merrill
Subject: AeroElectric-List: alternate air conditioning
-->
These guys may have hit upon an excellent air conditioning option that
would work well in small aircraft.
I wonder how much electricity it takes?
http://www.sltrib.com/utah/ci_2841984
Really cool invention brings teens awards Physics students: They came up with an
environmentally friendly, economical air conditioner By Jessica Ravitz The Salt
Lake Tribune
Riverton High School students Tyler Lyon, left, and Daniel Winegar won
Ricoh's Sustainable Development Award for their invention. (Danny Chan
La/The Salt Lake Tribune )
BLUFFDALE - The code name, Space Beast, was one they came up with in the wee hours
of the night.
Tyler Lyon, Daniel Winegar and Chad Thornley were overtired and giddy as they
tackled a science fair project. Their idea: Eliminate the use of Freon in automobile
air-conditioning systems by relying on the Peltier effect - of course.
"We aren't planning our lives around making air conditioners," Lyon explained.
"We wanted to do something to help the environment and the economy."
But what began as a Riverton High School physics class assignment nearly two
years ago has morphed into an award-winning, internationally recognized invention.
Lyon and Winegar, two recent Riverton graduates - Thornley graduated in 2004
and is now on an LDS Church mission - won the first-ever Ricoh Sustainable Development
Award in May when they competed against 1,400 other worldwide invitation-only
entries at the Intel International Science and Engineering Fair in
Phoenix.
Aside from the $50,000 college scholarship the two 18-year-olds will share,
the budding engineers are jetting off to Japan today for a 10-day visit on Ricoh's
dime. The office equipment and electronics company, a leader in the field
of sustainable development, has invited the Utahns to attend the World Expo,
address Ricoh executives, tour their research and development lab, meet with
government officials - including the Minister of the Environment - and sit down
with Tokyo University professors.
"It's been a total, unbelievable dream," marveled Tyler's mom, Diane Lyon,
last week. "They're just typical boys. But when someone believes in you, amazing
things can happen."
Physics teacher Kari Lewis, who recently left Riverton High, said trusting
in Lyon and Winegar was easy.
"They came up with this idea . . . and they made it work," she said.
"It's a perfect solution to an incredible problem."
Today, the young inventors say, U.S. drivers use about 7.9 billion gallons
of fuel each year to run their air-conditioners, which draw power from the engine.
By adopting their contraption - which taps into the electrical system, using
fans to blow hot air through five Peltier chips and then releasing cold air
- they say the country stands to save
3.9 billion gallons of fuel annually, or about $10 billion based on current gas
prices.
Furthermore, the product would free drivers from Freon - which despite improvements,
remains an ozone-depleting chemical in current air-conditioners. The
Peltier chips, which they purchased on eBay for
$9.99 each, have a life span of 20 to 30 years and an unfaltering cooling capacity.
And like every component in the Space Beast, which can be minimized in size
to about 2 inches in width, the chips are recyclable.
As a young boy, Lyon's parents said he tore apart and reassembled household electronics
- CD players, clocks, an old stereo that didn't work until he fixed it.
And while Daniel's mom, LouAnn Winegar, was grateful her son was "not a take-apart-person,"
she said her boy's love for science, engineering and computers
has been consistent.
"It's nice to see all of his years of interest and hard work being recognized,"
she said.
The two-year process of fine-tuning, however, was not without its glitches.
When the teens were trying to convert a blow-dryer fan from AC to DC power, a
miswiring gave Lyon a doozy of a shock - "a low-enough amp that it couldn't really
stop my heart," he said. And there was that computer power strip that they
managed to ignite, before throwing it outside in the snow, only to retrieve
it two days later to recycle its parts.
Despite the setbacks, and bouts of procrastination, the teens didn't give up.
When they weren't playing computer games, skiing, snowboarding or, in Lyon's
case, rock-climbing, they buckled down, sometimes working through the night.
Their focus nearly cost them graduation - they had to scramble to make up work
in other classes - but they accomplished what others couldn't.
After they had already begun their work, Lyon and Winegar learned about a 1964
General Motors analysis that explored the idea before the car company concluded
it wasn't possible.
Going in with open minds, however, the teens were not deterred and pulled off
what GM rejected.
"Nobody told them it couldn't be done," Robert Lyon, Tyler's dad, said.
The first time he felt a cold gust of air successfully come through the system,
Winegar said he remembers saying: "We may actually have something here."
Looks like they do. A Salt Lake City attorney is working to secure a patent.
The Environmental Protection Agency called to express interest Tuesday morning.
And though repeated attempts to communicate with Gov.
Jon Huntsman Jr. have gone unanswered, high officials in Japan - an ocean away
- are awaiting the arrival of Riverton's young inventors.
--
Dj Merrill
Sportsman 2+2 Builder #7118
"TSA: Totally Screwing Aviation"
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Ed Anderson" <eanderson(at)carolina.rr.com> |
| Subject: | Re: alternate air conditioning |
According to some specs I found a Jumbo Peltier had a Qmax of 267Watts but
used 30amps at 16.7 volts = 501 watts so ball park 50% effective use of the
electricity. If you had about 4 of them working - would take out approx
1000 watts of heat from the air but at a cost of approx 120 amps!
Ed A
----- Original Message -----
From: "Dj Merrill" <deej(at)thayer.dartmouth.edu>
Subject: AeroElectric-List: alternate air conditioning
>
>
> These guys may have hit upon an excellent air
> conditioning option that would work well in small aircraft.
> I wonder how much electricity it takes?
>
>
> http://www.sltrib.com/utah/ci_2841984
>
> Really cool invention brings teens awards
> Physics students: They came up with an environmentally friendly,
> economical air conditioner
> By Jessica Ravitz
> The Salt Lake Tribune
>
>
> Riverton High School students Tyler Lyon, left, and Daniel Winegar
> won
> Ricoh's Sustainable Development Award for their invention. (Danny Chan
> La/The Salt Lake Tribune )
> BLUFFDALE - The code name, Space Beast, was one they came up with in the
> wee hours of the night.
> Tyler Lyon, Daniel Winegar and Chad Thornley were overtired and
> giddy as they tackled a science fair project. Their idea: Eliminate the
> use of Freon in automobile air-conditioning systems by relying on the
> Peltier effect - of course.
> "We aren't planning our lives around making air conditioners," Lyon
> explained. "We wanted to do something to help the environment and the
> economy."
> But what began as a Riverton High School physics class assignment
> nearly two years ago has morphed into an award-winning, internationally
> recognized invention.
> Lyon and Winegar, two recent Riverton graduates - Thornley graduated
> in 2004 and is now on an LDS Church mission - won the first-ever Ricoh
> Sustainable Development Award in May when they competed against 1,400
> other worldwide invitation-only entries at the Intel International
> Science and Engineering Fair in Phoenix.
> Aside from the $50,000 college scholarship the two 18-year-olds will
> share, the budding engineers are jetting off to Japan today for a 10-day
> visit on Ricoh's dime. The office equipment and electronics company, a
> leader in the field of sustainable development, has invited the Utahns
> to attend the World Expo, address Ricoh executives, tour their research
> and development lab, meet with government officials - including the
> Minister of the Environment - and sit down with Tokyo University
> professors.
> "It's been a total, unbelievable dream," marveled Tyler's mom, Diane
> Lyon, last week. "They're just typical boys. But when someone believes
> in you, amazing things can happen."
> Physics teacher Kari Lewis, who recently left Riverton High, said
> trusting in Lyon and Winegar was easy.
> "They came up with this idea . . . and they made it work," she said.
> "It's a perfect solution to an incredible problem."
> Today, the young inventors say, U.S. drivers use about 7.9 billion
> gallons of fuel each year to run their air-conditioners, which draw
> power from the engine. By adopting their contraption - which taps into
> the electrical system, using fans to blow hot air through five Peltier
> chips and then releasing cold air - they say the country stands to save
> 3.9 billion gallons of fuel annually, or about $10 billion based on
> current gas prices.
> Furthermore, the product would free drivers from Freon - which
> despite improvements, remains an ozone-depleting chemical in current
> air-conditioners. The Peltier chips, which they purchased on eBay for
> $9.99 each, have a life span of 20 to 30 years and an unfaltering
> cooling capacity. And like every component in the Space Beast, which can
> be minimized in size to about 2 inches in width, the chips are recyclable.
>
> As a young boy, Lyon's parents said he tore apart and reassembled
> household electronics - CD players, clocks, an old stereo that didn't
> work until he fixed it. And while Daniel's mom, LouAnn Winegar, was
> grateful her son was "not a take-apart-person," she said her boy's love
> for science, engineering and computers has been consistent.
> "It's nice to see all of his years of interest and hard work being
> recognized," she said.
> The two-year process of fine-tuning, however, was not without its
> glitches. When the teens were trying to convert a blow-dryer fan from AC
> to DC power, a miswiring gave Lyon a doozy of a shock - "a low-enough
> amp that it couldn't really stop my heart," he said. And there was that
> computer power strip that they managed to ignite, before throwing it
> outside in the snow, only to retrieve it two days later to recycle its
> parts.
> Despite the setbacks, and bouts of procrastination, the teens didn't
> give up. When they weren't playing computer games, skiing, snowboarding
> or, in Lyon's case, rock-climbing, they buckled down, sometimes working
> through the night. Their focus nearly cost them graduation - they had to
> scramble to make up work in other classes - but they accomplished what
> others couldn't.
> After they had already begun their work, Lyon and Winegar learned
> about a 1964 General Motors analysis that explored the idea before the
> car company concluded it wasn't possible.
> Going in with open minds, however, the teens were not deterred and
> pulled off what GM rejected.
> "Nobody told them it couldn't be done," Robert Lyon, Tyler's dad, said.
> The first time he felt a cold gust of air successfully come through
> the system, Winegar said he remembers saying: "We may actually have
> something here."
> Looks like they do. A Salt Lake City attorney is working to secure a
> patent. The Environmental Protection Agency called to express interest
> Tuesday morning. And though repeated attempts to communicate with Gov.
> Jon Huntsman Jr. have gone unanswered, high officials in Japan - an
> ocean away - are awaiting the arrival of Riverton's young inventors.
>
>
> --
> Dj Merrill
> Sportsman 2+2 Builder #7118
>
> "TSA: Totally Screwing Aviation"
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Emrath" <emrath(at)comcast.net> |
Thanks to everyone, especially Bob, for pointing me to various autocad
drawings of panel hole sizes. Now, based on Bruce's warning, I need to go
and measure all my instruments to ensure they are "compliant".
Marty
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "LarryRobertHelming" <lhelming(at)sigecom.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Doublechecking before I cut metal |
Also, make sure you understand the 'behind the panel measurement
requirements and the dept of the insturments'. I got hit by one of these and
I paid a price to deal with it.
Indiana Larry, RV7 Tip Up It Flies
Teamwork: " A lot of people doing exactly what I say."
(Marketing exec., Citrix Corp.)
----- Original Message -----
>
>
> Richard,
> Don't cut yet. Keep working the plan. When you can draw it all out in
> detail and are happy with it and understand it all, cut your panel. Until
> that time, you risk having to redo it. I spent years monitoring this list,
> rereading the Aeroelectric connection before I was at the point of
> cutting.
> Good luck,
> Jim Stone
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Richard Riley" <richard(at)RILEY.NET>
> To:
> Subject: AeroElectric-List: Doublechecking before I cut metal
>
>
>>
>>
>> I'm just about to start cutting metal for my instrument panel and wanted
>> to
>> do one, final sanity check.
>>
>> Configuration:
>>
>> Canard Pusher
>> Lycoming 540
>> L-60 and LR-3
>> SD-8
>> 2 lightspeed electronic ignitions
>> All electric panel
>>
>> 2 17 AH batteries, Figure Z-13 plus Z-30, sd 8 regulator set to 13 volts
>>
>> I believe I need holes in the panel for
>>
>> 1) DPDT DC power master switch (locking)
>> 2) SPST Aux power
>> 3) SPST momentary starter (pushbutton)
>> 4) SPST Main alt field (mini, locking)
>> 5) SPST Aux alt field (mini, locking)
>>
>> Am I correct so far? Any other switch holes I need for the power
>> system? Of course, I also have the functional switches - fuel pump,
>> lights, etc.
>>
>> What do I have to add to parallel the 2 batteries for starting?
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "jdalton77" <jdalton77(at)comcast.net> |
| Subject: | Cherokee bouncing loadmeter |
My 1973 Cherokee 140 suffers from the "bouncing" load meter problem.
Load meter jumps to the right in a rhythm that I think is related to the
strobes but seems to happen even when the light is off.
It's been like that since I bought the plane a few years back. I've
heard a lot of "reason" for this to happen - but no consistent story.
There must be a real answer ....
-----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: Zeftronics vs B&C
-->
>-->
>
>Bob
>
>The new rev A version appears to include LV unless I'm mis-interpreting
>the spec.
I've looked the spec sheet over at:
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Mfgr_Data/Zeftronics/R15V00RevA-PIT.pdf
The way this is set up, I believe that "low volts" is inferred
by noting alternator shutdown. The low volts sensor is not an
independently powered monitor of actual bus voltage. The Zeftronics
implementation seems to be a more sophisticated version of the
alternator "idiot light" of years gone by.
I suspect the regulation and ovp features are just fine. I'd
still recommend a separate LV Warning system of some variety.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | EuropaXSA276(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Cherokee bouncing loadmeter |
In a message dated 7/21/2005 9:31:35 PM Central Standard Time,
jdalton77(at)comcast.net writes:
My 1973 Cherokee 140 suffers from the "bouncing" load meter problem.
Load meter jumps to the right in a rhythm that I think is related to the
strobes but seems to happen even when the light is off.
My 140E had the same problem. Very common problem. Fixed it by installing a
new voltage regulator.
Brian Skelly
Texas
Europa # A276 TriGear
See My build photos at:
http://www.europaowners.org/BrianS
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "John Swartout" <jgswartout(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | Tach source for EIS |
Bob and others:
The tachometer function on my Grand Rapids Technologies Engine
Information System uses input from the electronic ignition (dual
P-mags). It only accepts one input. Should I wire only one of the
P-mags to the EIS, or both? That is, is there any reason to run a wire
from each of the ignitions with a switch to select which one supplies
rpm data to the EIS? Thanks.
John
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | alternate air conditioning |
>
>
> Interesting. The technology certainly isn't new but the implementation
> is. I would expect it to use a fair amount of power. These have been
> used in fish tanks for some time. See
> <http://www.drsfostersmith.com/Product/Prod_Display.cfm?pcatid4902&inm1&N2004+113768+113565>
> for just one example.
>
> One thing the article forgot to mention is it takes engine power to
> spin the alternator and make the electricity that the thing uses. Now if
> it is more efficient than the existing freon based system (doubtful) then
> we might have something.
The last time I looked at Peltier coolers for a task,
it took somewhere around 70 watts of Peltier input power
to carry 10 watts of heat load across a 40C differential.
10w = 34 BTU. So if you're looking for the equivalent cooling
of, say 1/2 that of the smallest 115 window units (5500 BTU)
then 2750 BTU (800W) of cooling would load the ship's
power system to about 5600 watts or 400 amps in a 14v
system.
They might be better now but I suspect not so much better
that they're attractive for cabin cooling on aircraft . . .
or room cooling for houses either.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: "P" lead length |
>
>
> wrote:
>
> > No length issues. You DO want to ground the shield at the engine end
> > only . . . and I recommend you use
> > the shield to PROVIDE ground at the switch end make no other
> > connections at switch end as suggested in numerous
> > other texts.
>
>Bob -
>
>Do you have a wiring diagram for this?
>
>The reason I ask is that we wired the mags as shown in one of your
>wirebook sheets and it does not seem to work. The mag stays grounded
>regardless of the position of the toggle switch.
>
>Using single conductor, shielded, 18AWG, it is wired: Conductor (p-lead)
> from the stud on the mag to pin 2 of the 1-3 switch. Shield from pin 3 of
>the switch to a screw on the mag.
>
>I can send a .dwg or .pdf file if you wish.
See http://www.aeroelectric.com/PPS/Engine/Ignition/TogMagSw.pdf
Try disconnecting the switch leads entirely. You may have
shorted wiring between the switch and the magneto.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | <gmcjetpilot(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Tach source for EIS |
John:
I can save you a lot of trouble. What is your tack drive doing on the back of your
engine? Nothing and you are likely going to have to buy a cover $10 for it.
Well for $30 or $40 you can forget it and always measure RPM off the mechanical
drive. It does not matter what your ignition is doing, which is the way it
should be.
Get a UMA tack drive. It is small and works real well. I recall mine put out 2 pulses per revolution of the tack drive. The tack drive ratio is 0.50:1, meaning it goes around only once for every two revs of the crank; I recall the EIS Tack setting is (1). http://www.umainstruments.com/1a3tsu.htm
The thing works perfect and needs a 5V max power supply to tickle the EIS.
Trying to switch between left or right ignition and switch your tack source is
a pain, and can be done with some switching. Most don't bother and select just
one side to connect to the EIS and accept a zero reading on a mag check with
that side off. KEEP IT SIMPLE. I would not screw too much with connections to
the brain box of your electronic ignition. Most people find simple toggle switch
works well for electronic ignition.
I assume you have a way to kill you P-mag after it is running? From what I understand
it is self-sustaining after start-up?
Good luck George
PS Westach makes a tack drive as well as Van's aircraft sells one but it is bulky.
I like the UMA for being compact.
From: "John Swartout" <jgswartout(at)earthlink.net>
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Tach source for EIS
Bob and others:
The tachometer function on my Grand Rapids Technologies Engine
Information System uses input from the electronic ignition (dual
P-mags). It only accepts one input. Should I wire only one of the
P-mags to the EIS, or both? That is, is there any reason to run a wire
from each of the ignitions with a switch to select which one supplies
rpm data to the EIS? Thanks.
John
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "John Swartout" <jgswartout(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Tach source for EIS |
George, does that UMA tack drive convert mechanical to electronic to
supply the EIS? 5 volts is sort of odd. How do you supply 5 volts to
yours?
I'll be using toggle switches per Z13-8 for the Pmags, so can turn off
either one at any time.
John
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of
gmcjetpilot(at)yahoo.com
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Re: Tach source for EIS
John:
I can save you a lot of trouble. What is your tack drive doing on the
back of your engine? Nothing and you are likely going to have to buy a
cover $10 for it. Well for $30 or $40 you can forget it and always
measure RPM off the mechanical drive. It does not matter what your
ignition is doing, which is the way it should be.
Get a UMA tack drive. It is small and works real well. I recall mine put
out 2 pulses per revolution of the tack drive. The tack drive ratio is
0.50:1, meaning it goes around only once for every two revs of the
crank; I recall the EIS Tack setting is (1).
http://www.umainstruments.com/1a3tsu.htm
The thing works perfect and needs a 5V max power supply to tickle the
EIS.
Trying to switch between left or right ignition and switch your tack
source is a pain, and can be done with some switching. Most don't bother
and select just one side to connect to the EIS and accept a zero reading
on a mag check with that side off. KEEP IT SIMPLE. I would not screw too
much with connections to the brain box of your electronic ignition. Most
people find simple toggle switch works well for electronic ignition.
I assume you have a way to kill you P-mag after it is running? From what
I understand it is self-sustaining after start-up?
Good luck George
PS Westach makes a tack drive as well as Van's aircraft sells one but it
is bulky. I like the UMA for being compact.
From: "John Swartout" <jgswartout(at)earthlink.net>
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Tach source for EIS
Bob and others:
The tachometer function on my Grand Rapids Technologies Engine
Information System uses input from the electronic ignition (dual
P-mags). It only accepts one input. Should I wire only one of the
P-mags to the EIS, or both? That is, is there any reason to run a wire
from each of the ignitions with a switch to select which one supplies
rpm data to the EIS? Thanks.
John
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Cherokee bouncing loadmeter |
| From: | "Lloyd, Daniel R." <LloydDR(at)wernerco.com> |
My '68 140 also has the same issue, but it is not consistent, sometimes
it bounces, then it will go several flights without presenting, then
everyday for a week. Weird.
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of
jdalton77
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Cherokee bouncing loadmeter
My 1973 Cherokee 140 suffers from the "bouncing" load meter problem.
Load meter jumps to the right in a rhythm that I think is related to the
strobes but seems to happen even when the light is off.
It's been like that since I bought the plane a few years back. I've
heard a lot of "reason" for this to happen - but no consistent story.
There must be a real answer ....
-----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: Zeftronics vs B&C
-->
>-->
>
>Bob
>
>The new rev A version appears to include LV unless I'm mis-interpreting
>the spec.
I've looked the spec sheet over at:
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Mfgr_Data/Zeftronics/R15V00RevA-PIT.pdf
The way this is set up, I believe that "low volts" is inferred
by noting alternator shutdown. The low volts sensor is not an
independently powered monitor of actual bus voltage. The Zeftronics
implementation seems to be a more sophisticated version of the
alternator "idiot light" of years gone by.
I suspect the regulation and ovp features are just fine. I'd
still recommend a separate LV Warning system of some variety.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | al.herron(at)Aerojet.com (Herron, Al) |
| Subject: | Re: alternate air conditioning |
Interesting idea. There is a web site for Peltier
chips: http://www.peltier-info.com/info.html. These things are normally
used for small-scale cooling of electronic equipment. According to the
website, the Peltier chips are not very efficient and "draw amps of
power". Of course, what a computer manufacturer considers inefficient
might be nothing compared to a mechanical compressor setup.
Somebody figure this out and call me back when you have a $39.95 unit I
can plug into my plane! ; )
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Tach source for EIS |
George,
Excellent answer. Long before electronic
tachs came along, we had a single speedometer
cable coming of the back of the engine which
drove the instrument on the panel.
Electronic tachs have been a pain in the arse
from day-one in that every new design took a slightly
different approach to processing magneto signals
and to make matters more difficult, every new electronic
ignition offered what the designer believed was
the elegant solution for data output to everyone else's
tachometers.
John's question raises a fundamental issue about
how NECESSARY is a tachometer for the purpose of
safely operating the airplane?
I had a boss who took the company Bonanza on a
cross-country trip and found that the tach was
dead when he prepared to return from an airport
about 150 miles away. He called a mechanic to
fly out and fix his airplane (tach cable
was unscrewed from the back of the engine and
fell off).
But just suppose one is in a similar situation
with an electronic tach failure. How does this
condition introduce new risk with respect to
flying the airplane home sans tach? I'll suggest
little or no risk.
In the case of the A36, we know that the governor
prevents operation above red-line. Operation at
red-line is in the POH as a permissible rpm setting
for cruise operations. If your airplane needs to
run slower, give the prop knob a few twists and
slow it down. Then continue the flight. Fixed
pitch airplanes may be capable of exceeding red-line
in level flight, fine . . . make a normal take off
and bring throttle back till the engine sounds
more relaxed. Set up for cruise and then adjust
power for, say 5-10 kts below your normal cruise
speed. Then you KNOW that the engine is at some
point below published limits.
My point is that a tachometer is used for PRECISE
adjustment of conditions that produce the desired
power setting. However, safe operation of the
airplane can be accomplished over a huge range
of power settings, none of which are stressful
to the engine. With some simple observations and
knowledge of how the airplane operates, one can
very safely launch, cruise and land sans tachometer
without adding risk.
Therefore, I'll suggest that supplying an electronic
tach with a signal from one of two electronic
ignitions does not represent an incremental
step up in risk for getting the airplane home
should that particular signal path become
unavailable. If it were my airplane, I'd
hook up to one of the two ignition systems
and quit worrying about it.
Bob . . .
>John:
>
>I can save you a lot of trouble. What is your tack drive doing on the back
>of your engine? Nothing and you are likely going to have to buy a cover
>$10 for it. Well for $30 or $40 you can forget it and always measure RPM
>off the mechanical drive. It does not matter what your ignition is doing,
>which is the way it should be.
>
>Get a UMA tack drive. It is small and works real well. I recall mine put
>out 2 pulses per revolution of the tack drive. The tack drive ratio is
>0.50:1, meaning it goes around only once for every two revs of the crank;
>I recall the EIS Tack setting is (1). http://www.umainstruments.com/1a3tsu.htm
>
>
>The thing works perfect and needs a 5V max power supply to tickle the EIS.
>
>Trying to switch between left or right ignition and switch your tack
>source is a pain, and can be done with some switching. Most don't bother
>and select just one side to connect to the EIS and accept a zero reading
>on a mag check with that side off. KEEP IT SIMPLE. I would not screw too
>much with connections to the brain box of your electronic ignition. Most
>people find simple toggle switch works well for electronic ignition.
>
>I assume you have a way to kill you P-mag after it is running? From what I
>understand it is self-sustaining after start-up?
>
>Good luck George
>
>
>PS Westach makes a tack drive as well as Van's aircraft sells one but it
>is bulky. I like the UMA for being compact.
>
>
>
>
>Bob and others:
>
>The tachometer function on my Grand Rapids Technologies Engine
>Information System uses input from the electronic ignition (dual
>P-mags). It only accepts one input. Should I wire only one of the
>P-mags to the EIS, or both? That is, is there any reason to run a wire
>from each of the ignitions with a switch to select which one supplies
>rpm data to the EIS? Thanks.
>
>John
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Charlie Burton" <notrubce(at)hotmail.com> |
I have a condition in my O-360 Glastar that puzzles me. I can turn the key switch
(Aircraft Spruce) to START and the engine starts to turn but at a slow rate
like a low battery, high compression, too small a battery cable, etc. The strange
part is that I just let go of the key and then try it again and the engine
turns over very nicely and starts on the first revolution through. I have one
mag on the left side and a Lightspeed ignition on the right. Any ideas?
Charlie Burton & N331Fox
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: "P" lead length |
| From: | "John Schroeder" <jschroeder(at)perigee.net> |
Bob -
Thanks for the diagram. After a good night's sleep and some study of the
diagram, we concluded that the mags were indeed wired OK. We did
disconnect the leads and ground shields to check for shorts. The problem
was in the test plan!! You gotta put the meter in line and not across the
lines!
Thanks for the help.
John
>
> See http://www.aeroelectric.com/PPS/Engine/Ignition/TogMagSw.pdf
>
> Try disconnecting the switch leads entirely. You may have
> shorted wiring between the switch and the magneto.
>
> Bob . . .
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "DonVS" <dsvs(at)comcast.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Tach source for EIS |
John,
You can't do it with the device that George recommended. Both of your mag
drive holes are in use. You only need one lead to the EIS from a single
PMAG. The rpm reading will come through even with the PMAG shut off. This
is assuming that you have the new PMAG with the green wire for tach drive.
Don
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of
gmcjetpilot(at)yahoo.com
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Re: Tach source for EIS
John:
I can save you a lot of trouble. What is your tack drive doing on the back
of your engine? Nothing and you are likely going to have to buy a cover $10
for it. Well for $30 or $40 you can forget it and always measure RPM off the
mechanical drive. It does not matter what your ignition is doing, which is
the way it should be.
Get a UMA tack drive. It is small and works real well. I recall mine put out
2 pulses per revolution of the tack drive. The tack drive ratio is 0.50:1,
meaning it goes around only once for every two revs of the crank; I recall
the EIS Tack setting is (1). http://www.umainstruments.com/1a3tsu.htm
The thing works perfect and needs a 5V max power supply to tickle the EIS.
Trying to switch between left or right ignition and switch your tack source
is a pain, and can be done with some switching. Most don't bother and select
just one side to connect to the EIS and accept a zero reading on a mag check
with that side off. KEEP IT SIMPLE. I would not screw too much with
connections to the brain box of your electronic ignition. Most people find
simple toggle switch works well for electronic ignition.
I assume you have a way to kill you P-mag after it is running? From what I
understand it is self-sustaining after start-up?
Good luck George
PS Westach makes a tack drive as well as Van's aircraft sells one but it is
bulky. I like the UMA for being compact.
From: "John Swartout" <jgswartout(at)earthlink.net>
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Tach source for EIS
Bob and others:
The tachometer function on my Grand Rapids Technologies Engine
Information System uses input from the electronic ignition (dual
P-mags). It only accepts one input. Should I wire only one of the
P-mags to the EIS, or both? That is, is there any reason to run a wire
from each of the ignitions with a switch to select which one supplies
rpm data to the EIS? Thanks.
John
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Jon Goguen <jon.goguen(at)umassmed.edu> |
| Subject: | Best architecture for two alternator all-electric 912S |
Kitfox
We've just decided to commit to an all-electric system, in part because
we're convinced it's more reliable than vacuum, but also because a
second alternator to supplement the built-in PM alternator on the 912S
will make the energy budgeting less critical. I think we could make it
work with original alternator only, but would need to go to LED
position lights and take a series of other power efficiency measures.
On the whole, the redundancy of the second alternator seems best, and
will get the project completed more quickly: we're determined to be in
the air this fall.
We plan to use an SD-20 on the vacuum pump pad. I've been given
figures ranging from 12-17 amps as reasonable expectations from the
SD-20 in this installation, and figure I can count on a conservative 30
amps from both alternators in combination. I'm looking for
recommendations regarding the most reasonable architecture for this
combination. Two batteries or one? A big one and a little one? Both
alternators on line all the time? I've read the 'Connection (don't
know my Z-numbers yet without looking and don't have the book handy),
but it's clear that several choices are possible. Anyone see a strong
reason to favor one arrangement for our proposed alternator
combination? We do plan eventual IFR operation, (Garmin 300XL IFR
GPS/Com, one Nav radio, VAL single-hole ILS system, and electric gyros,
supplemented with the an Anywhere map system including weather).
Thanks in advance for any and all suggestions. We had already acquired
much of the vacuum stuff (pump, regulator, and gyros) so now I need to
get the electric versions. Any suggests regarding sources for
cost-effective AI and DG would also be welcome. I will be at OshKosh
from Thursday evening through Sunday AM, and hope to do some some to
complete the equipment list. (If you have any interest in the vacuum
stuff, enquiries are welcome.)
Jon
Jon Goguen
jon.goguen(at)umassmed.edu
Central Massachusetts
Kitfox Series V Rotax 912S / N456JG (reserved)
Complete except for electrics and avionics
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "jdalton77" <jdalton77(at)comcast.net> |
| Subject: | Cherokee bouncing loadmeter |
I tried that but unfortunately it still happens.
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of
EuropaXSA276(at)aol.com
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Cherokee bouncing loadmeter
In a message dated 7/21/2005 9:31:35 PM Central Standard Time,
jdalton77(at)comcast.net writes:
My 1973 Cherokee 140 suffers from the "bouncing" load meter problem.
Load meter jumps to the right in a rhythm that I think is related to the
strobes but seems to happen even when the light is off.
My 140E had the same problem. Very common problem. Fixed it by
installing a
new voltage regulator.
Brian Skelly
Texas
Europa # A276 TriGear
See My build photos at:
http://www.europaowners.org/BrianS
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Mark & Lisa" <marknlisa(at)hometel.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Best architecture for two alternator all-electric |
912S Kitfox
Jon,
Try these:
http://www.trutrakflightsystems.com/ttfsinstruments.html
Mark & Lisa Sletten
Legacy FG N828LM
http://www.legacyfgbuilder.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Mark & Lisa" <marknlisa(at)hometel.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Cherokee bouncing loadmeterCherokee bouncing loadmeter |
I've heard of this problem being solved by replacing the master switch. I
can't remember the specifics...
Mark & Lisa Sletten
Legacy FG N828LM
http://www.legacyfgbuilder.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Bouncing loadmeter |
>
>
>I've heard of this problem being solved by replacing the master switch. I
>can't remember the specifics...
This problem has been "fixed" by replacing a myriad of devices
on as many airplanes. The problem is quite common on all DC
power systems where the POWER TO EXCITE THE ALTERNATOR FIELD
comes through the same wire as REGULATION VOLTAGE SENSE.
I'm working on an article that is a compilation of many
responses to this subject over the last 10 years or so.
I published a similar article a long time ago on Compuserve's
AVSIG forum but I don't find it in my archives . . . need
to do it over. This time it will go up on aeroelectric.com
This is a very special case problem understood by very
few a/p mechanics that has cost the flying public
$millions$ of unnecessary expense over the years. I'll
try to finish it up over the weekend and get it posted.
You'll hear about it here first.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Tach source for EIS |
>
>John,
>You can't do it with the device that George recommended. Both of your mag
>drive holes are in use. You only need one lead to the EIS from a single
>PMAG. The rpm reading will come through even with the PMAG shut off. This
>is assuming that you have the new PMAG with the green wire for tach drive.
>Don
You lost me. The transducer George recommends goes into the
stock tach drive port on the accessory case and has nothing
to do with the mag drives.
When Beech went to 2" engine instruments (trying to look
like a bizjet) about 25 years ago, we (Electromech) built
a similar transducer to screw into the tach drive and
produce counts/revolution compatible with the instrument
Beech had selected.
Many electronic tachs can be "programmed" with jumpers
or dip-switches to interpret a variety of pulse-per-revolution
signals from external transducers. I seem to recall that
the tach drive on Bonanzas ran at camshaft speed (1/2
crankshaft) and we had 8 magnets on the transducer rotor.
This means that the transducer generated 4 pulses per
propeller revolution.
The independent transducer is an excellent way to drive
an electronic tach. However, I'll suggest that tach
signal failure on an e-mag/p-mag is on the same order
of reliability as the transducer. So, if one can comfortably
settle for a single source of tach signal from a dedicated
transducer, then system reliability for taking tach drives
from a single ignition system are in the same ball park
which suggests that a dedicated transducer may elevate parts
count without adding materially to reliablity.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Paul Wilson <pwilson(at)climber.org> all-electric 912S Kitfox |
| Subject: | Re: Best architecture for two alternator |
all-electric 912S Kitfox
Morning Jon,
Lots of us are disappointed that Rotax (or the Jabaru) have such a
minimal electrical system. The certified Rotax equipped planes used for IFR
training are using the Rotax$$ optional belt drive second alternator with
one battery. Don't have the schematic but you are in good hands on this
list. I suspect that these planes use an architecture with the stator
alternator off line as a backup and use the belt drive unit normally.
Your quoted amps are higher than expected. Here are the accurate details on
what to expect for your proposed alternator solution. (Prices are 2 years old).
The gear ratio for the 912S is 2.43:1. (the 912 ratio is more favorable @
2.273:1). The accessory drive is 1.3182:1 for both engines & is applied to
the prop revs not the engine revs.
So the SD20 will put out 7.4amps@5000rpm, 12.0amps@5500, 14.3amps@5800.
Not enough to use solo, so both alternators will have to be on line all the
time. Thus you will have a permanent magnet unit with a different SD20
trying to provide the power at the same time. This topic has been discussed
at length lately, but I haven followed it in detail.
Weight increase is 6.1lbs+ regulator, cost is ~$700 if your engine came
with the gears, ~$400 more if the gear box has to be revised to add
the gears, but I think the S model has the gears?.
Add ~$200+ for a new regulator.
Suggestion:
Alternatives:
- A non Rotax belt drive should cost from $400 to ~$600 for about 40 amps?
for a commercial model, and around $100 for a DIY setup using a Denso from
a salvage yard. Then you can use the second alternator and use the Rotax
unit as a backup.
- A second battery should cost around $50 for lots of amps and lots of
flying time. More reliable and a lot less complexity. Just make sure all
your electrical stuff works on 12+v instead of 14+v, and you still have a
redundant electrical power system.
Now that I have written the details I hope others will jump in to suggest
solutions to this issue.
Regards, Paul
===========================
At 03:28 PM 7/22/2005, you wrote:
>
>We've just decided to commit to an all-electric system, in part because
>we're convinced it's more reliable than vacuum, but also because a
>second alternator to supplement the built-in PM alternator on the 912S
>will make the energy budgeting less critical. I think we could make it
>work with original alternator only, but would need to go to LED
>position lights and take a series of other power efficiency measures.
>On the whole, the redundancy of the second alternator seems best, and
>will get the project completed more quickly: we're determined to be in
>the air this fall.
>
>We plan to use an SD-20 on the vacuum pump pad. I've been given
>figures ranging from 12-17 amps as reasonable expectations from the
>SD-20 in this installation, and figure I can count on a conservative 30
>amps from both alternators in combination. I'm looking for
>recommendations regarding the most reasonable architecture for this
>combination. Two batteries or one? A big one and a little one? Both
>alternators on line all the time? I've read the 'Connection (don't
>know my Z-numbers yet without looking and don't have the book handy),
>but it's clear that several choices are possible. Anyone see a strong
>reason to favor one arrangement for our proposed alternator
>combination? We do plan eventual IFR operation, (Garmin 300XL IFR
>GPS/Com, one Nav radio, VAL single-hole ILS system, and electric gyros,
> supplemented with the an Anywhere map system including weather).
>
>Thanks in advance for any and all suggestions. We had already acquired
>much of the vacuum stuff (pump, regulator, and gyros) so now I need to
>get the electric versions. Any suggests regarding sources for
>cost-effective AI and DG would also be welcome. I will be at OshKosh
>from Thursday evening through Sunday AM, and hope to do some some to
>complete the equipment list. (If you have any interest in the vacuum
>stuff, enquiries are welcome.)
>
>Jon
>
>Jon Goguen
>jon.goguen(at)umassmed.edu
>Central Massachusetts
>Kitfox Series V Rotax 912S / N456JG (reserved)
>Complete except for electrics and avionics
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | <gmcjetpilot(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Tach source for EIS |
John:
"George, does that UMA tack drive convert mechanical to electronic to
supply the EIS?"
John, 5 volt (4.8v) excitation is common for many sensors for electronic engine
monitors, and this is not just limited a hall effect tach sender. (Note sender,
probe, transducer and sensor all mean the same thing for this discussion).
5 VOLTS IS STANDARD FOR ELECTRONIC ENGINE MONITORS:
EIS has its own 5 volt output power supply (actually 4. 8 volts) to drive the sensors
or probes that require it. It may sound odd but some of the EIS probes
work on +4.8 volt bias, not ground or 12 or 14 volts. In fact 12-14 volt going
into any of the EIS probe input lines will damage the unit.
If you read the manual for the EIS the optional or auxiliary inputs for: fuel flow,
capacitive fuel level probes , fuel pressure and hall effect amp probe all
require 4.8v to power them.
HALL EFFECT:
The hall effect tach sender converts the rotation of the tach drive into an electrical
pulse. That pulse is what the EIS is set up to measure and turn into RPM.
The standard way to get a pulse is off the magneto p-lead, lighting or ignition
coil (like on a rotax) or magnetic tach sensor. Some of these produce their
own voltage, others like a hall effect sender need a small voltage to give
the proper output.
Basics of Hall effect involve magnetic fields and electrical currents. The hall
effect needs a little input voltage to work. The UMA is a "Hall Effect" device.
Here is link explaining how "hall effect" works if you want to know:
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/magnetic/hall.html
GRT's EIS 4000:
The EIS works on +4.8 Volt Bias for many input signals.
4.8 Volts is the MAX volts input on any probe input for the EIS. 5 volts is common
power supply level at the sub-component electronics level, by the way.
Once you buy the EIS4000 and the hall effect device and read the installation manual
it will be obvious.
Even the optional amp sender GRT sells is a hall effect device and requires a positive
4.8 volt input. The nice part of a hall effect amp probe is the wire passes
thru a coil with out a need to make a break in the wire. The hall effect
amp sensor measures the magnetic field and converts it into a bias voltage your
EIS can read. Cool.
The EIS for the most part simply measures steady state voltage levels from a probe.
With the software (and scale factor), it displays the correct value for you
to read, like: fuel pressure oil temp, EGT, CHT, fuel level, etc.
(EGT and CHT probes produce their own (very small) voltage. The oil pressure is
set up to a ground bias and requires no external excitation voltage. Other probes
like the fuel pressure requires an excitation voltage.)
Some of the probe inputs are self powered (EGT/CHT) and others in the EIS are designed
to measure a ground bias (oil pressure).
Some EIS inputs measure a pulse (tach and fuel flow). It sounds odd or confusing
I know, but it is super easy to connect. The wires are color coded. The EIS
know what to do.
As far as the Tach and the EIS, GRT does not sell tach transducers and expects
you to provide a pulse. The software has user settings to adjust the number of
pulses per engine revolution to account for different input sources from 0.5
to 12. How you get the pulse is your business but it must not be higher than 4.8
volts. IF using a coil or p-lead off a magneto you need to add resistors.
The fuel flow requires the 4.8 volt excitation and the tach may or may not depending
on the way you are measuring it.
A pulse is a simple 0 to 5v signal that last a few Milli seconds. The rate of this
pulse is read buy the EIS and converted to the proper display value to read
as RPM or Gal/Hr. Regardless of the pulse the max magnitude of the pulse can
not exceed 4.8 volts.
Good Luck, George
From: "John Swartout" <jgswartout(at)earthlink.net>
Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Re: Tach source for EIS
George, does that UMA tack drive convert mechanical to electronic to
supply the EIS? 5 volts is sort of odd. How do you supply 5 volts to
yours?
I'll be using toggle switches per Z13-8 for the Pmags, so can turn off
either one at any time.
John
---------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Eric M. Jones" <emjones(at)charter.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Slow starter |
>I have a condition in my O-360 Glastar that puzzles me. I can turn the key
>switch
>(Aircraft Spruce) to START and the engine starts to turn but at a slow rate
>like a low battery, high compression, too small a battery cable, etc. The
>strange
>part is that I just let go of the key and then try it again and the engine
>turns over very nicely and starts on the first revolution through. I have
>one
>mag on the left side and a Lightspeed ignition on the right. Any ideas?
>Charlie Burton & N331Fox
Charlie,
I got nothing BUT ideas....
Sounds like a bad ignition switch. So if you leave your Glastar parked on
the street in a bad part of town, it'll be gone in the morning.
Seriously, jumping around the switch would isolate the switch problem.
Assuming it's not the switch or battery--measure the voltage across each
joint of the high-current path from the battery to the starter and look for
more than a volt drop when you crank the starter. Check the battery voltage
too. It should drop to only 9.5 volts or so when starting.
There are stranger problems like seriously retarded timing ar a slipped
timing belt, but these are rare. Let us know.
Regards,
Eric M. Jones
www.PerihelionDesign.com
113 Brentwood Drive
Southbridge MA 01550-2705
(508) 764-2072
"America is a nation that conceives many odd inventions for getting
somewhere but it can think of nothing to do once it gets there."
--Will Rogers
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "DonVS" <dsvs(at)comcast.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Tach source for EIS |
Bob,
As usuall you are right. I mistook the device for one that would drive off
the mag drive. My mistake, sorry
George. Don
-----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: Re: Tach source for EIS
>
>John,
>You can't do it with the device that George recommended. Both of your mag
>drive holes are in use. You only need one lead to the EIS from a single
>PMAG. The rpm reading will come through even with the PMAG shut off. This
>is assuming that you have the new PMAG with the green wire for tach drive.
>Don
You lost me. The transducer George recommends goes into the
stock tach drive port on the accessory case and has nothing
to do with the mag drives.
When Beech went to 2" engine instruments (trying to look
like a bizjet) about 25 years ago, we (Electromech) built
a similar transducer to screw into the tach drive and
produce counts/revolution compatible with the instrument
Beech had selected.
Many electronic tachs can be "programmed" with jumpers
or dip-switches to interpret a variety of pulse-per-revolution
signals from external transducers. I seem to recall that
the tach drive on Bonanzas ran at camshaft speed (1/2
crankshaft) and we had 8 magnets on the transducer rotor.
This means that the transducer generated 4 pulses per
propeller revolution.
The independent transducer is an excellent way to drive
an electronic tach. However, I'll suggest that tach
signal failure on an e-mag/p-mag is on the same order
of reliability as the transducer. So, if one can comfortably
settle for a single source of tach signal from a dedicated
transducer, then system reliability for taking tach drives
from a single ignition system are in the same ball park
which suggests that a dedicated transducer may elevate parts
count without adding materially to reliablity.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Ronald J. Parigoris" <rparigor(at)SUFFOLK.LIB.NY.US> |
| Subject: | Compound on Rotax plug threads? |
This is a bit off topic, but not too far.
Rotax calls for a specific Denso Spark Plug for their 914UL. They also call for
coating
the threads with a Silicone based heat conductive compound "OR ELSE"
The cost for a small tube from Rotax is outrageous.
I have heard that you can use a Silicon Based heat sink compound from Radio Shack.
I
picked up a tube, and it is a very light white and translucent in color.
I have a tube of silicone based Dow 340 and is very white and not translucent at
all, temp
range is -40F to 390F.
I also have some coppaslip.
Any comments?
Thx.
Ron Parigoris
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | jerb <ulflyer(at)verizon.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Slow starter |
Do you have an impulse mag that retards the timing for starting?
If now that could well be your problem, fighting against compression power
stroke and firing to far before TDC.
Don't think the problem is key switch - how many amp hours battery do you
have? Is there any chance your using a master solenoid for a starter
solenoid? There different, starter solenoid is made for high current short
duration where the master is made for lower current and full timer operation.
Feel the battery and cable terminals immediately after trying to start - if
the noticeably warm that may be your problem. Taking voltage readings
between the start high current components can tell you a lot of where the
power loss is occurring. Do you have a good ground between the starter,
engine and battery? You can take reading on that also.
jerb
>
>
>I have a condition in my O-360 Glastar that puzzles me. I can turn the key
>switch (Aircraft Spruce) to START and the engine starts to turn but at a
>slow rate like a low battery, high compression, too small a battery cable,
>etc. The strange part is that I just let go of the key and then try it
>again and the engine turns over very nicely and starts on the first
>revolution through. I have one mag on the left side and a Lightspeed
>ignition on the right. Any ideas?
>
>Charlie Burton & N331Fox
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Ronald J. Parigoris" <rparigor(at)SUFFOLK.LIB.NY.US> |
| Subject: | Silicone and O2 sensor? |
This is a afterthought from prior post about using a Silicone based (grease?) compound
on
spark plug thrteads.
I have a O2 sensor that will be installed on my 914UL to drive a Split Second Mixture
monitor.
I know there are O2 safe sealants. I am not why some types of silicones kill O2
sensors.
Is it the fumes from acidic smelling Silicone running through the combustion chamber
that
kills O2 sensors?
Will low odor, non acidic aluminium and electronic safe silicone sealant fumes
run through
engine kill a O2 sensor?
Will silicone grease, if a small amount that is on the spark plug threads have
a chance to
kill a O2 sensor?
If silicone does hurt a O2 sensor, is it either alive, or dead? Or does it effect
like
lead killing a O2 sensor, lead will slow down O2 operation. Where a very quick
responce is
needed in a fuel injected auto, if you slow just a little it will have quite a
adverse
effect, yet when a O2 sensor is driving a monitor a few second delay is moot,
thus it
will tolerate a certain amount of lead. Once you learn your monitor, on start up/test
it
is easy to pick up that your sensor is not behaving properly and will not read
out full
range.
Thx.
Ron Parigoris
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "jdalton77" <jdalton77(at)comcast.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Bouncing loadmeter |
Bob,
That would be great and MUCH appreciated by many.
I've been asking A&Ps about this for three years and I have heard at
least ten "sure" answers. Maybe it's a combination of all of them ?
-----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: Bouncing loadmeter
-->
>-->
>
>
>I've heard of this problem being solved by replacing the master switch.
>I can't remember the specifics...
This problem has been "fixed" by replacing a myriad of devices
on as many airplanes. The problem is quite common on all DC
power systems where the POWER TO EXCITE THE ALTERNATOR FIELD
comes through the same wire as REGULATION VOLTAGE SENSE.
I'm working on an article that is a compilation of many
responses to this subject over the last 10 years or so.
I published a similar article a long time ago on Compuserve's
AVSIG forum but I don't find it in my archives . . . need
to do it over. This time it will go up on aeroelectric.com
This is a very special case problem understood by very
few a/p mechanics that has cost the flying public
$millions$ of unnecessary expense over the years. I'll
try to finish it up over the weekend and get it posted.
You'll hear about it here first.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Jim Baker" <jlbaker(at)telepath.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Silicone and O2 sensor? |
> prior post about using a Silicone based
> (grease?) compound on spark plug thrteads.
Whoa! No silicone grease on plug treads, please. Use appropriate
antiseize only. The silicone grease, such as Dow DC4, or FHC (don't
mix the two..one or the other) is used on the spark plug boots.
> I know there are O2 safe sealants. I am not why some types of
> silicones kill O2 sensors.
Just use appropriate antiseize......
Jim Baker
580.788.2779
'71 SV, 492TC
Elmore City, OK
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "John Swartout" <jgswartout(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Tach source for EIS |
Wow, George, thanks for the tutorial!
When I ordered the EIS from GRT, they told me I could take tach input
from the electronic ignitions, and use a switch to switch between them,
but it did not occur to me at the time to ask why I would want to.
I confess I haven't yet read the manual for the EIS. I have read some
manuals for other gadgets I'm installing, and generally find the better
ones awful and the worse ones utterly useless. Goes for computers as
well.
I'm working on the electrical system now and trying to order everything
I still need so I can cut correct size & number of holes in the
instrument panel in preparation for painting, next month if all goes
well.
Thanks for the help.
John
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of
gmcjetpilot(at)yahoo.com
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Re: Tach source for EIS
John:
"George, does that UMA tack drive convert mechanical to electronic to
supply the EIS?"
John, 5 volt (4.8v) excitation is common for many sensors for electronic
engine monitors, and this is not just limited a hall effect tach sender.
(Note sender, probe, transducer and sensor all mean the same thing for
this discussion).
5 VOLTS IS STANDARD FOR ELECTRONIC ENGINE MONITORS:
EIS has its own 5 volt output power supply (actually 4. 8 volts) to
drive the sensors or probes that require it. It may sound odd but some
of the EIS probes work on +4.8 volt bias, not ground or 12 or 14 volts.
In fact 12-14 volt going into any of the EIS probe input lines will
damage the unit.
If you read the manual for the EIS the optional or auxiliary inputs for:
fuel flow, capacitive fuel level probes , fuel pressure and hall effect
amp probe all require 4.8v to power them.
HALL EFFECT:
The hall effect tach sender converts the rotation of the tach drive into
an electrical pulse. That pulse is what the EIS is set up to measure and
turn into RPM. The standard way to get a pulse is off the magneto
p-lead, lighting or ignition coil (like on a rotax) or magnetic tach
sensor. Some of these produce their own voltage, others like a hall
effect sender need a small voltage to give the proper output.
Basics of Hall effect involve magnetic fields and electrical currents.
The hall effect needs a little input voltage to work. The UMA is a "Hall
Effect" device. Here is link explaining how "hall effect" works if you
want to know:
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/magnetic/hall.html
GRT's EIS 4000:
The EIS works on +4.8 Volt Bias for many input signals.
4.8 Volts is the MAX volts input on any probe input for the EIS. 5
volts is common power supply level at the sub-component electronics
level, by the way.
Once you buy the EIS4000 and the hall effect device and read the
installation manual it will be obvious.
Even the optional amp sender GRT sells is a hall effect device and
requires a positive 4.8 volt input. The nice part of a hall effect amp
probe is the wire passes thru a coil with out a need to make a break in
the wire. The hall effect amp sensor measures the magnetic field and
converts it into a bias voltage your EIS can read. Cool.
The EIS for the most part simply measures steady state voltage levels
from a probe. With the software (and scale factor), it displays the
correct value for you to read, like: fuel pressure oil temp, EGT, CHT,
fuel level, etc.
(EGT and CHT probes produce their own (very small) voltage. The oil
pressure is set up to a ground bias and requires no external excitation
voltage. Other probes like the fuel pressure requires an excitation
voltage.)
Some of the probe inputs are self powered (EGT/CHT) and others in the
EIS are designed to measure a ground bias (oil pressure).
Some EIS inputs measure a pulse (tach and fuel flow). It sounds odd or
confusing I know, but it is super easy to connect. The wires are color
coded. The EIS know what to do.
As far as the Tach and the EIS, GRT does not sell tach transducers and
expects you to provide a pulse. The software has user settings to adjust
the number of pulses per engine revolution to account for different
input sources from 0.5 to 12. How you get the pulse is your business but
it must not be higher than 4.8 volts. IF using a coil or p-lead off a
magneto you need to add resistors.
The fuel flow requires the 4.8 volt excitation and the tach may or may
not depending on the way you are measuring it.
A pulse is a simple 0 to 5v signal that last a few Milli seconds. The
rate of this pulse is read buy the EIS and converted to the proper
display value to read as RPM or Gal/Hr. Regardless of the pulse the max
magnitude of the pulse can not exceed 4.8 volts.
Good Luck, George
From: "John Swartout" <jgswartout(at)earthlink.net>
Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Re: Tach source for EIS
George, does that UMA tack drive convert mechanical to electronic to
supply the EIS? 5 volts is sort of odd. How do you supply 5 volts to
yours?
I'll be using toggle switches per Z13-8 for the Pmags, so can turn off
either one at any time.
John
---------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Ken <klehman(at)albedo.net> |
| Subject: | overvoltage protection false trigger fix |
I had a false OVM trip thing going on similar to Tom Johnson and I
really get annoyed when simple circuits misbehave. Both of my homemade
OVM's would trip their 2.5 amp C/B on battery power without the engine
running when various switches were operated. I couldn't make anything
trip when the OVM's were disconnected and I do have diodes on all the
relays. This is on a modified Z-14 and it turns out that my OVM's are
constructed according to reivision B 6/29/04 with that detailed
explanation of the circuit.
If I removed the main battery or it's B-lead fuse then just turning on
the crossfeed would trip both OVM's almost everytime. Interestingly both
C/B's are in series with a 10 amp ATO fuse and despite many dozens of
2.5 amp C/B trips I've yet to pop a 10 amp fuse. I did not see anything
unusual with an analog scope although on the bench the scope sure shows
how the diodes across the relays eliminates the negative spike when the
relays are opened. The OVM's seemed to check out fine on my bench and
and in fact I was only been able to get one unrepeatable false trip on
the bench and that was by drawing a little arc for quite some time in
the connection to the relay coil.
I then started thinking that maybe this really is the dv/dt effect on
the SCR due to voltage spikes on the bus. So I disconnected the
tranistor from the SCR gate but no false triggering occurred which I
think that means that the dv/dt effect was NOT occurring. However while
investigating (poking around) I noticed that just touching a digital
voltmeter probe to point C (the zener) would often trigger the little
devil. That didn't seem right so I added a 10 uF aluminum cap to
stabilize/filter the 12 volt reference provided by the zener. (No
particular reason for 10 uF , I just happened to put my hand on one)
Well happy days, it seems to have done the trick as so far I have not
been able to false trip the device.
Bob I'm going to declare my problem fixed unless you still want to see
one of these OVM's for your own tests. Maybe my particular zeners are
slow learners but it seems to me that the voltage reference probably
should have a capacitor on it to reduce its sensitivity to bus
variations and in any event, that seems to have fixed my problem :)
thanks
Ken
Robert L. Nuckolls, III overvoltage protection wrote:
>
>
>
>
>>
>>Hi Bob
>>
>>It's obvious that you are a busy man and I thank you for your
>>observations. No this is not a 40amp breaker. It's a small automotive
>>relay with 40 amp rated contacts. It provides an OV disconnect for a 20
>>amp PM alternator. The relay coil draws about 130 ma. The circuit
>>breaker that feeds this relay coil, and that the Crowbar OVP trips, is
>>a 2 1/2 amp (two and a half amp) breaker.
>>
>>The OVP is not from B&C. It is homemade according to the revision dated
>>4/16/2 and constructed with the recommended Digi-key parts. Since you
>>have confirmed that this is unexpected behaviour, I will do some more
>>investigation and let you know what I find.
>>
>>This is on a modified Z-14 and it is not even on the battery that feeds
>>the primary systems of my electrically dependant engine. This battery
>>and PM alternator feeds the backup engine systems. I'll start by
>>investigating whether the OVP for the other alternator behaves similarly
>>and perhaps put a scope on the 22 uF capacitor and the SCR. If I don't
>>learn anything useful and it is still exhibiting this behaviour, I'll be
>>happy to donate it to the cause if you still want to see it but it is
>>just a homemade unit.
>>
>>
>
> Yes. Send it to me. First, I'll test it for performance
> and then perhaps I'll make some mods and return it to
> see if it makes any difference.
>
> Bob . . .
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Connector Selection Redux |
Bob,
'Way back when, you discoursed upon the choices for connectors -
DSub/Molex - on the temporary address of:
"http://216.55.140.222/temp/power_dist.jpg"
I wonder whether it was lost when you settled on the new address or
whether it was incorporated in a neewer article. I have just lost the
original and beg to acquire it in whatever form it now takes.............
Cheers,
Ferg Kyle
VE3LVO(at)rac.ca
The ip address was a temporary archive for aeroelectric.com
articles when we were having server troubles. The link you've
cited now resides with a supplementary image at:
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/D-Sub_Power_Dist_1.jpg
and
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/D-Sub_Power_Dist_2.jpg
and it's a description of a power distribution assembly
I designed for a military program wherein I demonstrated
a technique for running a LOT of current through a d-sub
connector. In this case, pathways rated at 20A continuous.
This was accomplished by PARALLELING 5A pins and using
lengths of wire to provide BALLASTING resistance that
would wash out variability in pin-to-pin contact resistance.
I dug into the archives and found the conversation that
prompted my response and attached a copy below:
>
>Bob and Gang,
>Discussion of connectors raises an interesting thought; don't think
>I've never seen a good article on multi-wire plug connectors, and the
selection of
>a particular type for a particular application. Electronics guys know the
>details because they've worked with them for years. The rest of us pick up a
>Digi-Key catalog or similar, find a jaw-dropping selection, and groan.
Engineers navigating connector-wilds aren't much happier about it.
Connectors are like laundry soap . . . so many choices, so few
outstanding reasons for selecting any particular technology.
Every year or so, some starry-eyed sales rep would drop a new
connector catalog on my desk claiming that THIS product finally
answered the needs for everyone and was the greatest connector
since they began slicing bread . . .
Task 1 for a connector is to make non-permanent connections
between one or more strands of wire. Attachment to the wire
can be solder, crimp, or mass-termination (like ribbon cables
munched onto a 50 wires in a single stroke). Considerations
are (1) do you really NEED a connector there? (2) how many strands
of wire? (3) what sizes of wire? (4) any extraordinary
environmental concerns? (5) any extra ordinary mechanical
concerns?
> Need examples? When does one use a Molex connector vs a D-sub?
D-subs are the first connector I consider for any new application.
Check out this picture:
(see corrected link above)
This is a "tall" picture . . . so scroll down to
see the bottom half.
This is an all solid state, power distribution
box that routes energy from ground power jack
and up to two batteries to 5 different busses
in the vehicle. External power input can be as
high as 40A continuous . . . yet, if one knows
how to make it work, all can be handled though
the 20AWG pins of d-sub connectors.
This box USED to be about 10" long, 4" thick
5" wide, full of relays and wired up with
supper-whizzy connectors. The connectors alone
on the previous version cost more than the whole
bill of materials for the new version.
Here you can see how the solder-right-to-
the-board features of D-sub connectors has
a profound reduction of labor to install.
In this case, although subjected to up to
30g acceleration and short term radiant
heating, the D-sub was entirely suited
mechanically to the task. The mil-spec,
gold-plated pins were no worse (or better)
than the gold-plated pins on MUCH more
expensive connectors.
> Why are (most?) D-sub pins gold plated?
I wouldn't say most . . . you can buy tin-plated
connectors in D-sub. Gold is preferred because is
does not corrode . . . electrical integrity of
mated pins is not nearly so likely to degrade
with age and use. Gold plated pins are relatively
cheap for D-subs because of the huge volume in
this particular product. By-the-way, the same
20AWG pin is used in AMP CPC Series II connectors
like:
http://dkc3.digikey.com/PDF/T031/0192.pdf
use the same pins as a D-sub . . . so you have
two low-cost connector opportunities to use the
same tools and a common part number for pins.
> Is connector selection as simple as
>observing an amperage rating, or is there more to it?
I you were wiring anything but voltages up to 28vdc,
there might be voltage rating issues but in our
market, ANY connector will suffice that can
carry the current and accommodate the quantity
of wires.
If you need to carry more than 4A continuous
per pin, consider the CPC Series I connectors
in the same catalog can accommodate up to
14AWG wires. Except for firewall penetrations,
the AMP CPC connectors for systems teamed with
CPC and/or D-subs for avionics would be my
connectors of choice. They are low cost, tools
are reasonably priced, gold plated pins are
available for both styles. Excellent values
for our projects.
> Why a choice of metal or plastic backshells?
Plastic is less expensive and lighter. 90% of my
applications use plastic. There are almost never
interference issues that justify the metal or
conductive plastic backshells. If the connector
is used under the cowl, metal backshells are probably
advised.
> The automotive world uses plastic connector shells
>that lock when mated; why don't we use similar connectors in our airplanes?
>Or do we, and where do you get them?
Mate-n-Lock/Molex style connectors have been used
on many single engine airplane beginning in the 60's.
>Does a Molex shell offer any wire support, or does it strictly
>depend on the insulation crimp of the little sheet copper pin?
That's it. No bundle support. Only the insulation grip
on each strand. I was skeptical when I first laid eyes on them
but in retrospect, they seem to have performed well for decades
in spite of no back shell support and non-gold pins.
> May seem like dumb questions to some, but...
Not at all. Before Internet access reduced the need,
my library used to have about 5 feet of shelving
dedicated to connectors. Your consternation is understandable.
I think you'll find that the two connector series
I cited will do a good job for your project 98%
of the time.
----------------------------------------------------
The short summation for the above is to consider either
D-sub, AMP CPC circular, or the white plastic connectors
like Mate-n-Lock and Molex first. None of these connnectors
is recommend to carry wires THROUGH THE FIREWALL. See other
archive articles on this issue. Further, D-sub/AMP CPC are
probably not suited for the one high-voltage application
found on light aircraft: power supply to strobe head wireing.
For the vast majority of other applications, I certainly
try to make one of these three offerings do the job before
considering any other connector technology.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: "P" lead length |
>
>
>Bob -
>
>Thanks for the diagram. After a good night's sleep and some study of the
>diagram, we concluded that the mags were indeed wired OK. We did
>disconnect the leads and ground shields to check for shorts. The problem
>was in the test plan!! You gotta put the meter in line and not across the
>lines!
>
>Thanks for the help.
Aha! The ol' "lying ohmmeter" syndrome. Many builders have placed
an ohmmeter across the mag switch expecting to see measurable
activity in the reading when opening and closing the switch.
Take a peek at:
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Magneto_Resistance.gif
The mag switch turns a magneto OFF by placing a short across
the magneto's primary winding. The points and "condenser" in
the magneto are ALSO in parallel with the primary winding.
When one attempts to measure some change of resistance at
the switch end, there's a chance that the points are resting
in a closed state and there's already a dead short in parallel
with the magneto switch. Further, the resistance of the primary
winding is so low, some ohmmeters may not have sufficient
resolution in this realm of measurement to show a measurable
effect of operating the magneto switch even when the points
are open.
One can acquire a high resolution, low ohms-adapter for
their toolbox by fabricating one of the low-ohms adapters
depicted in:
http://aeroelectric.com/articles/LowOhmsAdapter_3.pdf
I published this article for technicians in the field
who have similar measurement problems working on our
aircraft. I've been getting some good feedback on the
usefulness of this easily fabricated test tool.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Charlie England <ceengland(at)bellsouth.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Slow starter |
Charlie Burton wrote:
>
>I have a condition in my O-360 Glastar that puzzles me. I can turn the key switch
(Aircraft Spruce) to START and the engine starts to turn but at a slow rate
like a low battery, high compression, too small a battery cable, etc. The strange
part is that I just let go of the key and then try it again and the engine
turns over very nicely and starts on the first revolution through. I have one
mag on the left side and a Lightspeed ignition on the right. Any ideas?
>
>Charlie Burton & N331Fox
>
No particular ideas for a cure, but it's a fairly common symptom across
multiple starter types, unrelated to ignition type. I've even seen it in
cars.
Dragging solenoid plunger not driving the high current contacts firmly
together?
Charlie
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Slow starter |
>
>
>Charlie Burton wrote:
>
>
> >
> >I have a condition in my O-360 Glastar that puzzles me. I can turn the
> key switch (Aircraft Spruce) to START and the engine starts to turn but
> at a slow rate like a low battery, high compression, too small a battery
> cable, etc. The strange part is that I just let go of the key and then
> try it again and the engine turns over very nicely and starts on the
> first revolution through. I have one mag on the left side and a
> Lightspeed ignition on the right. Any ideas?
> >
> >Charlie Burton & N331Fox
> >
>
>No particular ideas for a cure, but it's a fairly common symptom across
>multiple starter types, unrelated to ignition type. I've even seen it in
>cars.
>
>Dragging solenoid plunger not driving the high current contacts firmly
>together?
I'd start with a voltage measurement at the starter . . . and
in particular, is it markedly different for the first (slow)
event versus the second (faster) event.
It's unlikely to have anything to do with starter switch
or ignition syles and everything to do with loss of
conductivity somewhere along the route from battery to
starter. If possible, have someone help you and get voltage
readings at the battery at the same time as your readings
are taken at the starter.
I worked a problem with similar symptoms years ago. Voltage
reading were HIGHER while the starter was running slow than
when cranking normally. This led to the diagnosis that brushes
were hanging up in their holders and casing the starter to
draw LESS current while the problem was worst.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "John Swartout" <jgswartout(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | P/N, source for microphone? |
My Icom A200 com radio needs a microphone. I will always be using
headphones, but the manual for the radio says I should also have a
microphone, either a low-impedance carbon mike or a dynamic mike, which
requires a pre-amp. Microphone impedance is 600 ohms. As this device
will primarily be unwanted clutter in the cockpit, I would like to get
the cheapest mike that will function if ever needed. Any suggestions?
Thank you all.
John
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Bill Maxwell" <wrmaxwell(at)bigpond.com> |
| Subject: | Re: P/N, source for microphone? |
When you say "headphones" do you mean "headsets" John? If so, they of
course incorporate a microphone and that is all the A200 needs to be able to
transmit your voice, once the headset is correctly wired to the A200's
phones and mic circuits. You certainly will not need, nor be able to use a
second, presumably hand operated, microphone without also installing a
switch or resorting to additional wiring.
Bill
--- Original Message -----
From: "John Swartout" <jgswartout(at)earthlink.net>
Subject: AeroElectric-List: P/N, source for microphone?
>
>
> My Icom A200 com radio needs a microphone. I will always be using
> headphones, but the manual for the radio says I should also have a
> microphone, either a low-impedance carbon mike or a dynamic mike, which
> requires a pre-amp. Microphone impedance is 600 ohms. As this device
> will primarily be unwanted clutter in the cockpit, I would like to get
> the cheapest mike that will function if ever needed. Any suggestions?
> Thank you all.
>
> John
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "John Swartout" <jgswartout(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | P/N, source for microphone? |
Yes, I mean "headsets." Thanks. Since there will be two headsets, it
does seem unnecessarily redundant to add a mike to the panel.. Thanks
for the tip.
John
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Bill
Maxwell
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: P/N, source for microphone?
When you say "headphones" do you mean "headsets" John? If so, they of
course incorporate a microphone and that is all the A200 needs to be
able to
transmit your voice, once the headset is correctly wired to the A200's
phones and mic circuits. You certainly will not need, nor be able to
use a
second, presumably hand operated, microphone without also installing a
switch or resorting to additional wiring.
Bill
--- Original Message -----
From: "John Swartout" <jgswartout(at)earthlink.net>
Subject: AeroElectric-List: P/N, source for microphone?
>
>
> My Icom A200 com radio needs a microphone. I will always be using
> headphones, but the manual for the radio says I should also have a
> microphone, either a low-impedance carbon mike or a dynamic mike,
which
> requires a pre-amp. Microphone impedance is 600 ohms. As this device
> will primarily be unwanted clutter in the cockpit, I would like to get
> the cheapest mike that will function if ever needed. Any suggestions?
> Thank you all.
>
> John
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Jack Eckdahl" <jeckdahl(at)sjrwmd.com> |
I have 30 hours on my RV9A. Today, after taking off, I noticed an electrical "smell".
I glanced at all my guages and noticed moisture inside the lense of the
Vans fuel gauge. It was working, but I had never noticed moisture before.
My hanger is not humidity proof, but the plane has never been wet. I reached
under the panel and noticed that the guage was extremely hot to the touch. I
landed and did my best to look behind the panel. I saw no melted or burnt wires,
but the guage was still very hot and moisture continued to be behind the
faceplate. What should I do to troubleshoot? What would cause this after 30
hours of no known problem? thanks, Jack
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com on behalf of Robert L.
Nuckolls, III
Cc:=09
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: "P" lead length
>
>Are there lengths that should be avoided when installing "P" Leads? In other
>words, are there lengths that potentially cause more "transmitted noise" . .
>. or is that an issues with shielded "P" leads?
No length issues. You DO want to ground the shield
at the engine end only . . . and I recommend you use
the shield to PROVIDE ground at the switch end make no
other connections at switch end as suggested in numerous
other texts.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: P/N, source for microphone? |
>
>
>My Icom A200 com radio needs a microphone. I will always be using
>headphones, but the manual for the radio says I should also have a
>microphone, either a low-impedance carbon mike or a dynamic mike, which
>requires a pre-amp. Microphone impedance is 600 ohms. As this device
>will primarily be unwanted clutter in the cockpit, I would like to get
>the cheapest mike that will function if ever needed. Any suggestions?
>Thank you all.
What they're referring to is a hand-held microphone
from days of yore . . . John Wayne had really classy
hand-held microphone technique in "Flying Tigers" back
in '42 and we all tried to follow in the Duke's footsteps
since. But a few years ago, the hand-held mic started
disappearing from the airplanes. I don't think the rentals
I fly even have them in the cockpit any more.
The concern was that for early intercom systems, mic
audio for the comm transmitter was handled through
active electronics in the audio system. Loss of the
audio system could cause one to lose the pilot's voice
audio path to any or all transmitters . . . maybe the
headphones too!
The prudent installer of such systems provided a "failsafe"
path from pilots headphones and mic to at least one comm
transceiver. This is illustrated on page 1.11 of
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Catalog/AEC/9009/9009-700E.pdf
where in the lower left corner of the wiring diagram, you
see "failsafe" jacks for microphone and headset wiring.
When things are not going well with the audio distribution
system, the pilot can unplug his headset from the normal
jacks and plug into failsafe jacks for completion
of the flight.
Modern intercoms provide a relay that will hard-wire
the pilots headset to a comm radio in the event of
power failure to the intercomm for whatever reason.
If your intercom has this feature, you're done. If not,
you can add failsafe jacks as illustrated so that
you can easily bypass the audio system as needed. With
two headsets in the airplane a need to carry
a "second microphone" for redundancy is covered.
Failsafe jacks cover the rest of the hazards
so the microphone mentioned in the Icom manual becomes
extra redundant and un-necessary.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: HOT fuel guage |
>
>I have 30 hours on my RV9A. Today, after taking off, I noticed an
>electrical "smell". I glanced at all my guages and noticed moisture
>inside the lense of the Vans fuel gauge. It was working, but I had never
>noticed moisture before. My hanger is not humidity proof, but the plane
>has never been wet. I reached under the panel and noticed that the guage
>was extremely hot to the touch. I landed and did my best to look behind
>the panel. I saw no melted or burnt wires, but the guage was still very
>hot and moisture continued to be behind the faceplate. What should I do
>to troubleshoot? What would cause this after 30 hours of no known
>problem? thanks, Jack
Your fuel gage tenants probably had a grease fire
while frying up a batch of taco shells. Geesh! I cannot
imagine what kind of failure would produce the symptoms
you've cited. The only time I saw an instrument "fog" up
like that, it wasn't moisture but smoke. The "fog" was
still on the instrument face when I disassembled it
for failure analysis. See:
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Letting_Smoke_Out_1.jpg
In this case, the instrument (expanded scale voltmeter)
had been subject to an OV condition. I can't imagine what
would have caused it. It would be interesting to do a
an autopsy on it to see if we can figure it out.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | <pgroell(at)chello.fr> |
| Subject: | Z13 and switches |
Hello Bob and readers,
I'm still in the very early planning stages of building a RV-7A, but as I'm stuck
do to workshop availability, and I try to plan ahead with systems, etc...
I really like the architecture of Z13 and have questions about the switches.
1) As I understand, the ESS BUS switch and AUX ALT FIELD switch are closed after
MAIN ALT failure and after the MASTER SWITCH is opened. Would it be of interest
to have the two functions (ESS BUS close and AUX ALT FIELD ON) combined in
one switch . First position would connect the ESS BUS, second position would
close the AUX ALT FIELD switch.
2) Both alternators' circuits are equipped with shunts to "read" their load, as
the AUX ALT will only be running in case of MAIN ALT failure, the load needs
only to be read in this case. To be able to use only one instrument would it make
sense to wire the circuit so that the instrument would read MAIN ALT load
when MAIN ALT is running and AUX ALT load when AUX ALT is brought on line (may
be with the AUX ALT FIELD switch). I know this may interfere with question 1
above.
Maybe these questions don't make any sense or I have been unable to find the answers.
I'm trying to find a way to have the smallest amount of switches to throw in case
of MAIN ALT failure.
Best regards
Pascal
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Bill Maxwell" <wrmaxwell(at)bigpond.com> |
| Subject: | Re: P/N, source for microphone? |
You're most welcome. Actually, although the A200 is a good radio, if now a
little dated in terms of memory capacity and some other modern features, it
has always been let down by a less than comprehensive manuals, including the
service manual.
Bill
----- Original Message -----
From: "John Swartout" <jgswartout(at)earthlink.net>
Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: P/N, source for microphone?
>
>
> Yes, I mean "headsets." Thanks. Since there will be two headsets, it
> does seem unnecessarily redundant to add a mike to the panel.. Thanks
> for the tip.
>
> John
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Bill
> Maxwell
> To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
> Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: P/N, source for microphone?
>
>
>
> When you say "headphones" do you mean "headsets" John? If so, they of
> course incorporate a microphone and that is all the A200 needs to be
> able to
> transmit your voice, once the headset is correctly wired to the A200's
> phones and mic circuits. You certainly will not need, nor be able to
> use a
> second, presumably hand operated, microphone without also installing a
> switch or resorting to additional wiring.
>
> Bill
> --- Original Message -----
> From: "John Swartout" <jgswartout(at)earthlink.net>
> To:
> Subject: AeroElectric-List: P/N, source for microphone?
>
>
>>
>>
>> My Icom A200 com radio needs a microphone. I will always be using
>> headphones, but the manual for the radio says I should also have a
>> microphone, either a low-impedance carbon mike or a dynamic mike,
> which
>> requires a pre-amp. Microphone impedance is 600 ohms. As this device
>> will primarily be unwanted clutter in the cockpit, I would like to get
>> the cheapest mike that will function if ever needed. Any suggestions?
>> Thank you all.
>>
>> John
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Werner Schneider" <glastar(at)gmx.net> |
| Subject: | Re: P/N, source for microphone? |
For a check, if your intercom/audiopanel is switched off and you still can
communicate via the radio you would not need this extra wiring.
br Werner (GMA 340 with failsave)
----- Original Message -----
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net>
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: P/N, source for microphone?
>
>
>
>>
>>
>>My Icom A200 com radio needs a microphone. I will always be using
>>headphones, but the manual for the radio says I should also have a
>>microphone, either a low-impedance carbon mike or a dynamic mike, which
>>requires a pre-amp. Microphone impedance is 600 ohms. As this device
>>will primarily be unwanted clutter in the cockpit, I would like to get
>>the cheapest mike that will function if ever needed. Any suggestions?
>>Thank you all.
>
> What they're referring to is a hand-held microphone
> from days of yore . . . John Wayne had really classy
> hand-held microphone technique in "Flying Tigers" back
> in '42 and we all tried to follow in the Duke's footsteps
> since. But a few years ago, the hand-held mic started
> disappearing from the airplanes. I don't think the rentals
> I fly even have them in the cockpit any more.
>
> The concern was that for early intercom systems, mic
> audio for the comm transmitter was handled through
> active electronics in the audio system. Loss of the
> audio system could cause one to lose the pilot's voice
> audio path to any or all transmitters . . . maybe the
> headphones too!
>
> The prudent installer of such systems provided a "failsafe"
> path from pilots headphones and mic to at least one comm
> transceiver. This is illustrated on page 1.11 of
>
> http://www.aeroelectric.com/Catalog/AEC/9009/9009-700E.pdf
>
> where in the lower left corner of the wiring diagram, you
> see "failsafe" jacks for microphone and headset wiring.
> When things are not going well with the audio distribution
> system, the pilot can unplug his headset from the normal
> jacks and plug into failsafe jacks for completion
> of the flight.
>
> Modern intercoms provide a relay that will hard-wire
> the pilots headset to a comm radio in the event of
> power failure to the intercomm for whatever reason.
> If your intercom has this feature, you're done. If not,
> you can add failsafe jacks as illustrated so that
> you can easily bypass the audio system as needed. With
> two headsets in the airplane a need to carry
> a "second microphone" for redundancy is covered.
> Failsafe jacks cover the rest of the hazards
> so the microphone mentioned in the Icom manual becomes
> extra redundant and un-necessary.
>
> Bob . . .
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | RE: Hot fuel guage |
| From: | "Jack Eckdahl" <jeckdahl(at)sjrwmd.com> |
Bob: Thanks for the reply. Interesting that you mentioned an
overvoltage condition being the cause of the instrument that you
mentioned. You may rememeber a few weeks ago I had a overvoltage
condition on an internally regulated alternator. I started and within
15-20 seconds shut down my engine after noticing the voltmeter peg at
maximum. I then removed the alternator, had it checked and found that
the regulator was bad along with some other problem. My problem with
the fuel gauge showed up on the first start-up after the overvoltage
incident after I installed the new alternator. All other guages, radios
seem to be fine. Maybe the OV condition caused the fuel gauge to simmer
and I didn't notice it before because I shut down the engine?? What do
you think? thanks again, Jack
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: RE: Hot fuel guage |
>
>Bob: Thanks for the reply. Interesting that you mentioned an
>overvoltage condition being the cause of the instrument that you
>mentioned. You may rememeber a few weeks ago I had a overvoltage
>condition on an internally regulated alternator. I started and within
>15-20 seconds shut down my engine after noticing the voltmeter peg at
>maximum. I then removed the alternator, had it checked and found that
>the regulator was bad along with some other problem. My problem with
>the fuel gauge showed up on the first start-up after the overvoltage
>incident after I installed the new alternator. All other guages, radios
>seem to be fine. Maybe the OV condition caused the fuel gauge to simmer
>and I didn't notice it before because I shut down the engine?? What do
>you think? thanks again, Jack
Excellent data point. Yes, your ov event would offer a
strong suggestion of root cause. Given that your fuel
gage was operational for a period of time before the ov
event and croaked afterwards is a very powerful cause/effect
linkage.
Odds are that simple replacement of the smoked gage will
be all that's necessary. I'd like to get the smoked one
if you don't need it for anything else.
For the rest of the folks out there . . . here's another
isolated, rare, but not zero-risk incident involving
a runaway in an internally regulated alternator. I've
fielded a lot of tomatoes and cabbages over this issue
but I'll have to continue to recommend (1) the BEST
alternator installation for aircraft use external
regulators with ov protection either built in or as an
ancillary device or (2) some means of adding external
ov protection to the internally regulated alternator
is a GOOD thing to consider.
Jack, do I recall correctly that you only had 30 hours
on this airplane when the alternator launched for the moon?
Also, for the next few hours, be especially watchful
for damage to other systems that may not have surfaced yet.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Dr. Andrew Elliott" <a.s.elliott(at)cox.net> |
I recently purchased a new Lightspeed XCc headset for the passenger side of my
plane, to go along with the Pilot 17-79 I use myself. I tried it out on a solo
test flight and it worked very nicely for the price.
However, when flying with both headsets in use, I discovered that at high power
settings, the VOX setting on the intercom that works for either headset alone
produces nearly constant open mic with both mic's plugged in. If I turn up the
squelch on the intercom VOX, I can remove the noise and get it so that the
pilot-side mic works in intercom mode, but the pax-side won't break squelch.
If I adjust it so that I can hear the passenger in intercom mode, the wind/engine
noise reappears annoyingly and intermittently. At lower speeds and lower
power settings, this problem disappears.
The Lightspeed headset has a mic gain adjustment screw. Is it possible to reduce
the problem by changing the mic gain on one headset? Is this a "fly it and
try it" methodology?
Are there other ways to handle this problem (besides unplugging the passenger mic)?
Andy Elliott
N481HY/AA-1(TD,160)/KFFZ
That's "One Hot Yankee"
http://members.cox.net/n481hy/
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Pascal Gosselin <pascal(at)aeroteknic.com> |
| Subject: | Re: PTT coiled cord |
At 01:48 AM 7/21/2005, jlundberg(at)cox.net wrote:
>
>
>Does anyone know where to buy coiled PTT wire. Its the cord that goes
>from the PTT switch on the yoke to the mike key terminal on the mic jack.
Olympic Wire is the company that makes this stuff.
http://www.olympicwire.com/
I bought 12 conductor coiled wire from them through a distributor, ALLIED
ELECTRONICS.
http://www.alliedelec.com/
If all you need is a PTT the cheapeast solution might be to sacrifice a
cheap portable PTT.
-Pascal
+---------------------------+
Pascal Gosselin
pascal(at)aeroteknic.com
tel. (450) 676-6299
fax. (450) 676-2760
cell. (514) 298-3343
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | <chaztuna(at)adelphia.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Z13 and switches |
---- pgroell(at)chello.fr wrote:
>
> Hello Bob and readers,
>
> I'm still in the very early planning stages of building a RV-7A, but as I'm stuck
do to workshop availability, and I try to plan ahead with systems, etc...
>
> I really like the architecture of Z13 and have questions about the switches.
>
> 1) As I understand, the ESS BUS switch and AUX ALT FIELD switch are closed after
MAIN ALT failure and after the MASTER SWITCH is opened. Would it be of interest
to have the two functions (ESS BUS close and AUX ALT FIELD ON) combined
in one switch . First position would connect the ESS BUS, second position would
close the AUX ALT FIELD switch.
>
> 2) Both alternators' circuits are equipped with shunts to "read" their load,
as the AUX ALT will only be running in case of MAIN ALT failure, the load needs
only to be read in this case. To be able to use only one instrument would it
make sense to wire the circuit so that the instrument would read MAIN ALT load
when MAIN ALT is running and AUX ALT load when AUX ALT is brought on line (may
be with the AUX ALT FIELD switch). I know this may interfere with question
1 above.
>
> Maybe these questions don't make any sense or I have been unable to find the
answers.
> I'm trying to find a way to have the smallest amount of switches to throw in
case of MAIN ALT failure.
>
> Best regards
>
> Pascal
Pascal,
Combining those two switches into one switch only makes sense if panel space is
critically tight. The master/alternator switch is a double pole, double throw
switch as Bob designed the circuit. To incorporate the Endurance (formerly called
Essential) bus into this switch would require a triple pole, double throw
switch. These are available, but are more expensive. Another down side is that
if your new, combined switch fails away from home, you will be hard pressed
to find a replacement quickly. I suggest that if panel space permits, you stick
with the setup as designed by Bob.
Charlie Kuss
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Hot fuel guage/George and Bob |
| From: | "Jack Eckdahl" <jeckdahl(at)sjrwmd.com> |
George: The alternator that failed was a nippon denso, 60 amp,
internally regulated. I'm not sure that my experience should cause
others to avoid this unit. I know that hundreds of airplanes are flying
successfully with them. However, if you read Bob's most recent post,
you might decide to avoid all internal regulated alternators.
Bob: As soon as I pull the fuel guage, I'll send it too you. What
address? thanks, jack
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Hot fuel guage/George and Bob |
>
>George: The alternator that failed was a nippon denso, 60 amp,
>internally regulated. I'm not sure that my experience should cause
>others to avoid this unit. I know that hundreds of airplanes are flying
>successfully with them. However, if you read Bob's most recent post,
>you might decide to avoid all internal regulated alternators.
Just for newcomers to this discussion . . . I would not
discourage anyone from taking advantage of the very high
reliability offered by modern, internally regulated
alternators . . . your risk of suffering the alternator's
ultimate insult is indeed very low. Van's assertions that
thousands are flying trouble free for a remarkable history
of satisfactory service life are accurate. The odds are
definitely in your favor . . . especially if your particular
alternator selection allows you to directly control it while
being turned by the engine.
I'll add that my personal mission is to offer builders
the best I know how to do without suffering a huge
budget crunch. Yes, B&C wants an arm and a leg for
their products but in comparison to the total cost of your
project, it's not a big jump proportionately.
So I'll continue to offer my best recommendations but please
don't assume that because I cannot recommend a particular
philosophy or technique that I'm suggesting it's an evil
or extraordinarily risky thing to do.
>Bob: As soon as I pull the fuel guage, I'll send it too you. What
>address? thanks, jack
6936 Bainbridge Road
Wichita, KS 67226-1008
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: | mark supinski <mark.supinski(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | Battery source(s) |
Hi All-
I'm trying to find vendors for a dual-battery setup, a-la Z-19. I can
easily find the type of batteries I'm looking for on the B&C website,
but I'm having trouble finding other vendors, Can someone point me at
other source(s) for appropriate batteris?
Note - Bob is exactly right in the 'connection -- figuring out what
type of battery a given vendor is offering is a trick & a half.
Hopefully you'll be suggesting sites that engage in 'plain speak' !
Thanks,
Mark
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: PTT coiled cord |
>
>
>At 01:48 AM 7/21/2005, jlundberg(at)cox.net wrote:
> >
> >
> >Does anyone know where to buy coiled PTT wire. Its the cord that goes
> >from the PTT switch on the yoke to the mike key terminal on the mic jack.
>
>Olympic Wire is the company that makes this stuff.
>
>http://www.olympicwire.com/
>
>I bought 12 conductor coiled wire from them through a distributor, ALLIED
>ELECTRONICS.
>
>http://www.alliedelec.com/
>
>
>If all you need is a PTT the cheapeast solution might be to sacrifice a
>cheap portable PTT.
I discovered another off-the-shelf source of small diameter
coil cord: Cell phone chargers for your car. I just pitched
a couple of charger cords I don't use any more. They would
have had a two-conductor cord suitable for PTT. If you need
more functions, the cell phone charger I have now is a universal
device with personality modules that plug in at the phone
interface. The coil cord seems to have 4 or more conductors
in it. When I trash my current phones, I'll let you know!
In any case, there are dozens of sources for new and/or
junk coil cords that can be pressed into service on your
airplane.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Mic Balancing |
>
>
>I recently purchased a new Lightspeed XCc headset for the passenger side
>of my plane, to go along with the Pilot 17-79 I use myself. I tried it
>out on a solo test flight and it worked very nicely for the price.
>
>However, when flying with both headsets in use, I discovered that at high
>power settings, the VOX setting on the intercom that works for either
>headset alone produces nearly constant open mic with both mic's plugged
>in. If I turn up the squelch on the intercom VOX, I can remove the noise
>and get it so that the pilot-side mic works in intercom mode, but the
>pax-side won't break squelch. If I adjust it so that I can hear the
>passenger in intercom mode, the wind/engine noise reappears annoyingly and
>intermittently. At lower speeds and lower power settings, this problem
>disappears.
>
>The Lightspeed headset has a mic gain adjustment screw. Is it possible to
>reduce the problem by changing the mic gain on one headset? Is this a
>"fly it and try it" methodology?
>
>Are there other ways to handle this problem (besides unplugging the
>passenger mic)?
The problem you cite is very common when different brands
of mic/headset are combined into a single system. The
best intercoms have independent mic circuits that will
allow individual adjustment for vox thresholds and
mic sensitivity.
The system you have apparently does not have that feature
and there's no easy solution that I can deduce. Keeping
headsets paired for brand and model number is the only
way to improve probability of success.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
| From: | Neil K Clayton <harvey4(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | Wiring practice question |
I bought the PS Engineering PM3000 Intercom.
Wiring is pretty straight-forward, but I need to eyeball one aspect
of the installation.
It could turn out to be a real rats nest if not done properly.
The wire shields all come into the 25 pin Sub-D, connect to each
other, and together with some core wires, then a single ground wire
goes into the Sub-D through pin #1.
How on earth do all those shields mate together?
Can someone point me to a picture of the actual installation?
Many thanks
Neil C
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | mark supinski <mark.supinski(at)gmail.com> |
I've read the new chapter 18 on audio panels, and it hits most of my
issues right on the head. The only thing it lacks is a picture of the
end result in terms of what is installed on the panel.
Here is what I am trying to tie together:
Comm1: (Garmin 250XL GPS/Comm)
Comm 2: (VAL 760)
Intercom: Sigtronics SPA 600 with optional stereo music module
Warning: Redish stall warner (have to create tone generator per chapter 18)
Music: Sirius satellite radio
BX-2000 Audio selector panel
My basic question is - is it worth it (or even possible) to use the
BX-2000, or would I be better off to simply create something on my own
per chapter 18? The BX-2000 has lots of selections which I would have
no intention of using - so it fails the complexity proposed in ch
18... On the other hand, the audio isolator presented in ch 18 is mono
only it appears.
As an aside, I wish there were a panel "after" drawing in Chapter 18
to compare against the notional audio selector which is presented
early in the chapter.
Help help!
Mark
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Dave Morris <BigD(at)DaveMorris.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Battery source(s) |
Try DigiKey, for instance
http://www.digikey.com/scripts/dksearch/dksus.dll?Detail?Ref=769462&Row=408596&Site=US
Dave Morris
At 03:39 PM 7/25/2005, you wrote:
>
>
>Hi All-
>
>I'm trying to find vendors for a dual-battery setup, a-la Z-19. I can
>easily find the type of batteries I'm looking for on the B&C website,
>but I'm having trouble finding other vendors, Can someone point me at
>other source(s) for appropriate batteris?
>
>Note - Bob is exactly right in the 'connection -- figuring out what
>type of battery a given vendor is offering is a trick & a half.
>Hopefully you'll be suggesting sites that engage in 'plain speak' !
>
>Thanks,
>
>Mark
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "r falstad" <bobair8(at)msn.com> |
| Subject: | D-SUB Wye Band-Aid? |
I just finished what I think is a very nice harness between my Ameri-King AK-350
altitude encoder and my Garmin GTX-320 transponder. Then I looked at the installation
instructions for my Garmin GNC-250XL Comm/GPS only to discover that
the Comm/GPS wants altitude codes from the encoder, as well.
The altitude encoder cable end is a 15 pin male D-Sub with female pins, the transponder
cable end is a 25-pin male D-Sub with female pins, and the Comm/GPS is
looking for a cable end with a 26-pin HD-DSUB.
I've been trying to crimp everything using the machined pins from B&C but can't
fit two 22 AWG wires into one pin (no surprise there). I could probably solder
two 22 AWG wires into the solder cups of a D-Sub connector. So here's my current
thinking:
Make a "wye" with one leg terminating in a 15-pin female D-Sub with male pins to
mate with the transponder cable. The second leg of the wye would be a 26-pin
HD-DSUB to match the back of the Comm/GPS. The connector between the two legs
would be a 15-pin male D-Sub with female pins to match the altitude encoder.
I'd have to go ahead and solder two wires into nine of the solder cups on this
connector (i.e., A1, A2, A4, B1, B2, B4, C1, C2 and C4).
Will the pins for the HD-DSUB accept 22 AWG wires? Does this lash up sound like
a plan?
Thanks and
Best regards,
Bob
________________________________________________________________________________
aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
| From: | Neil K Clayton <harvey4(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | D-sub crimper question |
The D-sub connector that came with my PS Engineering PM3000 Intercom
has pins that are not stamped, but seem to be tiny brass tubes with
colors on the outside.
I'll bet there's a crimping tool for these types of pins, but I'm
darned if I can find it.
The PS Eng manual says use "AMP 661966-1" tool, but neither Digikey
or Mouser carries such a beast.
Can anyone help, pls?
Thanks
Neil
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | rv-9a-online <rv-9a-online(at)telus.net> |
| Subject: | Re: D-sub crimper question |
Neil, here are a couple of sources:
Affordable Panel part numbers: www.affordablepanels.com
BC-S01 machined sockets
BC-P01 machined pins
APT-010 insertion/removal tool
APT-006 machined pin crimp tool
Steinair part numbers: www.steinair.com
SA-1017 machined sockets
SA-1018 machined pins
SAT-023 insertion/removal tool
SAT-004 machined pin crimp tool
Vern Little
RV-9A
Neil K Clayton wrote:
>
>The D-sub connector that came with my PS Engineering PM3000 Intercom
>has pins that are not stamped, but seem to be tiny brass tubes with
>colors on the outside.
>
>I'll bet there's a crimping tool for these types of pins, but I'm
>darned if I can find it.
>
>The PS Eng manual says use "AMP 661966-1" tool, but neither Digikey
>or Mouser carries such a beast.
>
>Can anyone help, pls?
>Thanks
>Neil
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Jim Jewell" <jjewell(at)telus.net> |
| Subject: | Re: D-sub crimper question |
Hi Neil,
Go go to B&C Speciality's site :
http://www.bandcspecialty.com/cgi-bin/ez-catalog/cat_display.cgi?9X358218#RCT-1
Scroll down the page to: D-Sub Machined Pins Crimp Tool
I think this tool is what you need. The professional version of this tool is
way more money than You will likely want to spend.
Isn't wiring fun |;-}
Jim in Kelowna
----- Original Message -----
From: "Neil K Clayton" <harvey4(at)earthlink.net>
Subject: AeroElectric-List: D-sub crimper question
>
>
> The D-sub connector that came with my PS Engineering PM3000 Intercom
> has pins that are not stamped, but seem to be tiny brass tubes with
> colors on the outside.
>
> I'll bet there's a crimping tool for these types of pins, but I'm
> darned if I can find it.
>
> The PS Eng manual says use "AMP 661966-1" tool, but neither Digikey
> or Mouser carries such a beast.
>
> Can anyone help, pls?
> Thanks
> Neil
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "John Swartout" <jgswartout(at)earthlink.net> |
Bob, I note that in Z-32, the wire from the S704-1 E-Bus Alternate Feed
Relay to the Endurance Bus does not include a Fusible Link, unlike the
Z13/8 drawing between the E-Bus and the Alt. Feed Switch. Should it be
there?
Thanks,
John
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "John Swartout" <jgswartout(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | Built-in starter contactor/Z-22 |
Bob, I'm figuring to use Z13/8 with Z-22 for my Sky-Tec Flyweight
permanent magnet starter with onboard solenoid.
In Note 10 you recommend locating the field breaker for the main
alternator (L40 with LR-3 in my case) not on the panel but as close as
possible to the starter contactor. My starter RELAY will be on the
forward side of the firewall. This would make it impossible to pull the
breaker from the pilot's seat in case of alternator troubles. But if
the main alternator died, I would still like to be able to start the
engine if I am stuck 400 miles out in the bush, so I plan to use the
progressive transfer, 2-10 style master switch discussed in Note 22. It
is not clear to me whether it would still be possible to start the
engine if the L40 main alternator is disabled. Does it matter that
there is no jumper from the starter solenoid hot terminal to the B-lead
of the SD-8?
And should the wire size from the pushbutton starter to the S704-1 relay
be the same size as it would be for a starter contactor, i.e. 20AWG?
Thank you once again for your generous assistance.
John
-----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: Built-in starter contactor
>
>
>Bob, on May 9th you replied, in part, to jerry(at)mc.net:
>
>
>What you describe will function electrically. If that system
> is attractive to you, consider using the built-in starter
contactor
> that comes with most modern starters. Use the boost relay
> circuit shown in Figure Z-22. Then jumper alternator b-lead
> to the starter contactor hot terminal using a Maxi-Fuse HHX inline
> holder. See page 13 of
> of
>http://www.bussmann.com/shared/library/catalogs/Buss_Auto-Fuse_Cat.pdf
>
>
> Maxi fuses can be found on page 3. Use MAX60 fuse on 40A
alternator,
> MAX80 on a 60A alternator. Eliminate alternator loadmeter feature.
> The boost relay can mount on firewall. No new hardware bolted
> to engine.
>
>
> Bob . . .
>
>
>My Sky-Tec starter is said to "feature an integrated starter solenoid
>for homebuilt applications not wishing to install a separate firewall
>solenoid."
>
>
>I assume a starter solenoid is the same thing as a starter contactor.
>Can you discuss why one might choose to have another starter contactor
>if the starter has one built in?
See http://aeroelectric.com/articles/strtctr.pdf
The extraordinary inrush currents common to modern starter
designs that caused extraordinary wear on the start switch
contacts of the ACS510 off-l-r-both-start keyswitch and
prompted an AD to add a diode across the contactor coil.
I prefer NOT to subject the ACS510 or any other panel mounted
switch to this stress and have recommended an auxiliary
starter contactor as illustrated in all of the Z-figures
-OR- use of a boost relay as depicted in figure Z-22 of
http://aeroelectric.com/articles/strtctr.pdf which not
only cures (1) a run-on problem with SOME PM starters when
using the on-board contactor (2) but isolates the panel
mounted starter control from the high current requirements
of the starter contactor.
By the way, if you ARE using a PM starter then figure
Z-22 may be the recommended control philosophy. Some of
these starters exhibit a delayed pinion engagement quirk
when back-emf during spin-down of the deenergized motor
keeps the pinion extended. These starters should be either
wired with ROBUST starter push buttons and heavier
than usual control wires (recommend 16AWG and 10A fuse)
-OR- per figure Z-22.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Battery source(s) |
>
>
>Hi All-
>
>I'm trying to find vendors for a dual-battery setup, a-la Z-19. I can
>easily find the type of batteries I'm looking for on the B&C website,
>but I'm having trouble finding other vendors, Can someone point me at
>other source(s) for appropriate batteris?
>
>Note - Bob is exactly right in the 'connection -- figuring out what
>type of battery a given vendor is offering is a trick & a half.
>Hopefully you'll be suggesting sites that engage in 'plain speak' !
>
>Thanks,
Where do you live? In any medium size town (300K or more)
there are usually corner Batteries-R-Us stores. There
are a half dozen in Wichita. You're looking for a form-fit-
function replacement for a 17 a.h. RG battery like:
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Mfgr_Data/Batteries/Panasonic/lc-rd1217p.pdf
Walk into the battery store and see what they've got before
you spend money on shipping for so large a hunk of lead.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Wiring practice question |
>
>
>I bought the PS Engineering PM3000 Intercom.
>
>Wiring is pretty straight-forward, but I need to eyeball one aspect
>of the installation.
>It could turn out to be a real rats nest if not done properly.
>
>The wire shields all come into the 25 pin Sub-D, connect to each
>other, and together with some core wires, then a single ground wire
>goes into the Sub-D through pin #1.
>
>How on earth do all those shields mate together?
>
>Can someone point me to a picture of the actual installation?
>
>Many thanks
>Neil C
Sure . . . See:
http://aeroelectric.com/articles/pigtail/pigtail.html
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Battery source(s) |
>
>
>I got all mine from www.Batteries.com I use the SLA (sealed lead acid)
>type. These are definatly not the same as the Odyssey batteries but
>quite a bit cheaper.
>
>When I was considering the single alt/two battery setup I was going to
>get an Odyssey for my main batt (therby using its low internal resistnce
>for max cranking) and a SLA for the secomdary.
>
>I been using these for the last 6 years on my current airplane.
If they're SLA, SVLA, RG, or SE batteries, then they're
the same chemistry and basic techology as the Odyssey.
Odyssey is a thin plate device offering exceptional
cranking current . . . but it's not a magic battery
by any stretch of the imagination.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: D-sub crimper question |
>
>
>The D-sub connector that came with my PS Engineering PM3000 Intercom
>has pins that are not stamped, but seem to be tiny brass tubes with
>colors on the outside.
>
>I'll bet there's a crimping tool for these types of pins, but I'm
>darned if I can find it.
>
>The PS Eng manual says use "AMP 661966-1" tool, but neither Digikey
>or Mouser carries such a beast.
that puppy is EXPENSIVE. B&C has one at a fraction of the
price at http://www.bandc.biz
It's their catalog number RCT-3 and looks like this . . .
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/rct-3.jpg
and installs pins like . . .
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/RCT-3_Male.jpg
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "DonVS" <dsvs(at)comcast.net> |
| Subject: | D-sub crimper question |
Neil,
These are mil-spec pins. The crimper is about $350.00 from McDanials tool.
The one that B&C sells works fine for far less cash. Bob N told the class
that I attended that there were some problems with the early B&C tools but
that they had been corrected. I would suggest that you do not buy a used
tool as it might one of the defective ones. Don
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of Neil K
Clayton
aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
Subject: AeroElectric-List: D-sub crimper question
The D-sub connector that came with my PS Engineering PM3000 Intercom
has pins that are not stamped, but seem to be tiny brass tubes with
colors on the outside.
I'll bet there's a crimping tool for these types of pins, but I'm
darned if I can find it.
The PS Eng manual says use "AMP 661966-1" tool, but neither Digikey
or Mouser carries such a beast.
Can anyone help, pls?
Thanks
Neil
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Lycoming Alternator Kit on Ebay |
FYI
I spotted a Lycoming Alternator Kit on Ebay at starting bid at $199.
http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/LYCOMING-HOMEBUILT-AIRCRAFT-ALTERNATOR-KIT_W0
QQitemZ4564658670QQcategoryZ26437QQrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem
Ensure the whole URL copied to Browser
Thought someone may be in the market to buy.
Regards
Gerry
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Built-in starter contactor/Z-22 |
>
>
>Bob, I'm figuring to use Z13/8 with Z-22 for my Sky-Tec Flyweight
>permanent magnet starter with onboard solenoid.
>
>In Note 10 you recommend locating the field breaker for the main
>alternator (L40 with LR-3 in my case) not on the panel but as close as
>possible to the starter contactor.
That's not a field breaker but protection for the alternator's
output wire commonly referred to as the "b-lead".
> My starter RELAY will be on the
>forward side of the firewall. This would make it impossible to pull the
>breaker from the pilot's seat in case of alternator troubles.
You'll never have a need to touch that FUSE (not breaker) in
any conceivable failure scenario.
> But if
>the main alternator died, I would still like to be able to start the
>engine if I am stuck 400 miles out in the bush, so I plan to use the
>progressive transfer, 2-10 style master switch discussed in Note 22. It
>is not clear to me whether it would still be possible to start the
>engine if the L40 main alternator is disabled. Does it matter that
>there is no jumper from the starter solenoid hot terminal to the B-lead
>of the SD-8?
Starter functionality has nothing to do with the wiring for
either alternator. I'm not understanding your concerns
>And should the wire size from the pushbutton starter to the S704-1 relay
>be the same size as it would be for a starter contactor, i.e. 20AWG?
It can be 22AWG
>Thank you once again for your generous assistance.
You're welcome.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: New Chapter 18 |
>
>
>I've read the new chapter 18 on audio panels, and it hits most of my
>issues right on the head. The only thing it lacks is a picture of the
>end result in terms of what is installed on the panel.
>
>Here is what I am trying to tie together:
>
>Comm1: (Garmin 250XL GPS/Comm)
>Comm 2: (VAL 760)
>Intercom: Sigtronics SPA 600 with optional stereo music module
>Warning: Redish stall warner (have to create tone generator per chapter 18)
>Music: Sirius satellite radio
>
>BX-2000 Audio selector panel
>
>
>My basic question is - is it worth it (or even possible) to use the
>BX-2000, or would I be better off to simply create something on my own
>per chapter 18? The BX-2000 has lots of selections which I would have
>no intention of using - so it fails the complexity proposed in ch
>18... On the other hand, the audio isolator presented in ch 18 is mono
>only it appears.
>
>As an aside, I wish there were a panel "after" drawing in Chapter 18
>to compare against the notional audio selector which is presented
>early in the chapter.
>
>Help help!
Depends on how many switches you WANT. It's quite practical
to assemble an audio distribution system for your suite of
goodies with but one switch . . . a DPDT toggle for transmitter
selection. Indeed, this is suggested throughout the schematics
in Chapter 18 where the only switches illustrated are transmitter
selector switch and one or two push-to-talk buttons. This is
why there are no figures illustrating the minimalist switch
panel since it consists of a single switch labeled COMM 1 and
COMM 2.
If you want more switches, you can insert them into any audio
pathway to add any degree of control you wish. However, I've suggested
these are probably not necessary for practical operation of
the system. A switch not present is NOT going to be the mis-
positioned switch that prevents you from hearing something
important.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Matthew Brandes" <matthew(at)n523rv.com> |
| Subject: | RE: D-SUB Wye Band-Aid? |
Bob,
I did this exact same wiring harness this past weekend (mine goes to Garmin
320 and a KLN-89B). Here is what I did that was a suggestion I got from
another builder that worked out very well. (In your case, you'd have to cut
the pins off one end and start over.)
I ran the wires from the encoder to the transponder. On the transponder end
of the wire, I stripped about 1/2"-5/8" of insulation off. I crimped on the
pin. Then I positioned my wire strippers about 1.5" back from the end of
the pin and 'pushed' the insulation up to the pin, exposing a section of
wire. I then tinned this wire and soldered on a lead wire to run to the
GPS. I put heat shrink over the connection. I also varied the location of
the splices so there wasn't a big fat bundle. (What's Bob's phrase? " so it
doesn't look like snake that ate the rabbit?".)
If you need a picture, let me know.
Matthew Brandes,
Van's RV-9A (Wiring)
#90569
<http://www.n523rv.com/> http://www.n523rv.com
EAA Chapter 1329 President
EAA Chapter 868 Web Editor
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | <jlundberg(at)cox.net> |
The coiled cord used for cell phones to plug into the cigarette lighter is readily
available at swap meets and flea markets here in Los Angeles. The wire is
24 gauge and it is untinned copper. Its what I am using now.
I was hoping to fing something with tinned wire and aircraft quality. I would
rather not have this cord be a "weak link" for my com radio. Sometimes even
the most simple prosaic things can cause trouble.
John
Los Angeles, CA
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "John Swartout" <jgswartout(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | Built-in starter contactor/Z-22 |
-----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: Built-in starter contactor/Z-22
>
>
>Bob, I'm figuring to use Z13/8 with Z-22 for my Sky-Tec Flyweight
>permanent magnet starter with onboard solenoid.
>
>In Note 10 you recommend locating the field breaker for the main
>alternator (L40 with LR-3 in my case) not on the panel but as close as
>possible to the starter contactor.
That's not a field breaker but protection for the alternator's
output wire commonly referred to as the "b-lead".
Okay--that paragraph in Note 10 continues to refer to the ANL current
limiter, not the field breaker. I was thrown off by the change to
Alternator Breaker in that paragraph.
> My starter RELAY will be on the
>forward side of the firewall. This would make it impossible to pull
the
>breaker from the pilot's seat in case of alternator troubles.
You'll never have a need to touch that FUSE (not breaker) in
any conceivable failure scenario.
> But if
>the main alternator died, I would still like to be able to start the
>engine if I am stuck 400 miles out in the bush, so I plan to use the
>progressive transfer, 2-10 style master switch discussed in Note 22. It
>is not clear to me whether it would still be possible to start the
>engine if the L40 main alternator is disabled. Does it matter that
>there is no jumper from the starter solenoid hot terminal to the B-lead
>of the SD-8?
Starter functionality has nothing to do with the wiring for
either alternator. I'm not understanding your concerns
I think I'm not seeing how the misbehaving main alternator would be
isolated during engine start. It may be that if the S700-2-10 were
illustrated in Z13/8 instead of the S700-2-3 as the DC Power Master
Switch, it might be clear to me. Do you have a drawing showing how that
switch would be wired?
>And should the wire size from the pushbutton starter to the S704-1
relay
>be the same size as it would be for a starter contactor, i.e. 20AWG?
It can be 22AWG
>Thank you once again for your generous assistance.
You're welcome.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | <gmcjetpilot(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Lycoming Alternator Kit on Ebay |
Looks nice but it shows an external regulator ( a good one), but the text says
internal regulated. I would ask? Either way it looks like a new 50 amp Denso,
which is the typical one most people use. New just the alternator goes for $90-$140.
The brackets look nice if you have a narrow deck. Love ebay, but with
anything buyer beware. $199 is not a steal since niagara airparts sells their
40amp kit for about that, but if you need this it looks OK to me. George
>Subject: Lycoming Alternator Kit on Ebay From:
>Gerry Holland <gholland@gemini-resourcing.com>
>FYI
>I spotted a Lycoming Alternator Kit on Ebay at starting bid at $199.
http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/LYCOMING-HOMEBUILT-AIRCRAFT-ALTERNATOR-KIT_W0QQitemZ4564658670QQcategoryZ26437QQrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem
>Ensure the whole URL copied to Browser Thought someone may be in the market to
buy.
>Regards Gerry
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Cessna alternator regulator |
>
>Comments/Questions: I have a1968 Cessna 150. After rteading your excellent
>book I wonder if I should replace the original Voltage regulator even
>though its working fine ? Maybe I should just buy a spare.
>
>I understand the originals were simply Delco products for the '65 Chevy or
>similar.
>
>What would you suggest please?
Cessna's single engine regulators and alternators have a Ford
pedigree. The original regulators installed were of the electro-mechanical
variety that looked like this:
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Ford_EM_Reg_Exterior.jpg
and
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Ford_EM_Reg.jpg
the automotive world has some solid state equivalents that
are very inexpensive and have been used in a lot of owner
built and maintained (OBAM) aircraft like:
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Ford_SS_Reg.jpg
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Ford_SS_Reg_open.jpg
However, I would be cautious with modern substitutes
because behavior of the modern regulators when teamed
with the overvoltage protection module used in the
Cessnas can produce some very anomalous behavior including
tendency of the regulator to go into OV condition instead
of shutting off. These are NOT form-fit-function replacements
for the Ford electro-mechanical regulators as-installed
in Cessna aircraft.
Your airplane is wired per the first diagram you can
find in Zeftronics product literature for a modern solid
state replacement for your regulator at:
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Mfgr_Data/Zeftronics/R15V00-PIT.pdf
Acquiring a new regulator is no big deal. If your present
regulator is working, there's no reason I can deduce
to replace it. I WOULD, HOWEVER, recommend bench checking
the over voltage protection module that wired in series with
pin "S" on your present regulator.
Bob . . .
-----------------------------------------
( Experience and common sense cannot be )
( replaced with policy and procedures. )
( R. L. Nuckolls III )
-----------------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: RE: D-SUB Wye Band-Aid? |
>
>
>Bob,
>
>I did this exact same wiring harness this past weekend (mine goes to Garmin
>320 and a KLN-89B). Here is what I did that was a suggestion I got from
>another builder that worked out very well. (In your case, you'd have to cut
>the pins off one end and start over.)
>
>I ran the wires from the encoder to the transponder. On the transponder end
>of the wire, I stripped about 1/2"-5/8" of insulation off. I crimped on the
>pin. Then I positioned my wire strippers about 1.5" back from the end of
>the pin and 'pushed' the insulation up to the pin, exposing a section of
>wire. I then tinned this wire and soldered on a lead wire to run to the
>GPS. I put heat shrink over the connection. I also varied the location of
>the splices so there wasn't a big fat bundle. (What's Bob's phrase? " so it
>doesn't look like snake that ate the rabbit?".)
>
>If you need a picture, let me know.
Matthew's technique is exactly what I would have
suggested. There are some sexier ways to do this
all of which get bulky, more expensive and drive
up parts count. Some times the best way to drive
a nail is with a hammer . . . and to connect some
wires is with a bit of solder. Works good, costs
next to nothing and lasts a long time.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: overvoltage protection false trigger fix |
>
> I had a false OVM trip thing going on similar to Tom Johnson and I
>really get annoyed when simple circuits misbehave. Both of my homemade
>OVM's would trip their 2.5 amp C/B on battery power without the engine
>running when various switches were operated. I couldn't make anything
>trip when the OVM's were disconnected and I do have diodes on all the
>relays. This is on a modified Z-14 and it turns out that my OVM's are
>constructed according to reivision B 6/29/04 with that detailed
>explanation of the circuit.
>
>If I removed the main battery or it's B-lead fuse then just turning on
>the crossfeed would trip both OVM's almost everytime. Interestingly both
>C/B's are in series with a 10 amp ATO fuse and despite many dozens of
>2.5 amp C/B trips I've yet to pop a 10 amp fuse. I did not see anything
>unusual with an analog scope although on the bench the scope sure shows
>how the diodes across the relays eliminates the negative spike when the
>relays are opened. The OVM's seemed to check out fine on my bench and
>and in fact I was only been able to get one unrepeatable false trip on
>the bench and that was by drawing a little arc for quite some time in
>the connection to the relay coil.
>
>I then started thinking that maybe this really is the dv/dt effect on
>the SCR due to voltage spikes on the bus. So I disconnected the
>tranistor from the SCR gate but no false triggering occurred which I
>think that means that the dv/dt effect was NOT occurring. However while
>investigating (poking around) I noticed that just touching a digital
>voltmeter probe to point C (the zener) would often trigger the little
>devil. That didn't seem right so I added a 10 uF aluminum cap to
>stabilize/filter the 12 volt reference provided by the zener. (No
>particular reason for 10 uF , I just happened to put my hand on one)
>Well happy days, it seems to have done the trick as so far I have not
>been able to false trip the device.
>
>Bob I'm going to declare my problem fixed unless you still want to see
>one of these OVM's for your own tests. Maybe my particular zeners are
>slow learners but it seems to me that the voltage reference probably
>should have a capacitor on it to reduce its sensitivity to bus
>variations and in any event, that seems to have fixed my problem :)
>
>thanks
>Ken
Ken,
Your observations and analysis are dead-on and more profound
than you probably know. The original ov protection system
used a two-wire, 4-layer trigger device (MBS4991) which was as
vulnerable to dv/dt triggering as an SCR but isolated from
those effects by the strong response roll-off of of the voltage
divider and time delay characteristics of the input calibration
network.
When the MBS4991 went obsolete, we needed a quick substitute
where synthesis of a 4-layer, voltage sensitive device was
accomplished with two transistors, a couple of resistors and
a zener. This more complex circuit found its way into a number
of versions of the B&C regulators. This 3-wire network sampled
bus voltage as part of the Vref circuit which opened another
gateway with a potential for sensitivity to dv/dt.
Your discovery and analysis published above was something of
an epiphany because I didn't recall how a voltage reference
was supplied to the ov protection system in the production
regulators.
Your work illuminated the potential for problems in the
production products. An inspection of schematics for those
products showed that Vref for the network comes off a precision
voltage reference bypassed with a capacitor. Therefore, the
'fix' you described above was already present in the B&C products
but overlooked in my published drawings for a DIY ov protection
system. I'm modifying the DIY circuit for publication over the next
day or so to incorporate the benefits of your discovery.
Ken, the benefits realized from this exchange of simple ideas
is a great example of how the collective efforts of individuals
can work in ways individual efforts cannot. Your discovery is
very rudimentary, simple and seems like it should be an "obvious"
concept. But folks who have worked as creative professionals
understand how easy it is for things like this to slip by
unnoticed.
Your discovery is a significant addition to a considered
critical review process of a condition that could have wide
influence on the systems installed in many airplanes. I'm
grateful for your ability and willingness to bring this
condition to light.
Further, I'd like to use this experience as a working
example of what I've been trying to explain about how
cooperative, considered critical review pushes
the art and science of our craft ahead in quantum
jumps. I'll beg your indulgence in allowing me to showcase
your contribution and ask your assistance in encouraging
others to contribute with the same spirit and goals in mind.
I'm adding a new feature to aeroelectric.com that will showcase
this experience as the first of what I hope will become a long
series of exchanges between two or more individuals here on
the list where a simple (but profound) idea comes to light
with benefits to anyone who chooses to exploit it.
I'll catalog and archive the posts that describe these
experiences as a special new feature. Individual(s)
contributions will be acknowledged by addition of the
thread to the archive and issuance of Certificates of
Recognition issued by the AeroElectric Connection.
I'll reserve the right to make final determination and
selection of items to be so recognized but I encourage
ANY participant on the AeroElectric-List to nominate
any simple-idea and discussion participants for
special recognition.
The first certificate of this series has been posted in your
name and may be downloaded from
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Awards/Certificates/001_Ken_Lehman.pdf
Thank you so much for sharing your insight and skills on
the AeroElectric List.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Matt Jurotich <mjurotich(at)hst.nasa.gov> |
| Subject: | Noise from strobe PS |
I am part owner of a 1977 Piper Archer. When I turn on the strobes for a
ground check I hear a loud variable frequency tone. My partners say it
normal, it is just the capacitor charging. They also say it has been there
always but I just noticed the noise in the last few flights. It is in the
frequency range where my hearing is most degraded so it may have been
present at a much lower volume. Is the noise normal? Electrons moving
into a capacitor causing noise seems strange.
Thanks
Matthew M. Jurotich
e-mail mail to:
phone : 301-286-5919
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Eric M. Jones" <emjones(at)charter.net> |
| Subject: | So where's my award? |
>>> I'm adding a new feature to aeroelectric.com that will showcase
this experience as the first of what I hope will become a long
series of exchanges between two or more individuals here on
the list where a simple (but profound) idea comes to light
with benefits to anyone who chooses to exploit it.
I'll catalog and archive the posts that describe these
experiences as a special new feature. Individual(s)
contributions will be acknowledged by addition of the
thread to the archive and issuance of Certificates of
Recognition issued by the AeroElectric Connection.
I'll reserve the right to make final determination and
selection of items to be so recognized but I encourage
ANY participant on the AeroElectric-List to nominate
any simple-idea and discussion participants for
special recognition.
The first certificate of this series has been posted in your
name and may be downloaded from
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Awards/Certificates/001_Ken_Lehman.pdf
Thank you so much for sharing your insight and skills on
the AeroElectric List.
Bob . . . >>>
Dearest Robert--
Thou hast erred.....you have made the mistake of a loving father who gives a
treat to one of his twelve (hundred) children without giving an equivalent
treat to the rest. You have put yourself into a predicament with all good
intentions, but a predicament nevertheless:
1) What about the ugly child...over there...who is REALLY right but has no
social graces?
2) Now your students are going to play for your approval. Reasonable
discourse goes out the window.
3) You now carry the risk that people won't want to disagree with you
because they will have NO CHANCE of gaining your approval.
4) You have automatically set up the "I stuck it to Bob award".
5) Whenever I got an award at work, I knew the guys upstairs were getting
bonuses. How about cutting us in?
6) It cheapens the whole idea of intellectual discussion.
7) You want slow pitches and softballs? You'll get slow pitches and
softballs.
8) Every leader worth his salt has one guy who tells him not to pee in the
soup.
Okay, so now give me an award to suggest that you kill the award system.
Permanently. And don't pee in the soup.
Regards,
Eric M. Jones
www.PerihelionDesign.com
113 Brentwood Drive
Southbridge MA 01550-2705
(508) 764-2072
" I would have made a good Pope."
-- Richard M. Nixon (1913-1994)
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Charlie England <ceengland(at)bellsouth.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Noise from strobe PS |
Matt Jurotich wrote:
>
>I am part owner of a 1977 Piper Archer. When I turn on the strobes for a
>ground check I hear a loud variable frequency tone. My partners say it
>normal, it is just the capacitor charging. They also say it has been there
>always but I just noticed the noise in the last few flights. It is in the
>frequency range where my hearing is most degraded so it may have been
>present at a much lower volume. Is the noise normal? Electrons moving
>into a capacitor causing noise seems strange.
>
>Thanks
>
>
>Matthew M. Jurotich
>
>e-mail mail to:
>phone : 301-286-5919
>
What they probably meant (even if they didn't know it) was that you are
hearing the artifacts of the oscillator frequency in the switching power
supply that charges the capacitor at several hundred volts.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Vern W." <vernw(at)ev1.net> |
| Subject: | Re: So where's my award? |
C'mon Eric, it looks like you've bought into the Liberal "everyone has
to feel good identically" concept.
It's clear that all Bob's trying to do is to allow others to learn from
other's examples. I don't see any of the rest of the strange things that you
suggest might happen, happening. Do you have some kind of obsession with
Bob? :-)
Vern
----- Original Message -----
From: "Eric M. Jones" <emjones(at)charter.net>
Subject: AeroElectric-List: So where's my award?
>
> >>> I'm adding a new feature to aeroelectric.com that will showcase
> this experience as the first of what I hope will become a long
> series of exchanges between two or more individuals here on
> the list where a simple (but profound) idea comes to light
> with benefits to anyone who chooses to exploit it.
>
> I'll catalog and archive the posts that describe these
> experiences as a special new feature. Individual(s)
> contributions will be acknowledged by addition of the
> thread to the archive and issuance of Certificates of
> Recognition issued by the AeroElectric Connection.
>
> I'll reserve the right to make final determination and
> selection of items to be so recognized but I encourage
> ANY participant on the AeroElectric-List to nominate
> any simple-idea and discussion participants for
> special recognition.
>
> The first certificate of this series has been posted in your
> name and may be downloaded from
>
> http://www.aeroelectric.com/Awards/Certificates/001_Ken_Lehman.pdf
>
> Thank you so much for sharing your insight and skills on
> the AeroElectric List.
>
> Bob . . . >>>
>
> Dearest Robert--
>
> Thou hast erred.....you have made the mistake of a loving father who gives
a
> treat to one of his twelve (hundred) children without giving an equivalent
> treat to the rest. You have put yourself into a predicament with all good
> intentions, but a predicament nevertheless:
>
> 1) What about the ugly child...over there...who is REALLY right but has no
> social graces?
>
> 2) Now your students are going to play for your approval. Reasonable
> discourse goes out the window.
>
> 3) You now carry the risk that people won't want to disagree with you
> because they will have NO CHANCE of gaining your approval.
>
> 4) You have automatically set up the "I stuck it to Bob award".
>
> 5) Whenever I got an award at work, I knew the guys upstairs were getting
> bonuses. How about cutting us in?
>
> 6) It cheapens the whole idea of intellectual discussion.
>
> 7) You want slow pitches and softballs? You'll get slow pitches and
> softballs.
>
> 8) Every leader worth his salt has one guy who tells him not to pee in the
> soup.
>
> Okay, so now give me an award to suggest that you kill the award system.
> Permanently. And don't pee in the soup.
>
> Regards,
> Eric M. Jones
> www.PerihelionDesign.com
> 113 Brentwood Drive
> Southbridge MA 01550-2705
> (508) 764-2072
>
> " I would have made a good Pope."
> -- Richard M. Nixon (1913-1994)
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Ken <klehman(at)albedo.net> |
| Subject: | Re: overvoltage protection false trigger fix |
Well that made my day! We are going to have to start using the spell
checker if such prestigious awards are on the line now though ;)
Glad I could return something useful to the group. I'm humbled - as no
one has been more generous with his time and efforts here than Bob and
it is Bob who has put his designs in the public domain for us...
There was also a one liner buried in that post. When I realized that the
OVM with a 2.5 amp C/B was not blowing a 10 amp fuse despite numerous
activations, it put to rest any minor concerns I might have had about
extraordinary crowbar trip currents. I rather expected that the fuses
would blow but I was using 18 awg wire and before making up fuselinks I
thought I'd try feeding it off fuses and using the 2.5 amp breakers. I
will leave it that way.
Ken
snip
>> Interestingly both
>>C/B's are in series with a 10 amp ATO fuse and despite many dozens of
>>2.5 amp C/B trips I've yet to pop a 10 amp fuse.
>>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: So where's my award? |
>
> >>> I'm adding a new feature to aeroelectric.com that will showcase
> this experience as the first of what I hope will become a long
> series of exchanges between two or more individuals here on
> the list where a simple (but profound) idea comes to light
> with benefits to anyone who chooses to exploit it.
>
>Dearest Robert--
>
>Thou hast erred.....you have made the mistake of a loving father who gives a
>treat to one of his twelve (hundred) children without giving an equivalent
>treat to the rest. You have put yourself into a predicament with all good
>intentions, but a predicament nevertheless:
>
>1) What about the ugly child...over there...who is REALLY right but has no
>social graces.
If it WERE a contest about so subjective a quality as beauty,
then I would agree. But then, this isn't even a contest. It's
my way of expressing my excitement over being made privy to
a simple but profound idea. An idea that brought forward
by the volunteer effort of an objective and skilled thinker.
I have no idea how he would place in a Mr. Universe contest
and it doesn't matter. I DO know how he places in the universe
of teachers.
>2) Now your students are going to play for your approval. Reasonable
>discourse goes out the window.
I'm mystified as to your reasoning. Throughout my career I've
had tens of thousands of hours of reasonable discourse with
hundreds of individuals wherein most shared a goal of
improving on the common lot. Some of us have been rewarded from
time to time for what a supervisor deemed an extra ordinary
achievement. I once received a raise from $25k/yr to $35k/yr for my
work that fixed a trim system problem on the entire fielded fleet of
30 series Lears. In times since, I sincerely hope I've not conducted
myself in any way as to degrade my ability to participate in
reasonable discourse. Further, I've not worked a job at any time
since with a feeling of disappointment for not having achieved
that kind of recognition again. Had I never received that reward,
I cannot imagine that it would have influenced my career much.
My greatest rewards come from the satisfaction of practicing
my craft and the feedback I get from builders describing their
satisfaction with the performance of their airplanes.
Some individuals go through their educational efforts gleaning
perfectly ordinary but still useful benefits from their
experience . . . a few will graduate with honors for
having demonstrated both and ability and a willingness to
excel. How does bestowing honors on exemplary performance
degrade reasonable discourse amongst those who are not so
rewarded?
>3) You now carry the risk that people won't want to disagree with you
>because they will have NO CHANCE of gaining your approval.
Anyone participating on this list with a goal of gaining
my "approval" would be well advised to examine their return
on investment for spending time here. There are over 1300
folks who watch this list and only a small fraction of
those EVER hit the "send" button. Are they here to get
my approval or are they here to build better understanding
of a collection of simple-ideas by reading the words of the
teachers among us?
You ARE correct in that I don't foresee a flood of awards
going up on the website . . . that WOULD cheapen the concept.
But if folks are here on the List just to get a gold star on
their fanny, they're going to have to seek it from somebody
besides me.
The whole purpose of the award was to illustrate exactly
what constitutes a simple-idea and how such seemingly
insignificant facts can be so important. I've worked problems
in my career where missed opportunities to understand a
one-dollar, simple-idea cost my company $millions$. I'm working
two such problems right now.
Perhaps it seems silly and self-serving to you that
I would make such a fuss over Ken's little dissertation
but it was a light-bulb-moment for me and I'm grateful
that he took the time to explore it and to make us all aware.
>4) You have automatically set up the "I stuck it to Bob award".
How so? I don't visualize the mechanism at work here. Please
do me the honor of "sticking it to Bob", I'd be grateful for
the education.
>5) Whenever I got an award at work, I knew the guys upstairs were getting
>bonuses. How about cutting us in?
What kind of "bonuses" are we talking about here? Mr. Lehman has
received nothing more than my enthusiastic appreciation for illuminating
something I missed when offering a design up to my readers for
crafting a useful accessory to their electrical system. Paul
(and to some extent you too) have commented on the "tendency
to nuisance trip" for that circuit and have branded it unworthy
of consideration by the prudent designer. B&C and I have sold thousands
of those systems with an exceeding low rate of difficulty so I
was mystified as to why your and/or Paul's experiences were so
unrewarding. I had no way of knowing how many folks had tried
the roll-yer-own but I DID receive what had to be a disproportionate
number of unhappy feedback.
Ken's work showed us exactly WHY the circuit as offered from
my website is especially dv/dt vulnerable. It also prompted a
study on my part to discover the differences between what
we've sold and what numerous others have built. I would have
been just as enthusiastic if you or Paul would have caught
the design flaw and brought it to light. I have invited
you both repeatedly to participate in the discovery, explanation
and distribution of simple-ideas that help us move our craft
forward.
I have a standing invitation on my website for anyone
to document any useful contribution for addition to the collective
pile. I don't have anything from you or Paul to post there yet
but I DO have something from Mr. Leyman. Ken's contribution
is quite simple but profoundly significant in solving a years-old
mystery concerning my implementation of the crowbar ov protection
philosophy.
>6) It cheapens the whole idea of intellectual discussion.
Forgive me sir but for the life of me I cannot understand
why. The List isn't a Loto, a contest or even a Madison
Avenue approach to persuading anyone to purchase anything.
This is a classroom where we all have opportunities to
share the best we know how to do with others and help each
other over the sand burrs and gravel piles.
I'm sorry if you are insulted or find it objectionable for me
(as one of many teachers on the List) to express enthusiasm over
a "light-bulb-moment" and then encourage others to watch for
similar events in their own thought processes. To me, this is the
ULTIMATE example of intellectual success. The only way I can
see to cheapen a discussion is to offer faulty reasoning,
bad data or ideas un-supported by the repeatable experiment. These
are dishonorable activities that cheapen everything
they touch INCLUDING intellectual discussion. Please explain how
the extra-ordinarily enthusiastic response to a good idea trashes
intellectual discussion, I'd be pleased to know it.
>7) You want slow pitches and softballs? You'll get slow pitches and
>softballs.
>
>8) Every leader worth his salt has one guy who tells him not to pee in the
>soup.
>
>Okay, so now give me an award to suggest that you kill the award system.
>Permanently. And don't pee in the soup.
I presume these are artful euphemisms for something profound
but they escape me at the moment.
Where's your award? Hmmmm . . . okay, since you asked. I'd
like to see a piece published that describes the mechanism by
which the alternator load-dump event occurs. We need to know
how much energy the event is capable of delivering which
means a discovery and discussion of amplitude, duration
and waveshape of the load-dump event under various conditions
of alternator speed and pre-load. I'd be pleased to offer a
test plan that describes a suite of test conditions.
I'd also like to see a discussion on where the energy comes
from. Many have written on this list and elsewhere that it
comes from a collapse of the magnetic field in the alternator's
stator winding. If this were true, then the ordinary Transorb
approach to load-dump mitigation would suffice and George wouldn't
have popped any Transorbs in his experiments. My hypothesis
suggests the pulse is generated by conversion of mechanical energy to
electrical energy in an under-damped servo response of the
voltage regulator. If my hypothesis prevails, then there are
going to be cases where the simple Transorb approach are bound
to fail due to designer's misidentification and miscalculation
of the mechanism involved.
The article should at least propose ways that the load-dump
event can be controlled. For the moment I'll suggest that
a combination of Transorbs and judicious tailoring of the
alternator regulator response are called for. This was
what I hypothesized several years ago and what I thought
that you and Paul were going to go off and explore.
We'll publish the piece on the List and invite critical review
by anyone who can contribute to the "intellectual discussion".
Of course, success of this effort depends on participant enthusiasm
for discussion NOT being damped by your expectation of
award. I presume that all the experiments you've conducted
yielded data that would allow you to blow away the fog of
mystery surrounding this phenomenon.
Ken got a measly little Word-generated certificate and his
name carved in the wall at the AeroElectric Hall of Fame.
I'll cut you both certificates -AND- pay $500 for an article
that cuts through the mystery of this oft discussed but
never explained phenomenon.
Please sir, "stick it to me".
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: overvoltage protection false trigger fix |
>
>Well that made my day! We are going to have to start using the spell
>checker if such prestigious awards are on the line now though ;)
oops! is there a spelling error on the certificate? I checked
again and didn't see one.
>Glad I could return something useful to the group. I'm humbled - as no
>one has been more generous with his time and efforts here than Bob and
>it is Bob who has put his designs in the public domain for us...
>
>There was also a one liner buried in that post. When I realized that the
>OVM with a 2.5 amp C/B was not blowing a 10 amp fuse despite numerous
>activations, it put to rest any minor concerns I might have had about
>extraordinary crowbar trip currents. I rather expected that the fuses
>would blow but I was using 18 awg wire and before making up fuselinks I
>thought I'd try feeding it off fuses and using the 2.5 amp breakers. I
>will leave it that way.
That's another simple idea that I'd not had time to touch on.
I recommend the fusible link upstream of a crowbar breaker because
very early tests on a variety of breakers showed that SOME products
had a I-squared*T constant much larger than a fuse several times the
size. I've had builders report opening a 20A fuse upstream of a
5A breaker. The fusible link seemed the best one-solution-fits-all
approach. I'm not surprised that your 10A fuse upstream of the
2.5 amp breaker is stable . . . a typical 2.5A miniature breaker
has about .28 ohms max internal resistance while the 5A is only
0.07 ohms max and typically .04 ohms.
It should be noted that not EVERYONE can expect the same results
given variability of breakers offered but if you're using the
miniature devices common to modern aircraft fabrication, odds
are that your experiences will parallel Ken's.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Noise from strobe PS |
>
Charlie is right on. The transistorized power supply in your
strobe system steps low voltage DC from ship's power up to the
several hundreds of volts necessary to light up the tubes. The
power supply's operating frequency is affected by load which
is heaviest while recharging the flash capacitor and tapers
off just before the next flash. This explains the upward
sweep of the perceived noise synchronized with the flash rate
of your strobe lights.
Yes, this noise is VERY common in far too many airplanes and
on behalf of my fellow engineers in the aircraft business, I apologize.
If you owned an OBAM aircraft, the addition of some form of
noise filter at the strobe supply might help. Also, insulating
your headset and microphone jacks from the airframe ground at
the panel might be useful.
Bottom line is that it was easy to avoid by original design
and not terribly hard to fix except for the regulatory roadblocks
on your certified ship. If you're interested in the "outlaw fix",
contact me directly at http://www.aeroelectric.com/bob.nuckolls/
Otherwise, you're required to submit your airplane and pocketbook
to a properly authorized technician who may or may not know how
to fix it . . . but you could have him give me a call and I'll
try to help.
Bob . . .
>Matt Jurotich wrote:
>
>
> >
> >I am part owner of a 1977 Piper Archer. When I turn on the strobes for a
> >ground check I hear a loud variable frequency tone. My partners say it
> >normal, it is just the capacitor charging. They also say it has been there
> >always but I just noticed the noise in the last few flights. It is in the
> >frequency range where my hearing is most degraded so it may have been
> >present at a much lower volume. Is the noise normal? Electrons moving
> >into a capacitor causing noise seems strange.
> >
> >Thanks
> >
> >
> >Matthew M. Jurotich
> >
> >e-mail mail to:
> >phone : 301-286-5919
> >
>What they probably meant (even if they didn't know it) was that you are
>hearing the artifacts of the oscillator frequency in the switching power
>supply that charges the capacitor at several hundred volts.
>
>
>--
>
>
>-- incoming mail is certified Virus Free.
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: | "Paul Messinger" <paulm(at)olypen.com> |
| Subject: | Re: So where's my award? |
Bob: You are correct I never told you "exactly" why the OVP was prone to
tripping. I did repeatedly point out under what conditions it did (and at
least once you agreed that my specific condition could cause false tripping)
BUT you never seemed follow up on that tip.
I showed the circuit to two other qualified electronic engineers and they
both immediately saw several problems(the same ones I saw).
I thus assumed you were not interested in my findings as below you continue
repeat the "mantra" :-) of the past "sold thousands and neglable feedback".
I have dozens of false tripping reports as does Eric and for the most part
the builder simply throws the OVP away as for the cost of dealing with
"infamous verbose hassle" you show the poster on the web its simply not
worth it. Ever really wonder why with all the people who listen why so few
post??? No mystery to many of us :-)
You as the designer needs to prove its a good design NOT the other way
around where the detractor must prove you wrong.
Never heard of that (your) approach anywhere else but from you. MY total
design experience is that, when the design is questioned, the designer must
prove the questioner is wrong (assuming there is some semblance of
credibility in the questioner and in my career that was always a given).
It has been my experience that telling someone how to spot a design problem
has large educational value in teaching how to design in the future, to
detail the specific fix to the problem has little educational value. Thus I
simply pointed out where to look and assumed that if you were interested you
would follow up. In this case its not hard to see the problem(s) but so far
not all the design issues (in the OVP) have been properly looked at and
corrected. One source of false tripping has been defined but there is
another to be corrected.
Finally please do not lay back and think the OVP is now bug free. Far from
it, it still has another design issue that causes false tripping as well as
severe overstress in one part under reasonable application conditions. Worst
case design is worst on worst case over part tolerance and temperature
conditions (a max value and a min value some times produce the worst case so
its not a simple all max or all min values that are really worst case
conditions) and also the so called "RSS" is not worst case and while it is
often used to get a marginal design to show its valid when its really not.
A straight forward worst case circuit analysis using real bus voltage level
transients (fast and slow) will immediately show another design short
coming. In my case the patched design (my version) worked most of the time
under DO-160 and failed all of the time under the harder to pass automotive
design requirement conditions. My test conditions were nominal components
under typical modern aircraft designs NOT some "wild worst case approach" to
try to prove a design wrong. In fact I had no idea that the OVP had a design
problem until I tried to use it in the Load Dump testing of 1 1/2 years ago.
There it failed 100% of the time and so did a second unit. I was forced to
find and fix the design. As I feel its not a good design approach I simply
patched it and pressed on. I do not feel its my place to spend time trying
to prove to you that the details are defective when the concept is defective
in my opinion.
IS a better design approach available YES. Is it more reliable YES. Does it
eliminate the unintended side affects of the current design YES. So why do
we continue to stick our head in the sand and refuse to use more modern
technology? Beats me :-)
I have never seen any worst case analysis on any of your designs. If I
missed one please send me the link.
I have been considering posting more details on this general subject and I
may in the near future limited to the specific subject of OVP and internally
regulated alternators as there are some industry wide truths (facts that is)
that seem to be missing from posts on this list that directly contradict
what is frequently posted as truths etc.
Paul
----- Original Message -----
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net>
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: So where's my award?
>
>
> What kind of "bonuses" are we talking about here? Mr. Lehman has
> received nothing more than my enthusiastic appreciation for
> illuminating
> something I missed when offering a design up to my readers for
> crafting a useful accessory to their electrical system. Paul
> (and to some extent you too) have commented on the "tendency
> to nuisance trip" for that circuit and have branded it unworthy
> of consideration by the prudent designer. B&C and I have sold
> thousands
> of those systems with an exceeding low rate of difficulty so I
> was mystified as to why your and/or Paul's experiences were so
> unrewarding. I had no way of knowing how many folks had tried
> the roll-yer-own but I DID receive what had to be a disproportionate
> number of unhappy feedback.
>
> Ken's work showed us exactly WHY the circuit as offered from
> my website is especially dv/dt vulnerable. It also prompted a
> study on my part to discover the differences between what
> we've sold and what numerous others have built. I would have
> been just as enthusiastic if you or Paul would have caught
> the design flaw and brought it to light. I have invited
> you both repeatedly to participate in the discovery, explanation
> and distribution of simple-ideas that help us move our craft
> forward.
>
> I have a standing invitation on my website for anyone
> to document any useful contribution for addition to the collective
> pile. I don't have anything from you or Paul to post there yet
> but I DO have something from Mr. Leyman. Ken's contribution
> is quite simple but profoundly significant in solving a years-old
> mystery concerning my implementation of the crowbar ov protection
> philosophy.
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Dino Bortolin <dbortol(at)yahoo.ca> |
| Subject: | Re: PTT coiled cord |
I think every dollar store I've been in has
replacement coiled phone cords for sale.
Dino Bortolin
601XL/Corvair (0.1%)
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: PTT coiled cord |
>
>
>I think every dollar store I've been in has
>replacement coiled phone cords for sale.
Not house telephone cords. Most if not all of these
use copper "tinsel" conductors for extreme flexibility.
The cords I'm suggesting are offered on cigar lighter
adapters for cell phones. The two I've cut up had real
wire inside that offered reasonable expectations of
durable termination. The tinsel in telephone handset
cords is VERY difficult to work with.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
I apologise up front to the group for being long winded.
Paul Messinger
Why have YOU not lived up to your commitment to the rest of the Group as
quoted below from your dramatically delivered e-mail of April 23rd 2005.
I Quote:
I apologize to the group and I do not expect to ever post here again and I
will ask that no one else forwards a press release of mine to this group.
Why have you not taken your own advice as stated in YOUR e-mail of July 15th
2005.
I quote:
NO this not mean a return to posting but I will respond to what I feel are
misstatements of my words.
NO one has misstated your words. In this case you just jump on a bandwagon
after Eric Jones e-mail regarding an award and snipe away and pontificate.
Eric's comments although sometimes on the edge of rudeness for me are
normally scattered with some respectful comments and his product knowledge
has been turned into a product range that is always a good consideration or
use. He is one of life's character and long may he remain.
Whether you intend it or not, and allowing for the smallest mitigation of
misinterpretation due to e-mail syntax your input to this group is nothing
short of a whinging tirade of self importance.
Quoting you again from 23rd April 2005 and using your verbal dexterity to
amend words:
I quote: What part of private do you not understand??
What part of committing to leave the Group do YOU not understand!
Please give us your technical solution, turn it into a product and then
expose it to the vagaries of use by hundreds of Home builders around the
world with their own particular and varied levels of expertise. Eric is
doing it, Bob is doing it and both know they are open to criticism and
product failure. The vast amount of criticism and comment on this group is
balanced and valid. Products do get modified to remove or improve points of
failure.
Yours is a tirade based on I dont agree because it isn't what I want or
believe.
You have a right to object, should be able to object but not as a series of
guerrilla attacks on this Forum as and when you feel like hearing your own
voice.
Do me a favour at least please. Give us 24 hours email notice that you are
building up for a sanctimonious outburst and I can adjust my spam filter to
remove the inevitable following tirade from you.
Paul. Either keep quiet as you keep threatening or build us this perfect
product you have in your mind based on the often quoted experience you have
and put in on the market.
Again. My apologies to the rest of the group for my obvious irritated
outburst.
Regards
Gerry
How much free photo storage do you get? Store your holiday
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: So where's my award? |
>
>Bob: You are correct I never told you "exactly" why the OVP was prone to
>tripping. I did repeatedly point out under what conditions it did (and at
>least once you agreed that my specific condition could cause false tripping)
>BUT you never seemed follow up on that tip.
That's cheesy Paul. Look at all the work I did in response
to your salvos of cabbages and all you have to offer now is that
I "seemed uninterested" in following up on a TIP? If you KNEW,
why keep it a secret?
>I showed the circuit to two other qualified electronic engineers and they
>both immediately saw several problems(the same ones I saw).
If they KNEW, why keep it a secret?
>I thus assumed you were not interested in my findings as below you continue
>repeat the "mantra" :-) of the past "sold thousands and neglable feedback".
That "mantra" was data based on experience. Do you belive I was
lying to you? If you're accusing me of dishonorable behavior, then
we have nothing more to discuss. Delete this message but do drop
me a note that describes your true beliefs.
>I have dozens of false tripping reports as does Eric and for the most part
>the builder simply throws the OVP away as for the cost of dealing with
>"infamous verbose hassle" you show the poster on the web its simply not
>worth it.
I have never chased off anyone who was having a
problem with one of my products. At the minimum, he/she
can expect to get their money back no questions asked.
How is it that YOU TWO know of all these disgruntled customers
but they never bothered to contact me? I don't buy it.
I offered to give cash refunds + nuisance bonus to anyone you knew
that had a problem with a product I supplied if they would simply
tell me of their personal experiences. How can I gather field data
if everyone claiming that my "mantra" is just marketing propaganda but
at the same time, is unwilling to help me identify and fix real problems.
It's equally mystifying that these same individuals ARE willing to
add his/her name to the growing list of Bob'a unhappy customers maintained
by Eric and Paul. That's bull hockey sir.
>Ever really wonder why with all the people who listen why so few
>post??? No mystery to many of us :-)
>You as the designer needs to prove its a good design NOT the other way
>around where the detractor must prove you wrong.
Sorry sir but that miserable bucket just doesn't hold water. If
the folks I work with at my day job had your attitude with respect to the
engineering profession, we'd have crashed and burned years ago.
How many times have I extolled the virtues of good critical
design review? When you're a customer oriented supplier of goods
and services, we help each other out . . . not stand off and toss
tomatoes and cabbages at each other.
>Never heard of that (your) approach anywhere else but from you. MY total
>design experience is that, when the design is questioned, the designer must
>prove the questioner is wrong (assuming there is some semblance of
>credibility in the questioner and in my career that was always a given).
I went off and researched every incoming cabbage and tomato
you pitched when you started claiming 700A faults and breakers
that would go belly up at interrupts more than 10x rated trip
current. I started a white paper to demonstrate fault currents
very benign compared to your claimed "killer cabbages". When
I produced feedback from Eaton/Cutler-Hammer, Klixon, and a stack
of spec documents that debunked your claim about breakers, you
countered with, "Well, the breakers I was using won't tolerate
that abuse and I've got golden specs to prove it."
I asked you for brand and part number of any breaker that was so
limited but I've yet to see any such spec. After the effort to
field your cabbages without learning anything useful, I didn't
have the energy to address any "hints" you might have made on
the circuitry. Besides, after 10+ hours of work proved two of
your salvos to be hogwash, I was hard pressed to assign any
credibility to any other claims you might have made . . . especially
when unaccompanied by supporting simple-ideas . . . only cabbages.
>It has been my experience that telling someone how to spot a design problem
>has large educational value in teaching how to design in the future, to
>detail the specific fix to the problem has little educational value. Thus I
>simply pointed out where to look and assumed that if you were interested you
>would follow up. In this case its not hard to see the problem(s) but so far
>not all the design issues (in the OVP) have been properly looked at and
>corrected. One source of false tripping has been defined but there is
>another to be corrected.
Boy, am I glad I never had any teachers with your teaching
style. Besides, which was more important (1) teach that ol' fart
in Wichita how to design or (2) expose the details of a problem that
was being repeated many times over by readers of my work? I'm beginning
to belive you're more interested in whacking me than in helping
folks on this List. It appears that the more poor saps who built the
circuit as-published and had problems with it, the happier you are. You
seem to have collected quite a list of names for which only you are
aware.
>Finally please do not lay back and think the OVP is now bug free. Far from
>it, it still has another design issue that causes false tripping as well as
>severe overstress in one part under reasonable application conditions. Worst
>case design is worst on worst case over part tolerance and temperature
>conditions (a max value and a min value some times produce the worst case so
>its not a simple all max or all min values that are really worst case
>conditions) and also the so called "RSS" is not worst case and while it is
>often used to get a marginal design to show its valid when its really not.
I assume nothing. I'm still waiting for data but I quit holding
my breath months ago . . .
>A straight forward worst case circuit analysis using real bus voltage level
>transients (fast and slow) will immediately show another design short
>coming. In my case the patched design (my version) worked most of the time
>under DO-160 and failed all of the time under the harder to pass automotive
>design requirement conditions. My test conditions were nominal components
>under typical modern aircraft designs NOT some "wild worst case approach" to
>try to prove a design wrong. In fact I had no idea that the OVP had a design
>problem until I tried to use it in the Load Dump testing of 1 1/2 years ago.
>There it failed 100% of the time and so did a second unit. I was forced to
>find and fix the design. As I feel its not a good design approach I simply
>patched it and pressed on. I do not feel its my place to spend time trying
>to prove to you that the details are defective when the concept is defective
>in my opinion.
>IS a better design approach available YES. Is it more reliable YES. Does it
>eliminate the unintended side affects of the current design YES. So why do
>we continue to stick our head in the sand and refuse to use more modern
>technology? Beats me :-)
Who is refusing anything? I wrote just a few weeks ago that
I welcome anything new and better. The only thing you've offered
so far is a demonization of my field proven products and zero
suggestions of anything different or better. How many happy
customers are flying your designs sir?
I agree that applying OVP protection to the internally
regulated alternator wasn't well conceived . . . that
wasn't a fault of the crowbar ov protection system but a lack
of capability in the style of contactor selected -AND- a lack
of confidence with respect to characteristics of the constellation
of designs. The same basic problems persist IRRESPECTIVE of how
you chose to sense and react to the OV event. The "thousands
of happy customers" I've referred to are all flying aircraft
alternators.
Yes, there is work to be done with respect to the internally
regulated alternator and I thought that's what you an Eric
were offering to help with when this discussion was started
over a year ago. But instead of a collaborative effort utilizing
data I thought you were going to acquire, I've wasted a lot of time
fielding tossed cabbages . . . and we've yet to see any data.
>I have never seen any worst case analysis on any of your designs. If I
>missed one please send me the link.
>
>I have been considering posting more details on this general subject and I
>may in the near future limited to the specific subject of OVP and internally
>regulated alternators as there are some industry wide truths . . .
Give us links to your "industry wide truths" . . .
>. . . (facts that is)
>that seem to be missing from posts on this list that directly contradict
>what is frequently posted as truths etc.
When Ken revealed his discovery earlier this week the light bulb
went on. "Gee, that's what's causing problems for Paul and
several others with the DIY circuit." The effect turns out to
be unique to the DIY circuit as published and not relevant
to the thousands of products we've fielded over the years. So
while I was offering the only DATA I had based on experience
with the marketplace, you were holding SECRETS close to the
chest to the torment of myself and others who had also built
the DIY circuit.
For years, the tag line on my e-mail signature was
////
(o o)
===========o00o=(_)=o00o=========
< Go ahead, make my day . . . >
< show me where I'm wrong. >
=================================
This wasn't a joke. It's still applicable. When we had an
issue come up with the crowbar system in Bonanzas, we
jumped on it and got it fixed in jig time because we
had the cooperation of everyone who was concentrating on
the CUSTOMER. The benefits of that discovery were incorporated
across the product line. Well, readers of this list are my customers,
who are yours?
I'm through proving anything to you Paul. I'm just worn out.
If you want to make a contribution to this discussion, do it with
schematics, bills of materials, maufacturer's data sheets and
repeatable experiments that I or ANYONE here on the list
can duplicate, evaluate and exploit. Help me take care of the
customers and quit wasting my time.
The offer still stands. Give us some simple-ideas worthy
of induction into the AeroElectric Hall of Fame (while sticking
it to Bob). Let the List decide. You give them something they say
addresses the issues of my offer (doesn't even mention OV protection)
and my check will be in the mail the same day. Let's figure out why
George blew up his Transorbs. Let's see if Transorbs alone can
be reasonably expected to mitigate load dump and/or ov effects
for every style of alternator a builder might pull off a car. Let's
see if there are reasonable approaches to regulator design that
will mitigate if not eliminate the effects of a load-dump event.
You'd better not wait too long. I've got a 2 h.p. variable
speed drive and some other goodies that will eventually
be assembled into a test stand for proving a whole new line of
processor based electrical system management products. However,
if I'm forced to answer all the questions I've posed without
your help, then the results will be published here on the List.
After that, the only way I'm going to let you "stick it to Bob"
is to "make my day and show me where I'm wrong."
I am mystified as to how you can KNOW the specifics of a design
error, allow the numbers of victims to grow because of your silence,
compile secret lists of victims of the error as manifest
evidence of the incompetence of the designer, and then claim to
be helping the designer grow in stature by offering "hints" of
your secret buried in a avalanche of unsupported allegations.
You'd think I was seeking confirmation to the Supreme Court or
something.
Ken has let at least one of your secrets out of the bag.
It's well on the way to being corrected and I've made my thanks
for his participation in good critical review well known. His
contribution to this discussion far outweighs anything I've
seen from you sir. The only appreciation I can muster for our
conversation thus far are the benefits of having reviewed a lot
of specs that supported what I've understood for the past 20+ years.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Mike Holland" <hollandm(at)pacbell.net> |
| Subject: | OVM trips on Alt Restart |
Bob, etal. Wiring per Z13 and Z24, Vans 60amp internally regulated Alt.
Situation, pilot forgot to start alternator, discovers battery voltage in-flight,
tries to start alternator at cruise rpm and Bingo, trips the Alt. breaker (5amp).
In my opinion this shouldn't happen with a robust electrical system. Is this an
"oversensitive or defective OVM (B&C)? How would I go about finding out? I'm
not an electrical engineer.
Or is there a better, safer, way to restart an alternator, in-flight. Alternators
shut down for various reasons, sometimes for test purposes, sometimes because
a distracted pilot forgets to start it, whatever. Any wiring system that
won't permit in-flight restart of a perfectly functional alternator isn't acceptable.
Regards,
Mike Holland
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Eric M. Jones" <emjones(at)charter.net> |
| Subject: | Re: So where's my award? |
nuckollsr(at)cox.net
>Please sir, "stick it to me".
>Bob . . .
My point-by-point arguments do not need a point-by-point response since my
arguments are basically expressions of gut instincts:
I fervently believe that a discussion of technical issues is skewed
irretrievably by an Imprimatur on a particular technical approach.
All ideas, of course, are not created equal. But when one idea comes
equipped with an award certificate--some people might think it means
something. Does your award for Ken's anti-glitch capacitor for the crowbar
OVP somehow make the approach better than a non-crowbar "linear" approach?
We've been on opposite sides of this technical debate for a year. Now you
put a gold sticker on it? What is one to think?
Please be certain that your expressions of approval and encouragement ARE
ALWAYS appreciated by those on this website. My disagreement has only to do
with the subtleties.
Regards,
Eric M. Jones
www.PerihelionDesign.com
113 Brentwood Drive
Southbridge MA 01550-2705
(508) 764-2072
Teamwork: " A lot of people doing exactly what I say."
(Marketing exec., Citrix Corp.)
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Matt Jurotich <mjurotich(at)hst.nasa.gov> |
| Subject: | Re: Noise from strobe PS |
Bob et all
This strobe power supply noise is a physical noise very audible without
headset. My noise cancelling headset masks it completely, at least for my
high frequency challenged hearing. Is your "fix" good for the "I can hear
it outside the airplane noise.
Thanks
Matthew M. Jurotich
e-mail mail to:
phone : 301-286-5919
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Harold Kovac" <kayce33(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | Re: So where's my award? |
Bravo Bob,
I'm just a lurker who has yet to begin wiring, but as an ill educated soul vis
a vis electronics, I try to glean everything I can from the AE book and the forum.
keep trying to help us who are electrically challenged.
Harold Kovac....RV9A fuselage...wiring soon.
----- Original Message -----
From: Robert L. Nuckolls, III
To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Thursday, July 28, 2005 2:38 AM
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: So where's my award?
>
>Bob: You are correct I never told you "exactly" why the OVP was prone to
>tripping. I did repeatedly point out under what conditions it did (and at
>least once you agreed that my specific condition could cause false tripping)
>BUT you never seemed follow up on that tip.
That's cheesy Paul. Look at all the work I did in response
to your salvos of cabbages and all you have to offer now is that
I "seemed uninterested" in following up on a TIP? If you KNEW,
why keep it a secret?
>I showed the circuit to two other qualified electronic engineers and they
>both immediately saw several problems(the same ones I saw).
If they KNEW, why keep it a secret?
>I thus assumed you were not interested in my findings as below you continue
>repeat the "mantra" :-) of the past "sold thousands and neglable feedback".
That "mantra" was data based on experience. Do you belive I was
lying to you? If you're accusing me of dishonorable behavior, then
we have nothing more to discuss. Delete this message but do drop
me a note that describes your true beliefs.
>I have dozens of false tripping reports as does Eric and for the most part
>the builder simply throws the OVP away as for the cost of dealing with
>"infamous verbose hassle" you show the poster on the web its simply not
>worth it.
I have never chased off anyone who was having a
problem with one of my products. At the minimum, he/she
can expect to get their money back no questions asked.
How is it that YOU TWO know of all these disgruntled customers
but they never bothered to contact me? I don't buy it.
I offered to give cash refunds + nuisance bonus to anyone you knew
that had a problem with a product I supplied if they would simply
tell me of their personal experiences. How can I gather field data
if everyone claiming that my "mantra" is just marketing propaganda but
at the same time, is unwilling to help me identify and fix real problems.
It's equally mystifying that these same individuals ARE willing to
add his/her name to the growing list of Bob'a unhappy customers maintained
by Eric and Paul. That's bull hockey sir.
>Ever really wonder why with all the people who listen why so few
>post??? No mystery to many of us :-)
>You as the designer needs to prove its a good design NOT the other way
>around where the detractor must prove you wrong.
Sorry sir but that miserable bucket just doesn't hold water. If
the folks I work with at my day job had your attitude with respect to the
engineering profession, we'd have crashed and burned years ago.
How many times have I extolled the virtues of good critical
design review? When you're a customer oriented supplier of goods
and services, we help each other out . . . not stand off and toss
tomatoes and cabbages at each other.
>Never heard of that (your) approach anywhere else but from you. MY total
>design experience is that, when the design is questioned, the designer must
>prove the questioner is wrong (assuming there is some semblance of
>credibility in the questioner and in my career that was always a given).
I went off and researched every incoming cabbage and tomato
you pitched when you started claiming 700A faults and breakers
that would go belly up at interrupts more than 10x rated trip
current. I started a white paper to demonstrate fault currents
very benign compared to your claimed "killer cabbages". When
I produced feedback from Eaton/Cutler-Hammer, Klixon, and a stack
of spec documents that debunked your claim about breakers, you
countered with, "Well, the breakers I was using won't tolerate
that abuse and I've got golden specs to prove it."
I asked you for brand and part number of any breaker that was so
limited but I've yet to see any such spec. After the effort to
field your cabbages without learning anything useful, I didn't
have the energy to address any "hints" you might have made on
the circuitry. Besides, after 10+ hours of work proved two of
your salvos to be hogwash, I was hard pressed to assign any
credibility to any other claims you might have made . . . especially
when unaccompanied by supporting simple-ideas . . . only cabbages.
>It has been my experience that telling someone how to spot a design problem
>has large educational value in teaching how to design in the future, to
>detail the specific fix to the problem has little educational value. Thus I
>simply pointed out where to look and assumed that if you were interested you
>would follow up. In this case its not hard to see the problem(s) but so far
>not all the design issues (in the OVP) have been properly looked at and
>corrected. One source of false tripping has been defined but there is
>another to be corrected.
Boy, am I glad I never had any teachers with your teaching
style. Besides, which was more important (1) teach that ol' fart
in Wichita how to design or (2) expose the details of a problem that
was being repeated many times over by readers of my work? I'm beginning
to belive you're more interested in whacking me than in helping
folks on this List. It appears that the more poor saps who built the
circuit as-published and had problems with it, the happier you are. You
seem to have collected quite a list of names for which only you are
aware.
>Finally please do not lay back and think the OVP is now bug free. Far from
>it, it still has another design issue that causes false tripping as well as
>severe overstress in one part under reasonable application conditions. Worst
>case design is worst on worst case over part tolerance and temperature
>conditions (a max value and a min value some times produce the worst case so
>its not a simple all max or all min values that are really worst case
>conditions) and also the so called "RSS" is not worst case and while it is
>often used to get a marginal design to show its valid when its really not.
I assume nothing. I'm still waiting for data but I quit holding
my breath months ago . . .
>A straight forward worst case circuit analysis using real bus voltage level
>transients (fast and slow) will immediately show another design short
>coming. In my case the patched design (my version) worked most of the time
>under DO-160 and failed all of the time under the harder to pass automotive
>design requirement conditions. My test conditions were nominal components
>under typical modern aircraft designs NOT some "wild worst case approach" to
>try to prove a design wrong. In fact I had no idea that the OVP had a design
>problem until I tried to use it in the Load Dump testing of 1 1/2 years ago.
>There it failed 100% of the time and so did a second unit. I was forced to
>find and fix the design. As I feel its not a good design approach I simply
>patched it and pressed on. I do not feel its my place to spend time trying
>to prove to you that the details are defective when the concept is defective
>in my opinion.
>IS a better design approach available YES. Is it more reliable YES. Does it
>eliminate the unintended side affects of the current design YES. So why do
>we continue to stick our head in the sand and refuse to use more modern
>technology? Beats me :-)
Who is refusing anything? I wrote just a few weeks ago that
I welcome anything new and better. The only thing you've offered
so far is a demonization of my field proven products and zero
suggestions of anything different or better. How many happy
customers are flying your designs sir?
I agree that applying OVP protection to the internally
regulated alternator wasn't well conceived . . . that
wasn't a fault of the crowbar ov protection system but a lack
of capability in the style of contactor selected -AND- a lack
of confidence with respect to characteristics of the constellation
of designs. The same basic problems persist IRRESPECTIVE of how
you chose to sense and react to the OV event. The "thousands
of happy customers" I've referred to are all flying aircraft
alternators.
Yes, there is work to be done with respect to the internally
regulated alternator and I thought that's what you an Eric
were offering to help with when this discussion was started
over a year ago. But instead of a collaborative effort utilizing
data I thought you were going to acquire, I've wasted a lot of time
fielding tossed cabbages . . . and we've yet to see any data.
>I have never seen any worst case analysis on any of your designs. If I
>missed one please send me the link.
>
>I have been considering posting more details on this general subject and I
>may in the near future limited to the specific subject of OVP and internally
>regulated alternators as there are some industry wide truths . . .
Give us links to your "industry wide truths" . . .
>. . . (facts that is)
>that seem to be missing from posts on this list that directly contradict
>what is frequently posted as truths etc.
When Ken revealed his discovery earlier this week the light bulb
went on. "Gee, that's what's causing problems for Paul and
several others with the DIY circuit." The effect turns out to
be unique to the DIY circuit as published and not relevant
to the thousands of products we've fielded over the years. So
while I was offering the only DATA I had based on experience
with the marketplace, you were holding SECRETS close to the
chest to the torment of myself and others who had also built
the DIY circuit.
For years, the tag line on my e-mail signature was
////
(o o)
o00o(_)o00o
< Go ahead, make my day . . . >
< show me where I'm wrong. >
This wasn't a joke. It's still applicable. When we had an
issue come up with the crowbar system in Bonanzas, we
jumped on it and got it fixed in jig time because we
had the cooperation of everyone who was concentrating on
the CUSTOMER. The benefits of that discovery were incorporated
across the product line. Well, readers of this list are my customers,
who are yours?
I'm through proving anything to you Paul. I'm just worn out.
If you want to make a contribution to this discussion, do it with
schematics, bills of materials, maufacturer's data sheets and
repeatable experiments that I or ANYONE here on the list
can duplicate, evaluate and exploit. Help me take care of the
customers and quit wasting my time.
The offer still stands. Give us some simple-ideas worthy
of induction into the AeroElectric Hall of Fame (while sticking
it to Bob). Let the List decide. You give them something they say
addresses the issues of my offer (doesn't even mention OV protection)
and my check will be in the mail the same day. Let's figure out why
George blew up his Transorbs. Let's see if Transorbs alone can
be reasonably expected to mitigate load dump and/or ov effects
for every style of alternator a builder might pull off a car. Let's
see if there are reasonable approaches to regulator design that
will mitigate if not eliminate the effects of a load-dump event.
You'd better not wait too long. I've got a 2 h.p. variable
speed drive and some other goodies that will eventually
be assembled into a test stand for proving a whole new line of
processor based electrical system management products. However,
if I'm forced to answer all the questions I've posed without
your help, then the results will be published here on the List.
After that, the only way I'm going to let you "stick it to Bob"
is to "make my day and show me where I'm wrong."
I am mystified as to how you can KNOW the specifics of a design
error, allow the numbers of victims to grow because of your silence,
compile secret lists of victims of the error as manifest
evidence of the incompetence of the designer, and then claim to
be helping the designer grow in stature by offering "hints" of
your secret buried in a avalanche of unsupported allegations.
You'd think I was seeking confirmation to the Supreme Court or
something.
Ken has let at least one of your secrets out of the bag.
It's well on the way to being corrected and I've made my thanks
for his participation in good critical review well known. His
contribution to this discussion far outweighs anything I've
seen from you sir. The only appreciation I can muster for our
conversation thus far are the benefits of having reviewed a lot
of specs that supported what I've understood for the past 20+ years.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Fergus Kyle" <VE3LVO(at)rac.ca> |
| Subject: | Message for Messinger |
Paul,
I cannot accept your anklebiting although we all see why you
have broken your word and pontificated following Eric's attack. The idea of
an award doesn't bother me, or anyone else on net - besides it's a private
thing and who knows who deserves it? Personally I'm about one hundred
awards short on my achievement wall.
What Gerry Holland said is Bang On. Wish I could have said it.
Eric makes some provocative messages - and entertaining. Yours is just
negative drivel.
Both Eric and Bob have contributed to my education
immeasurably - you have done nothing for me. I recommend total silence.
Ferg
Europa A064
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: So where's my award? |
>
>nuckollsr(at)cox.net
>
> >Please sir, "stick it to me".
> >Bob . . .
>
>My point-by-point arguments do not need a point-by-point response since my
>arguments are basically expressions of gut instincts:
>
>I fervently believe that a discussion of technical issues is skewed
>irretrievably by an Imprimatur on a particular technical approach.
If you sensed a strong desire on my part to validate the
approach, you are correct. There are thousands of these
systems in service and I have a personal responsibility to
the folks flying those systems to make sure there are no
"gotchas" that owners should be aware of . . .
When learned folk raise valid questions for which I do
not have considered answers at hand, it's my personal
decision to go get the answers. Paul's thrust seemed to
raise concerns not only about my understanding of the
simple-ideas but he also painted an alarming picture
of potential for doom on the part of my customers who
purchased my products in good faith.
Yes, I did mount a vigorous response but soon became
weary of defending something that didn't need defending.
At the same time, I was getting poor marks for not
comprehending hints of secrets buried in the avalanche
of no-value-added-busywork.
>All ideas, of course, are not created equal. But when one idea comes
>equipped with an award certificate--some people might think it means
>something. Does your award for Ken's anti-glitch capacitor for the crowbar
>OVP somehow make the approach better than a non-crowbar "linear" approach?
You missed the point Eric. Ken's revelation pointed out a
vulnerability of the voltage sensing and trip circuit to
negative going transients that would take the cathode of
the reference zener negative, turn on the top transistor by
way of the charge on the time delay capacitor and cause the
synthesized 4-layer device to trigger and pass that energy
on the to the gate of the SCR.
THAT my friend is the simple-idea. It doesn't matter whether
the circuit is part of a my crowbar ov protection system or
your high volt warning light on the annunciator panel. Simple-ideas
are application independent. They're the Leggos, Tinker-Toys,
and Lincoln Logs from which inventions are crafted, like
crowbar ov systems.
>We've been on opposite sides of this technical debate for a year. Now you
>put a gold sticker on it? What is one to think?
>
>Please be certain that your expressions of approval and encouragement ARE
>ALWAYS appreciated by those on this website. My disagreement has only to do
>with the subtleties.
Nothing subtle about it. I have no interest in recognizing
someone's super-dupper, gee-whiz product . . . unless it
showcases simple-ideas that are shared so that other designers
can use them in their own inventions. You can use a nail and a board
to build mansions or sheds. The applications don't count here.
I'm interested in rewarding the discovery of alternatives to
nails and boards -AND- discoveries of nails that are too small,
boards that are unpainted and won't stand up to the weather.
Ken's contribution to this discussion illuminated a simple-idea. A
spotlight on a combination of rudimentary physics that explained
a phenomenon that some folks claim to have understood but did not
deem it worthy of sharing.
Knowledge in the form of simple-ideas is the only commodity
I know of that becomes MORE valuable the more you GIVE IT AWAY.
That same knowledge held in secrecy for any reason gains no
value and only gives one pause to wonder about the motivations
of the secret's holder.
This was never about whether the crowbar system was better or
worse than any other technique. I've designed many forms of
ov protection, all of which have flown on thousands of airplanes.
This was always about understanding the simple-ideas that
made up a product no matter what its purpose, who designed it,
or who was selling it.
If you have a better way, come on in my friend, the water's
fine. But be assured that if your product stubs its toe in
the marketplace, your willingness to share the simple-ideas
of its construction here on the LIST will bring a response
from myself and others to help deduce the Tinker-Toy that
doesn't fit right. The goal is not to convince others that
Eric is an irresponsible, ignorant and slightly corrupted
entrepreneur and they should have stayed with stuff that
ol' fart out in Wichita sells. The goal will be to help you
deliver good value to your customers.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Ken <klehman(at)albedo.net> |
| Subject: | Re: OVM trips on Alt Restart |
Mike you may have been lucky that it tripped. The regulator would tell
the alternator to go full output and since the alternator is at high
rpm, the voltage may have risen faster than the regulator was designed
to handle. (ie a real OV) Not a defect just perhaps the way it is in
order to get a stable regulator during normal operations. Some of the
new automotive VR chips do ramp up the alternator slowly though which
would likely help in this scenario. After reading this, I think I'd slow
down and close the throttle to at least get the rpm as low as possible.
Hopefully that would reduce the likelihood of an OV, a belt coming off,
or something breaking. I might even turn lights on and radios off. At
idle the voltage should rise slower as limited by the slower speed of
the alternator. I suspect that there is no problem with your system.
With a 60 amp IR alternator, can I assume that you had a battery
contactor as a B lead disconnect, the OVM tripped it, and the contactor
still functions normally? I know that you didn't have a rip snorting
full bore alternator runaway but I'm still curious as I am keeping a
similar setup on my 40 amp alternator and figure it will be informative
if nothing else to see what happens if I ever have a real alternator
runaway.
Ken
Mike Holland wrote:
>
>Bob, etal. Wiring per Z13 and Z24, Vans 60amp internally regulated Alt.
>
>Situation, pilot forgot to start alternator, discovers battery voltage in-flight,
tries to start alternator at cruise rpm and Bingo, trips the Alt. breaker
(5amp).
>
>In my opinion this shouldn't happen with a robust electrical system. Is this
an "oversensitive or defective OVM (B&C)? How would I go about finding out?
I'm not an electrical engineer.
>
>Or is there a better, safer, way to restart an alternator, in-flight. Alternators
shut down for various reasons, sometimes for test purposes, sometimes because
a distracted pilot forgets to start it, whatever. Any wiring system that
won't permit in-flight restart of a perfectly functional alternator isn't acceptable.
>
>Regards,
>
>Mike Holland
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Paul Messinger" <paulm(at)olypen.com> |
| Subject: | real data on OVP/etc |
Bob;
Take a deep breath and read carefully and ignore any non technical parts but
please consider the technical comments as worth considering as many are
industry wide technical info.
Sorry for your upset but as usual you have missed my point and not addressed
MY technical issues in a technical manner, merely replied with a personal
assault (and perhaps properly deserved). There are some technical details
here in this post as you requested and some are a repeat of my much earlier
posts, but I digress. Here is some of the data you asked for.
Clearly my assumption you would forget the lab test and do a circuit
analysis was a bad assumption, but as we were in a verbal war of sorts and
that was one of the casualties. One can never Test a bad design into a good
one, or find a design fault with testing, unless one very lucky. I did point
out and you agreed on one condition of triggering false tripping and this, I
assumed, meant you would go off and look at the transient analysis of your
design, not continue to test it under non transient conditions (I do not
mean transient as a very narrow spike).
As I feel the concept of a battery crowbar and the contactor OVP concept was
faulty I had, and have, no interest in trying to fix the OVP when the system
concept is questionable.
(It reminds me of rearranging the deck chairs on the HMS Titanic)
I have demonstrated to myself and many others the OVP/contactor concept was
not a viable approach and alternatives needed to be found. I can remember
for many years you refused to support internally regulated alternators and
you were right and never should have yielded under pressure to implement one
without more study. The false tripping has a high probably of causing any
brand alternator regulator failure and the contact arcing in the diode
suppressed common contactor can produce major hi voltage spikes in the
aircraft systems bus that can cause failure of other systems just as quickly
as the HV the design is trying to prevent.
The failure rate of brand new current production ND alternators is so high
that its questionable any OV prevention is needed (the documented failure
rate is much lower than prop bolts). Clearly an OVP that can false trip, a
contactor that is not rated for the application etc is not improving
reliability.
Your approach seems to be to test a design and then analyze the tested
design as proof of that design. I repeat, I have never seen any example of
worst case design analysis to validate the design. Your analysis of your
test was extensive but never addressed the possibility of huge variations of
parts tolerances and that affect on the lab test.
I am still waiting for ANY worst case design analysis showing any of your
designs is usable in all likely applications. Some of the possible false
tripping have been reported by buyers (not builders) of the OVP and all who
contacted me wanted to remain anomalous (nor were they interested in a
refund), just a good approach to the design issue as Vans says to not use
any OVP design (yours or similar approaches). As we have no info on the sold
OVP design, its not possible to accept your statement that only the builders
versions are at fault. I for one wonder why the sold version would be any
different schematically.
You have suggested many times that somehow the Vans rebuilt alternators have
poor quality regulators and that is why they fail at a extremely hi rate
when used with your OVP. From what little data I could find its a failure
rate of 10% or much higher. Clearly something unique in the application of
the wiring in Vans designs or ????? Some were purchased OVP and not built up
units.
"Rebuilt" alternators is really a false name in the industry. They are only
repaired (what is failed is replaced, what still works is not replaced) and
the ND 60 amp unit has been around for at least 25 years. Many units have
been "rebuilt" several times. I contacted several major rebuilders around
the country (including Bosch) as well as a couple of local ones and found no
one replaces anything still working. Not even bearings were normally
replaced in some cases. Thus a "new rebuilt" alternator might have an
original 25 year old regulator or a cheep low quality import replacement or
a modern but still low cost replacement. None admitted they used OEM (ND)
regulators as replacements. The typical reply was "price competition"
prevented that approach. Thus its not possible to single out Vans as having
poorer alternators than others.
The comments that in affect state my OVP is not the problem its Vans low
quality rebuilds is what is upsetting. (MY S%&T does not smell :-) )
Then I contacted a design engineer in the semi industry responsible for the
modern one-chip regulator (not the one used by ND) and described the problem
we were having. The reply was the design would protect against the normal
load dump but was unlikely to survive a contactor contact arcing and the
opening a loaded output "B" lead. This agrees with several different
automotive test requirements for alternator design testing. The industry is
designing to the automotive equivalent of the aircraft DO-160 which is more
severe.
At present the only known reasonably priced contactor RATED to open the "B"
lead is the Kilovac. The common contactors available are not rated to open
the voltages likely to be found under fault conditions.
I quote from a major relay manufacturers web site for contact application.
"Improper or excessive suppression can cause the relay to suffer from a
long release time, slow contact transfer, and contact bounce on break. All
of these conditions will increase contact arcing when load switching, which
will reduce relay life dramatically.".
One site http://relays.tycoelectronics.com/kilovac/appnotes/transients.stm
goes on to compare six different methods of coil "spike suppression" Its
interesting to read this table and see that the common diode is the LAST
choice and the Bi directional Zener (read bi directional transorb). There
are similar tables in the USA and Europe and ALL suggest the last method of
choice is the simple diode. The simple diode works as long as the contacts
are carrying low currents and non inductive loads. In the case of the
alternator its a very different matter as the unloaded unregulated
alternator voltage can jump to hundreds of volts during the contact bouncing
during opening even with the best coil suppression method thus the need for
the Kilovac which is rated at hundreds of volts.
I find the use of the simple diode across relay contacts one of the most
widespread miss information in the industry. IF ""Joe"" does it, it must be
OK ,or if it was not good why are relays available with one built in?. It's
very simple engineers are lazy and copy what others do far too often. Also
it works in 99.9% of the cases. It does not work in a "B" lead contactor
application however. Manufacturers will build what the engineers want
regardless of its design value.
I have demonstrated this in my testing and I suspect its repeatable by you
if you use a common contactor from Wicks for example. The contactor I used
was from Wicks. In one case the bounce duration was quite long and included
many bounces.
My conclusion is never use a "rebuilt" internally regulated alternator with
ANY OVP device that might false trip or trigger on a short transient. With
a brand new ND alternator available for $300+ and the demonstrated failure
rate in the auto industry being so low its unlikely any of us will ever see
a "fail hi" condition in a lifetime of flight. Van does not recommend any
OVP and with a modern regulator I agree its addition only reduces system
reliability. The Fail HI mode of regulator failure is a very low
probability in the failure modes of the modern regulator . Any failure of
any type is extremely low in today's new production ND alternators.
Use of any OVP has the potential of failing the alternator when it trips for
what ever reason so IF a OVP is used it needs to be extremely reliable under
all design conditions. It should never trip unless the OV is clearly of long
duration. The AEC OVP device trips in a few milliseconds and really should
not trip unless the OV is longer than what one might expect from a major
load dump.
YOU agreed there were cases of false tripping yet you failed to properly
analyze your design. There was absolutely no reason for a real lab test and,
in fact testing was a near total waste of time, as the false tripping
depends on a specific implementation of the classic schematic. How do you
expect to build all variations of a schematic??
How can there be repeatable tests when several major components have
important design tolerances or variables in the 5x or 10x range of
tolerances. Battery internal resistances of 5-1 or more, CB resistances of
10-1 or more. Schematic is one thing wiring diagram is another (how a
schematic is implemented and where wires are connected along a common line
in a schematic can and often does greatly affect the results.
The time tested and standard method of circuit analysis is on paper with or
without the help of software; NOT lab testing. If you use any of the
components offered by Wicks , Aircraft Spruce etc and a dozen other sources
you end up with huge part variations in critical parameters that preclude
any repeatable testing in the manner you seem to desire.
The 700 amp was a one time attempt to see the worst case current. The 400
amp current was from a built up exact duplicate of a real installation and
repeatable and represented a common design being use around here. It is
identical in the schematic form to your test that is repeatable at 135 amps
except for my use of dual PC625 batteries which is a very common builders
choice out here. The difference is in the wiring diagram and the actual
component variation. BTW In my setup the battery terminal voltage never
dropped below 12V and thus the alternator was not shorted out but in fact
was over 70 amps of the 400 amp total. (the Measured resistance of the dual
PC625 was under 0.002 ohms times 330 amps is 0.66V drop from 12.6 volts or
on paper this battery pair can deliver 330 amps at 12V terminal voltage.
One PC625 is specified at 0.0035 ohms and even one battery still can produce
a very high current (0.0035 times 330 amps is 1.155v or a terminal voltage
drop from 12.6 nom to 11.45v) The Panasonic has a much higher internal
resistance and that is what you used and your test results reflected that
fact. However the use of PC625 and the very similar PC680 are very popular
around here as are the use of dual batteries often simple wired directly in
parallel.
You used 0.035 ohms for the CB and got trip times of a few MS. I used a CB
from Wicks and measures it at 0.003 ohms and it tripped repeatetly in the
50-70 ms range. Yes the data seems illogical but my data is repeatable here
and I accept your data also as factual.
There is no way you can reproduce my test data unless you use the exact same
parts. This is the fallacy of your requirements that the test must be
reproducible by you to be valid. Perhaps its valid where the circuit
variables are not so dependent on individual parts used but in this case the
parts variation is so huge they prevent repeatable tests. Both tests are
reasonable examples of the overall design as documented on your web site and
neither are a worst case example as only a proper analysis can define the
range of design results.
ANY design that is to be reproduced must be analyzed using the specified
data sheet parts variations (and either specify the exact parts of consider
all the likely parts brands that could apply) and for general use NEVER
publish a design that violates the data sheet under any condition or assumes
parameters not specifically printed in the data sheet.
In any event I see no reason to continue posting.
Paul
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Traveling Man" <travliman58(at)hotmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Suzuki G13 engine with BRS |
Alow me to add my two cents:
Structural failure isn't the only concern. Engine faiure over unlandable
terrain and at low altitudes make up a large percentage of the "Saves"
stories from the BRS website. I'm a low time ultralight pilot, building an
LSA. I think of a BRS as life insurance that could save my life, and my
passengers life. It just makes sense to me.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: OVM trips on Alt Restart |
>
>Bob, etal. Wiring per Z13 and Z24, Vans 60amp internally regulated Alt.
>
>Situation, pilot forgot to start alternator, discovers battery voltage
>in-flight, tries to start alternator at cruise rpm and Bingo, trips the
>Alt. breaker (5amp).
>
>In my opinion this shouldn't happen with a robust electrical system. Is
>this an "oversensitive or defective OVM (B&C)? How would I go about
>finding out? I'm not an electrical engineer.
>
>Or is there a better, safer, way to restart an alternator,
>in-flight. Alternators shut down for various reasons, sometimes for test
>purposes, sometimes because a distracted pilot forgets to start it,
>whatever. Any wiring system that won't permit in-flight restart of a
>perfectly functional alternator isn't acceptable.
Great questions and astute observations sir.
The problem you've illuminated is one reason why I used to
recommend a 2-3 DC Power Master switch in the earliest
examples of the Z-figures. There's no particular advantage
to NOT having the alternator ON during cranking so why not
keep the DC Power Master switch simple.
The situation you describe is characterized by bringing
an alternator up cold while already running at over 10,000
rpm. The OV trip probably has nothing to do with a design
flaw in the OV sensor . . . what I think is happening is
an overshoot in system voltage due to a VERY energetic
alternator being turned on at high input speeds.
We can confirm my hypothesis by instrumenting the airplane
and getting data (probably not practical) or by conducting
an experiment. I could send him a modified OV module with
and extra-ordinarily long time constant. This would not
seriously affect suitability of the device to protect from
overvoltage conditions but could confirm my hypothesis
if the problem did not repeat with the experimental ov
module in place.
There are RISKS. Since this is a Van's internally regulated
alternator. Repeating this experiment places the alternator
at-risk from the stresses identified earlier and generated
our decision to remove Z-24 from the book pending resolution
of the problem.
This experiment COULD be conducted on a test stand with
no risk to a customer's airplane . . . that would have to
be done by someone with an interest in discovery and
promulgation of simple-ideas that underlie the problem.
I don't have the necessary facilities yet.
B&C has facilities . . . but they have a ton of things
on their plate. Given that the problems are manifest in
a system that neither B&C nor I can recommend (for the
variety of reasons recently cited here on the List), it
seems unlikely that they'll put on their white hats,
mount up and come charging over the hill to rescue us
from this conundrum generated by a lack of data.
Until better data are made available, my best advise
is as follows:
(1) Consider replacing the DC PWR Master with a 2-3.
(2) Consider tighter adherence to the checklist -OR-
how about ACTIVE NOTIFICATION OF LOW VOLTAGE? A
light flashing in one's face is an excellent reminder
taxi out from parking.
(3) If one considers deliberate operation of the alternators
ON/OFF functions in flight, I would reduce rpm to
flight idle before turning it back ON. I suspect this
will mitigate the overshoot that irritates the
OV protection.
(4) Resist the idea of doing any "testing" while en route
to aunt Martha's house. A large number of problems are
discovered in less than friendly situations for dealing
with them. If there are experiments to be conducted,
do them at altitude over the home airport on a clear
day.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Joseph Larson <jpl(at)showpage.org> |
| Subject: | Re: OVM trips on Alt Restart |
I continue to be amazed at the wealth of information gained from
reading this list.
-Joe
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | OVM trips on Alt Restart |
| From: | "Hinde, Frank George (Corvallis)" <frank.hinde(at)hp.com> |
Ok at the risk of sounding really dumb...what exactly is a 2-3?
Personally I was assuming (bad thing to do) the master would energise
the battery contactor and the main alt and field sensing wire would
connect permanently to the engine side of the master contactor.
As the contactor is close to the battery seems a simple solution...2nd
alt will be connected directly to the battery buss via an on-off switch.
Any problems with this?
Frank
The problem you've illuminated is one reason why I used to
recommend a 2-3 DC Power Master switch in the earliest
examples of the Z-figures. There's no particular advantage
to NOT having the alternator ON during cranking so why not
keep the DC Power Master switch simple.
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: I've got a secret |
| From: | "John Schroeder" <jschroeder(at)perigee.net> |
wrote:
>
>
> You probably won't see it. I've encountered this before. It's the "I've
> got a secret" game. Look it up in any good psych textbook.
>
> Dave Morris
>
>
>> Paul, if you got something, publish it.
>>
>> Vern
>>
Paul -
Or crawl back under your rock and leave us alone - or- start your own list.
John
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Tinne maha" <tinnemaha(at)hotmail.com> (by way of Matt Dralle <nospam(at)matronics.com>) |
| Subject: | Tranpsonder Coax Connection |
Hello List,
I've actually been searching the archives lately (usually with great
success) before just blurting a question that has probably been asked 1,000
times before. That was starting to be a bad habit for me: Sorry for any
unnecessary repition: I'm getting better though. This list is a GREAT
resource! Thank You Bob!
Maybe I didn't use the correct search string, but I did have trouble
finding an answer to my current dillema: I'm installing a KT-76A
transponder but the coaxial connection in the back is not a BNC type (I
don't recognize it as any type) The tech rep from Honeywell said that the
Coax must be soldered to the trasnponder & recommended I have an avionics
shop do the work.
Seems odd to me: Any advice or suggestions?
Thanks,
Grant Krueger
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Mark Banus" <mbanus(at)hotmail.com> |
| Subject: | Help locating a 7-10 Amp, 12 V Diodes |
Bob,
I am powering a device from two separate power busses. I want to ensue no voltage
from Circuit "A" is allowed into Circuit "B" thus the need for two inline
diodes on the power leads to the devise. I have looked @ Digi-Key but the
tech specs are beyond my technical knowledge. Would you recommend a suitable device?
TIA
Mark Banus
Glasair IIFT
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "John Swartout" <jgswartout(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | Tranpsonder Coax Connection |
I'm in exactly the same boat--just took a KT-76A, yellow tagged, out of
the box. It didn't come with a manual, and on mine, the coax was just
snipped off near where it is soldered to the side of the plug that goes
thru the back of the tray to plug into the radio. Also I don't see how
to supply power to the radio.
John
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Tinne
maha (by way of Matt Dralle )
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Tranpsonder Coax Connection
(by way of Matt Dralle )
Hello List,
I've actually been searching the archives lately (usually with great
success) before just blurting a question that has probably been asked
1,000
times before. That was starting to be a bad habit for me: Sorry for any
unnecessary repition: I'm getting better though. This list is a GREAT
resource! Thank You Bob!
Maybe I didn't use the correct search string, but I did have trouble
finding an answer to my current dillema: I'm installing a KT-76A
transponder but the coaxial connection in the back is not a BNC type (I
don't recognize it as any type) The tech rep from Honeywell said that
the
Coax must be soldered to the trasnponder & recommended I have an
avionics
shop do the work.
Seems odd to me: Any advice or suggestions?
Thanks,
Grant Krueger
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Wayne Sweet" <w_sweet(at)comcast.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Tranpsonder Coax Connection |
I just did that using the connectors for the KT76A's,but on a Terra TN200D,
replacing the funky Terra connectors. These are not particularily "a snap"
to do, but if you use theRG400 coax which has inner insulation much less
heat sensitive, it would be much easier. I learned of these from Lane_pilot
on eBay. Try this link; he has more for sale.
http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/BRAND-NEW-RF-TRAY-connector-for-King-Narco-install-TED_W0QQcmdZViewItemQQcategoryZ26436QQitemZ4564572505QQtcZphoto
You will need two soldering irons; one low heat, ~20 watt for the center
connection and one about 60 watt for the shield soldering. If you must use
the RG58U, this stuff has a center insulation that will melt much more
easily when the shield is soldered to the connector's shell; I tried and
then got out the RG400. You will need BNC connector for the other end that
is specifically for the RG400, since the center wire insulation is just a
tad bit larger diameter and the RG58 connector will not work. I have the P/N
for the RG400 in my hangar, so if you need it, email me.
Wayne
----- Original Message -----
From: "Tinne maha (by way of Matt Dralle <nospam(at)matronics.com>)"
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Tranpsonder Coax Connection
> (by way of Matt Dralle )
>
> Hello List,
>
> I've actually been searching the archives lately (usually with great
> success) before just blurting a question that has probably been asked
> 1,000
> times before. That was starting to be a bad habit for me: Sorry for any
> unnecessary repition: I'm getting better though. This list is a GREAT
> resource! Thank You Bob!
>
> Maybe I didn't use the correct search string, but I did have trouble
> finding an answer to my current dillema: I'm installing a KT-76A
> transponder but the coaxial connection in the back is not a BNC type (I
> don't recognize it as any type) The tech rep from Honeywell said that the
> Coax must be soldered to the trasnponder & recommended I have an avionics
> shop do the work.
> Seems odd to me: Any advice or suggestions?
>
> Thanks,
> Grant Krueger
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Wayne Sweet" <w_sweet(at)comcast.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Tranpsonder Coax Connection |
Oh, one more item. I have instructions how to attached the coax to these
Bendix connectors; I can attach it to an email if you are interested.
Wayne
----- Original Message -----
From: "Tinne maha (by way of Matt Dralle <nospam(at)matronics.com>)"
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Tranpsonder Coax Connection
> (by way of Matt Dralle )
>
> Hello List,
>
> I've actually been searching the archives lately (usually with great
> success) before just blurting a question that has probably been asked
> 1,000
> times before. That was starting to be a bad habit for me: Sorry for any
> unnecessary repition: I'm getting better though. This list is a GREAT
> resource! Thank You Bob!
>
> Maybe I didn't use the correct search string, but I did have trouble
> finding an answer to my current dillema: I'm installing a KT-76A
> transponder but the coaxial connection in the back is not a BNC type (I
> don't recognize it as any type) The tech rep from Honeywell said that the
> Coax must be soldered to the trasnponder & recommended I have an avionics
> shop do the work.
> Seems odd to me: Any advice or suggestions?
>
> Thanks,
> Grant Krueger
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | chad-c_sip(at)stanfordalumni.org |
| Subject: | Re: Help locating a 7-10 Amp, 12 V Diodes |
Z-USANET-MsgId: XID719JgCc7j0402X37
Anything on this page of Allied's catalog:
http://www.alliedelec.com/catalog/pf.asp?FN=1257.pdf
Each bridge has 4 diodes in it. You want to use the two as such:
From neg. TO AC is your 12V to device connection
From AC TO pos. is your other 12V to device connection
If you're near the current limit of the one you choose you'll want to add a
heat sink. However, they range in current ratings from 30A to 400A so you'll
be fine. If you head to your local Radio Shack (or Fry's Electronics, etc.)
and pick out any rectifier bridge that has the square shape with the bolt hole
in the middle for the heat sink (like Fig. 6,7 and 8) you're almost certainly
going to be buying something beefier than 10A at 12V.
Chad
Chad Sipperley
Lancair IV-P turbine (under construction)
Phoenix, AZ
------ Original Message ------
From: "Mark Banus" <mbanus(at)hotmail.com>
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Help locating a 7-10 Amp, 12 V Diodes
>
> Bob,
>
> I am powering a device from two separate power busses. I want to ensue
no voltage from Circuit "A" is allowed into Circuit "B" thus the need for two
inline diodes on the power leads to the devise. I have looked @ Digi-Key but
the tech specs are beyond my technical knowledge. Would you recommend a
suitable device?
>
> TIA
> Mark Banus
> Glasair IIFT
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Richard Riley <richard(at)RILEY.NET> |
| Subject: | Re: I've got a secret |
At 05:53 AM 7/28/05, you wrote:
>
>
>You probably won't see it. I've encountered this before. It's the "I've
>got a secret" game. Look it up in any good psych textbook.
Amen.
Months ago, when this started, I begged for a simple, 4 sentence statement
of what the problem was and what the proposed solution was. I never got a
hint of one. I didn't care about price, or who's product was proposed. As
near as I can tell, if you have a B&C alternator and voltage regulator, it
doesn't concern you. But I'm not even sure of that. Time for me to start
using my filters again.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Help locating a 7-10 Amp, 12 V Diodes |
>
>Bob,
>
> I am powering a device from two separate power busses. I want to
> ensue no voltage from Circuit "A" is allowed into Circuit "B" thus the
> need for two inline diodes on the power leads to the devise. I have
> looked @ Digi-Key but the tech specs are beyond my technical knowledge.
> Would you recommend a suitable device?
The diode bridge I've been recommending for the
e-bus normal feedpath will work. See:
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/RS_Diodes.jpg
It's the 276-1185 at the bottom of the picture
and available from Radio Shack. Doesn't need insulating,
mounts to aircraft metal surface for heat sinking
and accepts 1/4" fast-on terminals. Very easy to
use.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Rob W M Shipley" <rob(at)robsglass.com> |
| Subject: | Fw: Eric and the epoxy |
Subject: Eric and the epoxy
(By the way...I'm still dissolving the epoxy from the Powerlink Jr. More
later).
I didn't know there was a way to do this! How is it done? Enquiring minds
would like to know.
Rob
Rob W M Shipley
N919RV (res) Fuselage .....still!
La Mesa, CA. (next to San Diego)
--
Try www.SPAMfighter.com for free now!
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Mike Holland" <hollandm(at)pacbell.net> |
| Subject: | OVM trips on Alt restart |
Thanks for the feedback. After landing and realizing what had happened it dawned
on me that the high rpm may have triggered a voltage spike that tripped the
OVM. I'm happy to report no instruments were harmed, with the exception of an
electric t&b that died, but I think that was coincidental.
Yes, I have the Z24 wiring, with the B-lead connected to a relay and assume it
tripped. I didn't have the presence of mind at the time to reset the breaker,
cut power to idle and try to restart the alternator, didn't even realize the
breaker had tripped until I'd landed and started to evaluate what had happened.
Clearly I was unprepared for the event.
My take aways:
1 Develop and use checklists, prepare for overvoltage situations and avoid inducing
them if you can.
2 The crowbar system works.
3 Pay attention to the data in front of you.
Throughout this situation, the Dynon EFIS continuously displayed 3 voltages; Main
bus, E bus and it's own internal battery. If I'd paid attention, it was obvious
that the Alternator wasn't on, from the get-go.
One last question - I did try to start my 8 amp B&C permanent magnet, externally
regulated alternator connected to my ebus. As I switched this alternator on
I watched the system voltages and didn't see squat with the ebus on. However
I didn't think to turn off the master if this matters.
This raises a whole different set of questions which is really more suitable for
another thread.
The SD8 Spec sheet indicates that output of this alternator is closely related
to it's rpm. At prop rpm levels you would be luck to see 2 amps from this device
under load. But this assumes the mag shaft dive turns at prop speed. Does
anyone know if this is so? Bottom line is I still don't know if the SD8 really
is a backup alternator. I'll be finding out though and will report what
I learn.
Mike
.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Wayne Sweet" <w_sweet(at)comcast.net> |
| Subject: | A Bugger of an Avionics Problem |
I have dual VOR/ILS's; a GNS430 and a recently installed replacement TX760/TN200D.
The VOR/GS is taken from a single VOR antenna through a 1 into 4 splitter.
The Terra is a replacement for an older TX720/TN200, which function well, except
for a squelch problem that Toronto Avionics fixed. I sold that system on eBay.
Anyway, this "new" Terra will not consistantly display the CDI for VOR/LOC EXCEPT
when outbound from the ILS. Then I get turned around and inbound on the ILS,
the TN200D only displays the GS. The GNS430 is rock solid out and inbound. The
old TN200 did not have this problem; it and the GNS430 were working fine.
Also, now the Terra TN200D will not display the CDI for the VOR unless I'm almost
on the airport; VOR on airport. The TRI-NAV is wired to display the OBS setting
as well as the radial currently on. This works OK, meaning the CDI is getting
the correct data.
The only explanation I can come up with, is that the TN200D is less sensitive than
the old TN200 and outbound the "rabbit ears" antenna, oriented with the "ears"
facing aft and under the tailcone has better reception going away from the
ILS. This is weird; all airplanes I have seen have the VOR antenna "facing"
aft. In addition I was told by an avionics shop that dual VOR/ILS typically use
a 1-into-4 quadaplexer, rather than two VOR antennas..
Has anyone experienced like symtoms??
Wayne
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Eric M. Jones" <emjones(at)charter.net> |
| Subject: | RE: Eric and the epoxy |
>>Subject: Eric and the epoxy (By the way...I'm still dissolving the epoxy
>>from the Powerlink Jr. More
>>later).
>I didn't know there was a way to do this! How is it done? Enquiring minds
>would like to know. Rob
Rob,
Something with the word "miracle" in it helps.
But seriously--not so hard--just Google "Epoxy Dissolver". --dissolving
epoxy is not difficult, just messy and often smelly. NAPA 6802 stripper also
works. On the plus side, most epoxy dissolvers will easily remove the ink
from US currency so you can reuse the paper to print little award
certificates.
Regards,
Eric M. Jones
www.PerihelionDesign.com
113 Brentwood Drive
Southbridge MA 01550-2705
(508) 764-2072
Don't worry about people stealing an idea. If it's original, you will have
to ram it down their throats."
-- Howard Aiken
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Mark Banus" <mbanus(at)hotmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Help locating a 7-10 Amp, 12 V Diodes |
Bob/Chad, Thanks.
I will try the 276-1185 but as I have a glass airplane I will have to devise
some sort of heat sink.
Mark Banus
Glasair II FT
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Richard Dudley <rhdudley(at)att.net> |
| Subject: | Re: A Bugger of an Avionics Problem |
Hi Wayne,
I have been struggling with symptoms similar to those you describe. I
have a GNS-430 and an SL-30. Each has it own CDI. I left the testing of
the navs until I completed my 25 hours of flight testing of my RV-6A.
The folks where I purchased the avionics recommended that I use a single
VOR/LOC antenna split with a T taking one side of the T to the SL-30
(which has only one antenna input and an internal splitter) and the
other side to a diplexer which split out the VOR/LOC and GS for the
430. Though I had misgivings about the T, they said it was the
conventional way of splitting. At my first attempt at checking the
systems out, I found that the SL-30 was indicating a good VOR signal
while the 430 was intermittent possibly dependent on my heading relative
to the station. Since then, I have done a variety of experiments
including connecting the antenna to the SL-30 only with excellent VOR
results (haven't checked GS yet), connecting the antenna to the diplexer
and the 430 only with excellent VOR results, using a splitter which
preserves both VORLOC and GS and running one output leg to the SL-30
and the other to the 430 diplexer with neither CDI indicating
consistently. My conclusion is that the signal from the antenna is not
adequate to drive two nav receivers. I am currently installing a second
antenna in one wing tip as a final solution.
I'll let you know when I have the second antenna operating and my results.
Regards,
Richard Dudley
Wayne Sweet wrote:
>
>I have dual VOR/ILS's; a GNS430 and a recently installed replacement TX760/TN200D.
The VOR/GS is taken from a single VOR antenna through a 1 into 4 splitter.
The Terra is a replacement for an older TX720/TN200, which function well, except
for a squelch problem that Toronto Avionics fixed. I sold that system on
eBay.
>Anyway, this "new" Terra will not consistantly display the CDI for VOR/LOC EXCEPT
when outbound from the ILS. Then I get turned around and inbound on the ILS,
the TN200D only displays the GS. The GNS430 is rock solid out and inbound.
The old TN200 did not have this problem; it and the GNS430 were working fine.
>Also, now the Terra TN200D will not display the CDI for the VOR unless I'm almost
on the airport; VOR on airport. The TRI-NAV is wired to display the OBS setting
as well as the radial currently on. This works OK, meaning the CDI is getting
the correct data.
>The only explanation I can come up with, is that the TN200D is less sensitive
than the old TN200 and outbound the "rabbit ears" antenna, oriented with the "ears"
facing aft and under the tailcone has better reception going away from the
ILS. This is weird; all airplanes I have seen have the VOR antenna "facing"
aft. In addition I was told by an avionics shop that dual VOR/ILS typically use
a 1-into-4 quadaplexer, rather than two VOR antennas..
>Has anyone experienced like symtoms??
>Wayne
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Ernest Christley <echristley(at)nc.rr.com> |
| Subject: | Re: AeroElectric-List Digest: 31 Msgs - 07/28/05 |
AeroElectric-List Digest Server wrote:
>You used 0.035 ohms for the CB and got trip times of a few MS. I used a CB
>from Wicks and measures it at 0.003 ohms and it tripped repeatetly in the
>50-70 ms range. Yes the data seems illogical but my data is repeatable here
>and I accept your data also as factual.
>
>
>
>ANY design that is to be reproduced must be analyzed using the specified
>data sheet parts variations (and either specify the exact parts of consider
>all the likely parts brands that could apply) and for general use NEVER
>publish a design that violates the data sheet under any condition or assumes
>parameters not specifically printed in the data sheet.
>
>
>
Bob,
You should give Paul an award for this. It is a very intelligent and a
germaine insight. Paul measured, tested and passed along the very
useful results of a repeatable experiment. He also distilled the simple
idea that "you can't expect to get the same results with different
inputs." or better yet
"Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar, but what you grow in your back yard
may not be the same as a hand-rolled Cuban."
>In any event I see no reason to continue posting.
>
>Paul
>
>
Then you should take the award away from him and check "Does not play
well with others" on his report card.
--
,|"|"|, |
----===<{{(oQo)}}>===---- Dyke Delta |
o| d |o www.ernest.isa-geek.org |
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net> Diodes |
| Subject: | Re: Help locating a 7-10 Amp, 12 V |
Diodes
>
>Bob/Chad, Thanks.
>
> I will try the 276-1185 but as I have a glass airplane I will have
> to devise some sort of heat sink.
A 4 x 4" piece of .040 alum will suffice up to 10A
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: OVM trips on Alt restart |
>
>Thanks for the feedback. After landing and realizing what had happened it
>dawned on me that the high rpm may have triggered a voltage spike that
>tripped the OVM. I'm happy to report no instruments were harmed, with the
>exception of an electric t&b that died, but I think that was coincidental.
>
>Yes, I have the Z24 wiring, with the B-lead connected to a relay and
>assume it tripped. I didn't have the presence of mind at the time to
>reset the breaker, cut power to idle and try to restart the
>alternator, didn't even realize the breaker had tripped until I'd landed
>and started to evaluate what had happened. Clearly I was unprepared for
>the event.
>
>My take aways:
>
>1 Develop and use checklists, prepare for overvoltage situations and
>avoid inducing them if you can.
>
>2 The crowbar system works.
>
>3 Pay attention to the data in front of you.
>
>Throughout this situation, the Dynon EFIS continuously displayed 3
>voltages; Main bus, E bus and it's own internal battery. If I'd paid
>attention, it was obvious that the Alternator wasn't on, from the get-go.
>
>One last question - I did try to start my 8 amp B&C permanent magnet,
>externally regulated alternator connected to my ebus. As I switched this
>alternator on I watched the system voltages and didn't see squat with the
>ebus on. However I didn't think to turn off the master if this matters.
Yes, with the master on, you're loading the SD-8 with ALL
of system loads, not just e-bus. It's likely that the
load exceeded 8A which would pull bus voltage down to
battery delivery levels.
>This raises a whole different set of questions which is really more
>suitable for another thread.
Yeah, like where's that checklist for the various Z-figures I
started about two years ago . . . I'll go look for it.
>The SD8 Spec sheet indicates that output of this alternator is closely
>related to it's rpm. At prop rpm levels you would be luck to see 2 amps
>from this device under load. But this assumes the mag shaft dive turns at
>prop speed. Does anyone know if this is so? Bottom line is I still
>don't know if the SD8 really is a backup alternator. I'll be finding out
>though and will report what I learn.
The SD-8 produces 8A or better at red-line on any Lyc or Cont
engine. Pad speeds are on the order of 1.4 to 1.7 times crank
speed. Call B&C for more detailed data.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Off line for a few days |
Dee and I are headed for three days of goofing off in the
Flint Hills with uncle George and aunt Sally. We'll get
as far north to visit the Arabia Museum in Kansas City . . .
a truly amazing achievement.
See http://www.1856.com/
Be back on Monday.
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: | Re: Help locating a 7-10 Amp, 12 V Diodes |
| From: | "John Schroeder" <jschroeder(at)perigee.net> |
Mark -
B&C also carries them.
John
> It's the 276-1185 at the bottom of the picture and available from Radio
> Shack.
--
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "P. Van Caulart" <etivc(at)iaw.on.ca> |
| Subject: | Re: Paul M. has risen from the dead again! |
"...I have been considering posting more details on this general subject
and I may in the near future limited to the specific subject of OP and
internally regulated alternators as there are some industry wide truths
(facts that is) that seem to be missing from posts on this list that
directly contradict what is frequently posted as truths etc...
Paul"
Geez, I see that "Pope Paul M." is once again pontificating. Lord! why
can't he be excommunicated?
Peter Van Caulart
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | <gmcjetpilot(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | Re: I've got a secret |
>>Richard Riley wrote:
>>Amen.
>>Months ago, when this started, I begged for a simple, 4 sentence statement
>>of what the problem was and what the proposed solution was. I never got a
>>hint of one. I didn't care about price, or who's product was proposed. As
>>near as I can tell, if you have a B&C alternator and voltage regulator, it
>>doesn't concern you. But I'm not even sure of that. Time for me to start
>>using my filters again.
(oh no Riley don't filter! No one cares what you do)
Riley:
I thought we got rid of you.
You deserve an award, for the most useless & hateful post.
You post insults, trivial opinion or an unimportant & useless, I'll 2nd that.
It's was much nicer with out you; Please just turn your computer off and go.
Have a nice day, Dick
Thanks George
>From: Richard Riley ><richard(at)RILEY.NET>
>Subject: Re: I've got a secret
>
>At 05:53 AM 7/28/05, you wrote:
>
>
>You probably won't see it. I've encountered this before. It's the "I've
>got a secret" game. Look it up in any good psych textbook.
>>
>>Amen.
>>Months ago, when this started, I begged for a simple, 4 sentence statement
>>of what the problem was and what the proposed solution was. I never got a
>>hint of one. I didn't care about price, or who's product was proposed. As
>>near as I can tell, if you have a B&C alternator and voltage regulator, it
>>doesn't concern you. But I'm not even sure of that. Time for me to start
>>using my filters again.
---------------------------------
Stay connected, organized, and protected. Take the tour
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: I've got a secret |
What on earth is this all about!
I presume it's all fallout from Paul Messinger e-mail that gotten a negative
response. Does anyone know....or care!
>
> (oh no Riley don't filter! No one cares what you do)
>
>
> Riley:
>
> I thought we got rid of you.
>
> You deserve an award, for the most useless & hateful post.
>
> You post insults, trivial opinion or an unimportant & useless, I'll 2nd that.
>
> It's was much nicer with out you; Please just turn your computer off and go.
>
> Have a nice day, Dick
> Thanks George
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Need help with Apollo GPS |
Greetings to All,
I'm in a bit of a dilemma with my Apollo 360 GPS Moving Map Unit, (round
unit installed in the panel) which was installed with the latest data in 1997.
This unit can be upgraded by using a lap top computer with an "upgrade card"
in the floppy drive, connected to the GPS with a serial cable, according to
the Installation Guide.
Does anyone have a recent "up grade card", and cable to connect up with that
they would sell, loan, rent, whatever?
Here is the info that the "Guide" gives on these items.
PC Interface Kit (564-0052), which includes a program diskette (31/2"),the
data cable (500-0263), and a reference guide.
Data Cable (500-0263), a 25 pin on the GPS end, to a 9 pin dsub COM port on
the PC.
Also does anyone know if the GPS unit, when hooked up to a color lap top,
will display the same info on the lap top that is on the "Mother" unit on the
panel, and although the original unit display is in black & white, would the
lap top display the info in color? If it will, then the "co-pilot"/ passenger
could have a larger, in color, view, to assist the pilot with.
Sorry this is so long, however I know there is a lot of Very Knowledgeable
folks out there on the list, and I very much need your help.
Thanks
Bill
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Phil Birkelbach <phil(at)petrasoft.net> |
| Subject: | Strobe Noise Report |
I installed a Nova Xpak 904 strobe power supply in my RV-7. When I did
it there were questions about it causing noise in the intercom / radios,
and I promised to report when I knew more. I am happy to report that I
powered them up tonight with the com radio on and while listening to
some Eagles on the CD player. I couldn't hear a thing from the strobes.
I turned the volume up and down on everything and couldn't get so much
as a tic out of it.
I installed the power supply right behind the baggage compartment
bulkhead, I used 3-conductor 18AWG sheilded for the strobe wires and
grounded the shields only at the power supply. The ground for the power
supply goes all the way back to the firewall and is grounded with the
rest of the stuff.
Just wanted to include this data point on the lists.
Godspeed,
Phil Birkelbach
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Richard Riley <richard(at)RILEY.NET> |
| Subject: | Re: I've got a secret |
If you think that's hateful, you must be new to the internet.
Are you capable of summing up this amazingly useless, endless thread
in one paragraph? Like
The problem is X
It can occur when using equipment Y, under the following conditions -
If you use equipment Z instead, it won't happen.
I appreciate the free ice cream that Bob delivers here. It's not
always my favorite flavor, but it's still free. (That's a metaphor, BTW)
At 12:19 PM 7/29/05, you wrote:
>
>
> >>Richard Riley wrote:
>
> >>Amen.
>
> >>Months ago, when this started, I begged for a simple, 4 sentence statement
> >>of what the problem was and what the proposed solution was. I never got a
> >>hint of one. I didn't care about price, or who's product was
> proposed. As
> >>near as I can tell, if you have a B&C alternator and voltage regulator, it
> >>doesn't concern you. But I'm not even sure of that. Time for me to start
> >>using my filters again.
>
>(oh no Riley don't filter! No one cares what you do)
>
>
>Riley:
>
>I thought we got rid of you.
>
>You deserve an award, for the most useless & hateful post.
>
>You post insults, trivial opinion or an unimportant & useless, I'll 2nd that.
>
>It's was much nicer with out you; Please just turn your computer off and go.
>
>Have a nice day, Dick
>Thanks George
>
>
> >From: Richard Riley ><richard(at)RILEY.NET>
> >Subject: Re: I've got a secret
> >
> >At 05:53 AM 7/28/05, you wrote:
> >
> >
> >You probably won't see it. I've encountered this before. It's the "I've
> >got a secret" game. Look it up in any good psych textbook.
> >>
> >>Amen.
> >>Months ago, when this started, I begged for a simple, 4 sentence statement
> >>of what the problem was and what the proposed solution was. I never got a
> >>hint of one. I didn't care about price, or who's product was
> proposed. As
> >>near as I can tell, if you have a B&C alternator and voltage regulator, it
> >>doesn't concern you. But I'm not even sure of that. Time for me to start
> >>using my filters again.
>
>
>---------------------------------
> Stay connected, organized, and protected. Take the tour
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Richard Riley <richard(at)RILEY.NET> |
| Subject: | Re: I've got a secret |
At 12:40 PM 7/29/05, you wrote:
><gholland@gemini-resourcing.com>
>
>What on earth is this all about!
>
>I presume it's all fallout from Paul Messinger e-mail that gotten a negative
>response. Does anyone know....or care!
I don't. It's out of the blue for me, too.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Charlie Brame <chasb(at)satx.rr.com> |
| Subject: | Diode orientation |
Bob, et al,
My Navaid installation manual recommends a diode between the Navaid pin
7 and the Comm PTT circuit. The Navaid schematic shows a black and white
diode with a large white area and a small black stipe on one end. The
white area is oriented toward the Comm unit and the black stripe
oriented toward the PTT circuit. However, the diode I received from B&C
is mostly black with a small grey stripe at one end.
Can I assume that the large black end of the diode equates to the large
white end on the Navaid schematic?
Charlie
RV-6A N11CB
San Antonio
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Charlie England <ceengland(at)bellsouth.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Diode orientation |
Charlie Brame wrote:
>
>Bob, et al,
>
>My Navaid installation manual recommends a diode between the Navaid pin
>7 and the Comm PTT circuit. The Navaid schematic shows a black and white
>diode with a large white area and a small black stipe on one end. The
>white area is oriented toward the Comm unit and the black stripe
>oriented toward the PTT circuit. However, the diode I received from B&C
>is mostly black with a small grey stripe at one end.
>
>Can I assume that the large black end of the diode equates to the large
>white end on the Navaid schematic?
>
>Charlie
>RV-6A N11CB
>San Antonio
>
Hi Charlie,
Just focus on the stripe. The drawing is white because it's simpler to
represent the diode as a line drawing of a rectangle rather than a solid
black one. The 'business end' always has the stripe.
another Charlie
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Peter Davidson" <pdavidson(at)familynet.net> |
| Subject: | Re:A Bugger of an Avionics Problem |
Wayne,
I'm not familiar with the TX760/TN200D system, but it sounds like two
possibilities to me.
1) If the harness had to be rewired at all for the new components, there's a
good possibility that the coax might have been accidentally yanked on or
something to cause problems with the connection.
2) If the new components were direct replacements, I 'd say it's a defective
TN200D.
-Peter
>
> I have dual VOR/ILS's; a GNS430 and a recently installed replacement
TX760/TN200D.
> The VOR/GS is taken from a single VOR antenna through a 1 into 4 splitter.
> The Terra is a replacement for an older TX720/TN200, which function well,
except
> for a squelch problem that Toronto Avionics fixed. I sold that system on
eBay.
> Anyway, this "new" Terra will not consistantly display the CDI for VOR/LOC
EXCEPT
> when outbound from the ILS. Then I get turned around and inbound on the
ILS,
> the TN200D only displays the GS. The GNS430 is rock solid out and inbound.
The
> old TN200 did not have this problem; it and the GNS430 were working fine.
> Also, now the Terra TN200D will not display the CDI for the VOR unless I'm
almost
> on the airport; VOR on airport. The TRI-NAV is wired to display the OBS
setting
> as well as the radial currently on. This works OK, meaning the CDI is
getting
> the correct data.
> The only explanation I can come up with, is that the TN200D is less
sensitive than
> the old TN200 and outbound the "rabbit ears" antenna, oriented with the
"ears"
> facing aft and under the tailcone has better reception going away from the
> ILS. This is weird; all airplanes I have seen have the VOR antenna
"facing"
> aft. In addition I was told by an avionics shop that dual VOR/ILS
typically use
> a 1-into-4 quadaplexer, rather than two VOR antennas..
> Has anyone experienced like symtoms??
> Wayne
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | chad-c_sip(at)stanfordalumni.org |
| Subject: | Re: Diode orientation |
Z-USANET-MsgId: XID674JgdREa0184X28
yes.
Diodes are always marked on their downstream side. But the marking is not
necessarily uniform.
------ Original Message ------
From: Charlie Brame <chasb(at)satx.rr.com>
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Diode orientation
>
> Bob, et al,
>
> My Navaid installation manual recommends a diode between the Navaid pin
> 7 and the Comm PTT circuit. The Navaid schematic shows a black and white
> diode with a large white area and a small black stipe on one end. The
> white area is oriented toward the Comm unit and the black stripe
> oriented toward the PTT circuit. However, the diode I received from B&C
> is mostly black with a small grey stripe at one end.
>
> Can I assume that the large black end of the diode equates to the large
> white end on the Navaid schematic?
>
> Charlie
> RV-6A N11CB
> San Antonio
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Wayne Sweet" <w_sweet(at)comcast.net> |
| Subject: | Re:A Bugger of an Avionics Problem |
Peter,
Thanks for the reply. I replaced the coax at the tray, using new TED
connectors rather than the funky Terra ones. I have done lots of avionics
wiring and learned to continuity check all coax connectors. These are fine.
The same problem occurs when I plug in a second (and 3rd) TN200D. I bought 3
Terra NAV/COM on eBay, so have some that will be going up on eBay, starting
this afternoon.
The problem is the same for all 3 TN200D. The coax connections and
continuity are fine.
Very puzzling.
Wayne
----- Original Message -----
From: "Peter Davidson" <pdavidson(at)familynet.net>
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Re:A Bugger of an Avionics Problem
>
>
> Wayne,
> I'm not familiar with the TX760/TN200D system, but it sounds like two
> possibilities to me.
> 1) If the harness had to be rewired at all for the new components, there's
> a
> good possibility that the coax might have been accidentally yanked on or
> something to cause problems with the connection.
> 2) If the new components were direct replacements, I 'd say it's a
> defective
> TN200D.
> -Peter
>
>
>>
>> I have dual VOR/ILS's; a GNS430 and a recently installed replacement
> TX760/TN200D.
>> The VOR/GS is taken from a single VOR antenna through a 1 into 4
>> splitter.
>> The Terra is a replacement for an older TX720/TN200, which function well,
> except
>> for a squelch problem that Toronto Avionics fixed. I sold that system on
> eBay.
>> Anyway, this "new" Terra will not consistantly display the CDI for
>> VOR/LOC
> EXCEPT
>> when outbound from the ILS. Then I get turned around and inbound on the
> ILS,
>> the TN200D only displays the GS. The GNS430 is rock solid out and
>> inbound.
> The
>> old TN200 did not have this problem; it and the GNS430 were working fine.
>> Also, now the Terra TN200D will not display the CDI for the VOR unless
>> I'm
> almost
>> on the airport; VOR on airport. The TRI-NAV is wired to display the OBS
> setting
>> as well as the radial currently on. This works OK, meaning the CDI is
> getting
>> the correct data.
>> The only explanation I can come up with, is that the TN200D is less
> sensitive than
>> the old TN200 and outbound the "rabbit ears" antenna, oriented with the
> "ears"
>> facing aft and under the tailcone has better reception going away from
>> the
>> ILS. This is weird; all airplanes I have seen have the VOR antenna
> "facing"
>> aft. In addition I was told by an avionics shop that dual VOR/ILS
> typically use
>> a 1-into-4 quadaplexer, rather than two VOR antennas..
>> Has anyone experienced like symtoms??
>> Wayne
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | <bakerocb(at)cox.net> |
AeroElectric-List message previously posted by: Richard Riley
<<..........skip.......The problem is X
It can occur when using equipment Y, under the following conditions -
If you use equipment Z instead, it won't happen......skip.......>>
7/30/2005
Hello Richard, I think that your questions are right on target. I'd like to
take a layman's whack at answering them:
A) "The problem is X"
The problem is potential damage to an aircraft's electrical, avionics, or
instrument components from an alternator that is putting out excessive
voltage.
B) "It can occur when using equipment Y......"
It can occur when using either an internally regulated or an externally
regulated field controlled alternator or a permanent magnet alternator.
C) "under the following conditions"
When the voltage regulator (either external or internal) or the alternator
suffers a fault that causes the over voltage condition.
D) "If you use equipment Z instead, it won't happen"
There is no way to guarantee that, "it", the over voltage condition, will
never happen with any type of regulator or alternator. So the discussion
moves onto the ongoing thread of how to best protect an aircraft's
electrical, avionics, or instrument components from an alternator that is
putting out excessive voltage.
1) Case one: Use an externally regulated field controlled alternator and a
mechanism that when an over voltage conditon is detected cuts off the field
current to the field controlled alternator.
2) Case two: But what if one doesn't feel that just cutting off the field
current provides adequate protection? Then put a separate cut off mechanism
in the externally regulated alternator's output B (for battery) lead that
opens up that lead in time to protect the components at risk.
3) Case three: But what if the voltage gets so high so quickly that the
separate B lead cut off mechanism cannot do its job in time? How high and
how quick and the best kind of B lead cut off mechanism is what the ongoing
thread is all about.
4) Case four: Use an internally regulated alternator and depend upon the
internal regulator to not permit an over voltage condition.
5) Case five: But what if the internal regulator fails to provide adequate
protection? Then put a separate cut off mechanism in the internally
regulated alternator's output B (for battery) lead that opens up that lead
in time to protect the components at risk.
6) Case six: But what if the voltage gets so high so quickly that the
separate B lead cut off mechanism cannot do its job in time? How high and
how quick and the best kind of B lead cut off mechanism is what the ongoing
thread is all about.
7) Case seven: Use a permanent magnet alternator and put a separate cut off
mechanism in the permanent magnet alternator's output B (for battery) lead
that opens up that lead in time to protect the components at risk.
8) Case eight: But what if the voltage gets so high so quickly that the
separate B lead cut off mechanism cannot do its job? How high and how quick
and the best kind of B lead cut off mechanism is what the ongoing thread is
all about.
So where should one's comfort level reside? Mine stops at Case one, but I am
not trying to push that down any one's throat.
OC
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Richard Riley <richard(at)RILEY.NET> |
| Subject: | Re: Summing up OVP |
Bob, thank you. I think I'm with you at (1), at lest until a (2) is
productized and well distributed.
At 03:07 PM 7/30/05, bakerocb(at)cox.net wrote:
>1) Case one: Use an externally regulated field controlled alternator
>and a mechanism that when an over voltage conditon is detected cuts
>off the field current to the field controlled alternator.
>
>2) Case two: But what if one doesn't feel that just cutting off the
>field current provides adequate protection? Then put a separate cut
>off mechanism in the externally regulated alternator's output B (for
>battery) lead that opens up that lead in time to protect the
>components at risk.
>
>3) Case three: But what if the voltage gets so high so quickly that
>the separate B lead cut off mechanism cannot do its job in time? How
>high and how quick and the best kind of B lead cut off mechanism is
>what the ongoing thread is all about.
>
>4) Case four: Use an internally regulated alternator and depend upon
>the internal regulator to not permit an over voltage condition.
>
>5) Case five: But what if the internal regulator fails to provide
>adequate protection? Then put a separate cut off mechanism in the
>internally regulated alternator's output B (for battery) lead that
>opens up that lead in time to protect the components at risk.
>
>6) Case six: But what if the voltage gets so high so quickly that
>the separate B lead cut off mechanism cannot do its job in time? How
>high and how quick and the best kind of B lead cut off mechanism is
>what the ongoing thread is all about.
>
>7) Case seven: Use a permanent magnet alternator and put a separate
>cut off mechanism in the permanent magnet alternator's output B (for
>battery) lead that opens up that lead in time to protect the
>components at risk.
>
>8) Case eight: But what if the voltage gets so high so quickly that
>the separate B lead cut off mechanism cannot do its job? How high
>and how quick and the best kind of B lead cut off mechanism is what
>the ongoing thread is all about.
>
>So where should one's comfort level reside? Mine stops at Case one,
>but I am not trying to push that down any one's throat.
>
>OC
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Charlie England <ceengland(at)bellsouth.net> |
| Subject: | Re:A Bugger of an Avionics Problem |
Seems pretty unlikely that all would have exactly the same problem. Can
you swap antenna cables at the radio trays, fly & try it? Ohm meter
checks of coax will detect only gross problems like DC shorts between
center & ground. If you can't swap antennas, rig up a cable with a
'rubber ducky' & try that to see if you have a different symptom.
Another possibility is that the radios aren't seating all the way into
the tray or the connector. Are you screwing in the chassis retaining
screw all the way & making sure that radio goes all the way into the
tray? Is this the version of the Terra with 2 separate radios + the
'trinav' head? If so, there are several opportunities for
poor/intermittant connections at the various connectors. Slight
variations in connector mounting & chassis cutouts can prevent the sub-d
connectors from seating all the way & lead to truly bizarre symptoms.
The same thing applies to the mating coax connectors between the radios
& the tray. If the tray has shifted in the instrument panel, or if the
new radios have trim bezels from a different batch/mfgr, or , the
radio might not be going all the way into the tray.
Charlie
Wayne Sweet wrote:
>
>Peter,
>Thanks for the reply. I replaced the coax at the tray, using new TED
>connectors rather than the funky Terra ones. I have done lots of avionics
>wiring and learned to continuity check all coax connectors. These are fine.
>The same problem occurs when I plug in a second (and 3rd) TN200D. I bought 3
>Terra NAV/COM on eBay, so have some that will be going up on eBay, starting
>this afternoon.
>The problem is the same for all 3 TN200D. The coax connections and
>continuity are fine.
>Very puzzling.
>Wayne
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "Peter Davidson" <pdavidson(at)familynet.net>
>To:
>Subject: AeroElectric-List: Re:A Bugger of an Avionics Problem
>
>
>
>
>>
>>
>>Wayne,
>>I'm not familiar with the TX760/TN200D system, but it sounds like two
>>possibilities to me.
>>1) If the harness had to be rewired at all for the new components, there's
>>a
>>good possibility that the coax might have been accidentally yanked on or
>>something to cause problems with the connection.
>>2) If the new components were direct replacements, I 'd say it's a
>>defective
>>TN200D.
>>-Peter
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>I have dual VOR/ILS's; a GNS430 and a recently installed replacement
>>>
>>>
>>TX760/TN200D.
>>
>>
>>>The VOR/GS is taken from a single VOR antenna through a 1 into 4
>>>splitter.
>>>The Terra is a replacement for an older TX720/TN200, which function well,
>>>
>>>
>>except
>>
>>
>>>for a squelch problem that Toronto Avionics fixed. I sold that system on
>>>
>>>
>>eBay.
>>
>>
>>>Anyway, this "new" Terra will not consistantly display the CDI for
>>>VOR/LOC
>>>
>>>
>>EXCEPT
>>
>>
>>>when outbound from the ILS. Then I get turned around and inbound on the
July 19, 2005 - July 30, 2005
AeroElectric-Archive.digest.vol-eq