AeroElectric-Archive.digest.vol-gr

February 10, 2007 - February 20, 2007



           Relays are a lot happier controlling AC voltage than DC
           voltage and it seems a better location as shown . . .
           but either configuration functions as intended.
      
           Bob . . .
      
              ----------------------------------------
              ( IF one aspires to be "world class",  )
              ( what ever you do must be exercised   )
              ( EVERY day . . .                      )
              (                  R. L. Nuckolls III  )
              ----------------------------------------
      
      
________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Feb 10, 2007
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net>
Subject: Re: Sorry!!
> > >Sorry, I keep forgetting about no pix on the Matronics list. I'm on too >many lists!! I thought Matt had revised the filters to allow attachments. Was this reversed while I wasn't watching? Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Feb 10, 2007
From: Bob White <bob@bob-white.com>
Subject: Re: Using D-Sub extract tool
"Robert L. Nuckolls, III" wrote: > > > > Just finished up a piece that had been languishing on my hard drive > for more months than I'd like to admit. The following shop notes > > http://aeroelectric.com/articles/D-Sub_Pin/Pin-Extraction.html > > . . . has been added to the What's New and Articles index of the > website. Critical review and proof-readers welcome. > > > > Bob . . . > > ---------------------------------------- > ( IF one aspires to be "world class", ) > ( what ever you do must be exercised ) > ( EVERY day . . . ) > ( R. L. Nuckolls III ) > ---------------------------------------- > > Nice write up Bob. I had never paid any attention to the little hole. The cheap gray extractor that I used for a while always gave me a lot more trouble. I notice that the metal barrel only wraps half way around. The red/white one is more like 3/4. I also just noticed that the red end is only a half circle like the cheap gray one so maybe it was meant for insertion only. I've never seen a need for an insertion tool on these pins. Bob W. -- N93BD - Rotary Powered BD-4 - http://www.bob-white.com First Flight: 11/23/2006 7:50AM - 2.4 Hours Total Time Cables for your rotary installation - http://www.roblinphoto.com/shop/ ________________________________________________________________________________
From: <bakerocb(at)cox.net>
Subject: Our Aeronautical Heritage
Date: Feb 10, 2007
2/10/2007 Dear Fellow Listers, Please forgive the off topic posting. At dinner last night the subject of the scope of wars came up and I made a comment to a fellow diner about the scope of WW II, particularly the rate of ship and airplane construction, and mentioned a few numbers. She scoffed at those numbers as ridiculously high. So today I did a bit of research and came across: "The plant Ford built at Willow Run had an assembly line that was a mile long. At the peak of it's production, the assembly line was producing a Liberator an hour. Willow Run had its own airfield. It employed 30,000 workers." I am sharing that with her, but I'd like to share the below with you: AN EIGHT-YEAR-OLD AT WILLOW RUN "I seldom got more than a few miles, usually on foot, away from our home on Strawberry lake. It was 1944 and no one travelled much due to the war. My brother Bob worked at Willow Run, just a name to me. I knew that they built the B-24 Liberator there. One day, I think a Sunday, my Brother took me to Willow Run. The workers were at home. Now that I am 69 years old I realize, in retrospect, the impact that magic place had on me. My brother said that it was the biggest factory in the world under one roof at that time. We started at the beginning of the assembly line; mountains of strange objects. Nuts, bolts, wheels, struts, wing spars, rib sections, things I had never seen before, tail sections, fuselage sections, wings. It seemed we would never get to the end but we did and there sat a finished B-24. The climax! I can still feel the awe of the workers who built such a marvel and the image in my mind of the heroes that would take that huge plane into harms way. I was embarrassed when I cried then from sheer emotion. "Big boys don't cry." I'm crying now as I write but there is no embarrassment. I Think that day might just have been the day that set me on a quest to become a fighter for my country. My heroes have never been movie stars. My heroes have always been, from 8 years old onward , the men like those who manned that B-24; the knights, the soldiers who made America the strongest nation in the world!" 6/5/2005 - T/Sgt. Gary R. Downing U.S.A.F. Retired. There is more on this subject on the below web site. http://www.liberatorcrew.com/06_B-24_Prod.htm OC -- The best investment we can make is to gather knowledge. PS: It took me decades to extract the mystery of the source of my aeronautical epiphany / obsession from my memory. I was moved by Gary R. Downing's description of his. ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Bill and Marsha" <docyukon(at)ptcnet.net>
Subject: Rotax 912 vr 965-347
Date: Feb 10, 2007
Has anyone found an acceptable substatute, rectafier regulator, for the 912-914 rotax? Better? cheaper? Doc ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Feb 10, 2007
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net>
Subject: Re: Antenna in Wingtip
> >It doesn't use a ground plane. It's more like a modified J-pole I think. > >Dave Morris But a j-pole has two elements, on a 1/2 and the other 1/4 wavelength long . . . and wouldn't fit under a wing tip fairing. Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Feb 10, 2007
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net>
Subject: Re: Antenna Polarity??
> > >OK, here is an update... >This plane is a Lancair Legacy, so I got in touch with the Lancair >avionics department. They were able to help me to the point where I was >able to determine which on the two screws should be attached to the center >conductor and which to the shield. So, initial polarization >question/problem solved. >However,... >I noticed in their parts catalog that this antenna is designed (as Bob >remarked) for install in a metal aircraft (Vans RV ??) >However,... >This antenna was glassed in by the Lancair factory when the wing parts >were built, so it was provided by Lancair???? DUH! WHY?? >The avionics guy I talked with assured me that the antenna works fine in >the Legacy.... >I assume that if I can figure out some way to get the SWR checked on the >antenna and if the SWR is below 2.0, it will work ok?? > >Thanks for the assistance. A wet string will function to some level. Even a measurement of SWR is an exceedingly subjective measure of antenna performance. The acid test is fly it. Pick a handy cruising altitude and tune in stations at various distances from your location. Do 1 degree/second, 360-degree turns and note the bearing arcs (directions relative to aircraft yaw axis) over which you can still hear the station. Make your judgements from these kinds of tests stacked against your personal requirements/wishes. Without substantiating data from similar tests, anecdotes like Lancair's "works fine" are essentially meaningless. Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Feb 10, 2007
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net>
Subject: Re: Rotax 912 vr 965-347
> > > Has anyone found an acceptable substatute, rectafier regulator, > for the 912-914 rotax? Better? cheaper? Doc There was a product offered some years ago that was popular with the ultra-light crowd but I don't recall the name off hand. Anyone else remember? A modern, processor controlled regulator/rectifier for PM alternators is on my list of things to do when the drive stand is up and runnning. Bob . . . ---------------------------------------- ( IF one aspires to be "world class", ) ( what ever you do must be exercised ) ( EVERY day . . . ) ( R. L. Nuckolls III ) ---------------------------------------- ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Feb 10, 2007
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net>
Subject: Re: Sorry!!
>> >> I thought Matt had revised the filters to allow attachments. >> Was this reversed while I wasn't watching? > >I believe there is a limit on file size for attachments, and only >certain file extensions are allowed (bmp doc dwg dxf gif jpg pdf png >txt xls). Yeah. That rings a bell. I just stuck a small image on my test-post. I'll take advantage of that more often. I've not had much incentive to use this feature because of easy access to a server that supports my website. But I'll use the attachment method more with the intent of encouraging others to do likewise. Pictures are a VERY important component of accurate communication. Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Feb 10, 2007
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net>
Subject: Re: Using D-Sub extract tool
> > > > > >Nice write up Bob. I had never paid any attention to the little hole. > >The cheap gray extractor that I used for a while always gave me a lot >more trouble. I notice that the metal barrel only wraps half way >around. The red/white one is more like 3/4. I also just noticed that >the red end is only a half circle like the cheap gray one so maybe it >was meant for insertion only. I've never seen a need for an insertion >tool on these pins. > >Bob W. AHA! You've provided some proof-reading support without even trying. The RED end is for insertion and is slightly smaller so as to purposely avoid slipping over the wire grip. The WHITE end is for extraction. It's the only one with the hole in it. Thanks for bringing this up. I'll add this to the Shop Notes. Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Feb 10, 2007
From: Dave N6030X <N6030X(at)DaveMorris.com>
Subject: Re: Rotax 912 vr 965-347
The Corvair guys are using the John Deere dynamo and regulator http://www.davemorris.com/Photos/Dragonfly%20Electrical/JohnDeereDynamo.jpg http://www.davemorris.com/Photos/Dragonfly%20Electrical/IMG_0658.jpg Dave Morris At 12:30 PM 2/10/2007, you wrote: > > > >> >> >> Has anyone found an acceptable substatute, rectafier >> regulator, for the 912-914 rotax? Better? cheaper? Doc > > >There was a product offered some years ago that was popular with >the ultra-light crowd but I don't recall the name off hand. Anyone >else remember? > >A modern, processor controlled regulator/rectifier for PM alternators is >on my list of things to do when the drive stand is up and runnning. > > > Bob . . . > > ---------------------------------------- > ( IF one aspires to be "world class", ) > ( what ever you do must be exercised ) > ( EVERY day . . . ) > ( R. L. Nuckolls III ) > ---------------------------------------- > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Feb 10, 2007
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net>
Subject: Re: Rotax 912 vr 965-347
> >The Corvair guys are using the John Deere dynamo and regulator >http://www.davemorris.com/Photos/Dragonfly%20Electrical/JohnDeereDynamo.jpg >http://www.davemorris.com/Photos/Dragonfly%20Electrical/IMG_0658.jpg > >Dave Morris Thank you sir! Hmmm . . . interesting pulley ratios . . . wonder how much snort they get out of this thing a ramp idle and taxi speeds. Of course, the smaller pulley ratio reduces stress on the regulator at cruise. I suspect there's an opportunity for some system performance optimization here. Bob . . . ---------------------------------------- ( IF one aspires to be "world class", ) ( what ever you do must be exercised ) ( EVERY day . . . ) ( R. L. Nuckolls III ) ---------------------------------------- ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "John Erickson" <john.erickson(at)cox.net>
Subject: Another contactor question
Date: Feb 10, 2007
OK, here's a stupid question (and I'm probably a stupid person anyway, so no need to argue about stupid questions... :-)), I'm re-wiring my RV-8 with a Z-13/20 system. Using the B&C battery contactor, I will have to splice on approximately 1.5" of 2 guage cable unless I install it upside down (or move it to another location, not something I want to do...) Question 1: What are the issues, if any of a contactor installed upside down (I have read the stuff in the Connection about the aerobatic dude who killed his starter allegedly from to many G's on the starter contactor... I kinda doubt the G's I'll pull in my -8 will be comparable...)? Question 2: If I simply reversed the diode and switched the wire from the main contact to the other side, have I essentially "reversed" the contactor? (not sure that made any sense. Look at the side of a B&C contactor and make all the wires on it a mirror image...) Thanks for any advice, John RV-8 N94DW ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Feb 10, 2007
From: Dave N6030X <N6030X(at)DaveMorris.com>
Subject: Re: Rotax 912 vr 965-347
Yes, you'll note the dynamo has a new pulley welded onto it. Different builders are trying different pulley sizes to make the dynamo generate sufficient power at idle while taxiing, or to keep the beast under control in cruise flight. Unfortunately the downside of using a generator instead of an alternator I guess. Total price for dynamo and regulator is under 300 bucks, and results in very light weight. The usual caveats apply: tell them you need it for your TRACTOR, and don't use the "a" word. Part numbers and other stuff: http://home.hiwaay.net/~langford/corvair/dynamo.html Dave Morris At 01:38 PM 2/10/2007, you wrote: > > > >> >>The Corvair guys are using the John Deere dynamo and regulator >>http://www.davemorris.com/Photos/Dragonfly%20Electrical/JohnDeereDynamo.jpg >>http://www.davemorris.com/Photos/Dragonfly%20Electrical/IMG_0658.jpg >> >>Dave Morris > > Thank you sir! > > Hmmm . . . interesting pulley ratios . . . wonder how much > snort they get out of this thing a ramp idle and taxi speeds. > Of course, the smaller pulley ratio reduces stress on the > regulator at cruise. I suspect there's an opportunity for some > system performance optimization here. > > Bob . . . > > > ---------------------------------------- > ( IF one aspires to be "world class", ) > ( what ever you do must be exercised ) > ( EVERY day . . . ) > ( R. L. Nuckolls III ) > ---------------------------------------- > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Feb 10, 2007
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net>
Subject: Re: Another contactor question
>OK, here's a stupid question (and I'm probably a stupid person anyway, so >no need to argue about stupid questions... :-)), > >I'm re-wiring my RV-8 with a Z-13/20 system. Using the B&C battery >contactor, I will have to splice on approximately 1.5" of 2 guage cable >unless I install it upside down (or move it to another location, not >something I want to do...) > >Question 1: What are the issues, if any of a contactor installed upside >down (I have read the stuff in the Connection about the aerobatic dude who >killed his starter allegedly from to many G's on the starter >contactor... I kinda doubt the G's I'll pull in my -8 will be comparable...)? > >Question 2: If I simply reversed the diode and switched the wire from the >main contact to the other side, have I essentially "reversed" the >contactor? (not sure that made any sense. Look at the side of a B&C >contactor and make all the wires on it a mirror image...) See http://tinyurl.com/2lrwz4 What you should have deduced from reading about g-loading was that the whole idea is a myth. The 4-terminal contactors sold by B&C are mirror image . . . you may reverse the fat terminal functionality and/or small terminal functionality at will . . . just make sure your diode polarity is correct for what ever configuration you choose to use. Bob . . . ---------------------------------------- ( IF one aspires to be "world class", ) ( what ever you do must be exercised ) ( EVERY day . . . ) ( R. L. Nuckolls III ) ---------------------------------------- ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Feb 10, 2007
From: "Bill Boyd" <sportav8r(at)gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Our Aeronautical Heritage
OC- As soon as I read that, I forwarded it to my Dad, one of those Liberator men who flew with the 8th AAF's 453rd BG at Old Buck, was wounded by flack, taken POW, escaped Germany and lived to tell the tale. Now 82, Dad still hates flying, though he's been up with me 3 or 4 times in the RV, and can't bring himself to talk much about the war. I never pass on an opportunity, though, to remind him of how much his countrymen and family appreciate the incredible bravery and sacrifice his generation made for the cause. I think it was Churchill who remarked, "Dear God, where do we get such men as these?" It is a good thought to ponder; an ironic question which begins with its own answer. -Bill Boyd On 2/10/07, bakerocb(at)cox.net wrote: > > 2/10/2007 > > Dear Fellow Listers, Please forgive the off topic posting. > > At dinner last night the subject of the scope of wars came up and I made a > comment to a fellow diner about the scope of WW II, particularly the rate of > ship and airplane construction, and mentioned a few numbers. She scoffed at > those numbers as ridiculously high. So today I did a bit of research and > came across: > > "The plant Ford built at Willow Run had an assembly line that was a mile > long. At the peak of it's production, the assembly line was producing a > Liberator an hour. Willow Run had its own airfield. It employed 30,000 > workers." > > I am sharing that with her, but I'd like to share the below with you: > > AN EIGHT-YEAR-OLD AT WILLOW RUN > > "I seldom got more than a few miles, usually on foot, away from our home on > Strawberry lake. It was 1944 and no one travelled much due to the war. My > brother Bob worked at Willow Run, just a name to me. I knew that they built > the B-24 Liberator there. One day, I think a Sunday, my Brother took me to > Willow Run. The workers were at home. Now that I am 69 years old I realize, > in retrospect, the impact that magic place had on me. My brother said that > it was the biggest factory in the world under one roof at that time. We > started at the beginning of the assembly line; mountains of strange objects. > Nuts, bolts, wheels, struts, wing spars, rib sections, things I had never > seen before, tail sections, fuselage sections, wings. It seemed we would > never get to the end but we did and there sat a finished B-24. The climax! I > can still feel the awe of the workers who built such a marvel and the image > in my mind of the heroes that would take that huge plane into harms way. I > was embarrassed when I cried then from sheer emotion. "Big boys don't cry." > I'm crying now as I write but there is no embarrassment. I Think that day > might just have been the day that set me on a quest to become a fighter for > my country. My heroes have never been movie stars. My heroes have always > been, from 8 years old onward , the men like those who manned that B-24; the > knights, the soldiers who made America the strongest nation in the world!" > > 6/5/2005 - T/Sgt. Gary R. Downing U.S.A.F. Retired. > > There is more on this subject on the below web site. > > http://www.liberatorcrew.com/06_B-24_Prod.htm > > OC -- The best investment we can make is to gather knowledge. > > PS: It took me decades to extract the mystery of the source of my > aeronautical epiphany / obsession from my memory. I was moved by Gary R. > Downing's description of his. > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Feb 10, 2007
From: "Bill Boyd" <sportav8r(at)gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Antenna in Wingtip
You'll never tune an Archer wingtip antenna without connection to the metal end rib of the wing; believe me, this fool has tried, also thinking it was like a J-pole. It is not. Ended up chasing the resonance of the mounting leg all over the place until I had trimmed it all way too short and had to start over. Bonding the base leg to the airframe tames the beast rather well. Shadowing by the airframe WILL be an issue in an RV, though. I have proved that much to myself. -Bill B On 2/10/07, Robert L. Nuckolls, III wrote: > > > > > >It doesn't use a ground plane. It's more like a modified J-pole I think. > > > >Dave Morris > > But a j-pole has two elements, on a 1/2 and the other 1/4 wavelength long > . . . and wouldn't fit under a wing tip fairing. > > Bob . . . > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Bill Denton" <bdenton(at)bdenton.com>
Subject: Rotax 912 vr 965-347
Date: Feb 10, 2007
Could it have been the Key West regulator? Lockwood, Leading Edge, and others offer them. You see them a lot on ultralights with 447/503/582's... -----Original Message----- From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of Robert L. Nuckolls, III Sent: Saturday, February 10, 2007 12:30 PM Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Rotax 912 vr 965-347 > > > Has anyone found an acceptable substatute, rectafier regulator, > for the 912-914 rotax? Better? cheaper? Doc There was a product offered some years ago that was popular with the ultra-light crowd but I don't recall the name off hand. Anyone else remember? A modern, processor controlled regulator/rectifier for PM alternators is on my list of things to do when the drive stand is up and runnning. Bob . . . ---------------------------------------- ( IF one aspires to be "world class", ) ( what ever you do must be exercised ) ( EVERY day . . . ) ( R. L. Nuckolls III ) ---------------------------------------- ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Feb 10, 2007
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net>
Subject: Rotax 912 vr 965-347
> >Could it have been the Key West regulator? > >Lockwood, Leading Edge, and others offer them. > >You see them a lot on ultralights with 447/503/582's... Hmmm . . . those engines have those alternators that want to grow up and be a 'real' alternators one day. I suspect the John Deere is the more robust of the PM regulators. As soon as I can spin the hardware, I'll find out how beefy it really is. Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Test
Date: Feb 10, 2007
From: "George Braly" <gwbraly(at)gami.com>
No need to reply. I'm not getting messages. This is a test. George Braly ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Feb 10, 2007
From: Charlie England <ceengland(at)bellsouth.net>
Subject: Re: Sorry!!
Robert L. Nuckolls, III wrote: > > > >>> >>> I thought Matt had revised the filters to allow attachments. >>> Was this reversed while I wasn't watching? >> >> I believe there is a limit on file size for attachments, and only >> certain file extensions are allowed (bmp doc dwg dxf gif jpg pdf png >> txt xls). > > Yeah. That rings a bell. I just stuck a small image on > my test-post. I'll take advantage of that more often. > I've not had much incentive to use this feature because > of easy access to a server that supports my website. > But I'll use the attachment method more with the intent > of encouraging others to do likewise. Pictures are a VERY > important component of accurate communication. > > Bob . . . > Just remember to have mercy on us poor souls stuck with dialup & size the images below 100k. Thanks, Charlie ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Rotax Rectifier Wiring
From: "Martin Pohl" <mpohl(at)pohltec.ch>
Date: Feb 10, 2007
Bob Thank you for your thorough review! That sends some light into my present Rotax-Rectifier/Regulator-darkness :P Martin -------- Martin Pohl Zodiac XL QBK 8645 Jona, Switzerland www.pohltec.ch/ZodiacXL Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=94219#94219 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Feb 10, 2007
From: Rick Lindstrom <tigerrick(at)mindspring.com>
Subject: Re: Test
5X5, George. Rick Lindstrom George Braly wrote: > > > No need to reply. > > I'm not getting messages. > > This is a test. > > George Braly > > > > > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: donlang(at)att.net
Subject: Sorry!!
Date: Feb 10, 2007
-----Original Message----- From: "Charlie England" <ceengland(at)bellsouth.net> Sent: 2/10/07 5:01 PM Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Sorry!! Robert L. Nuckolls, III wrote: > > > >>> >>> I thought Matt had revised the filters to allow attachments. >>> Was this reversed while I wasn't watching? >> >> I believe there is a limit on file size for attachments, and only >> certain file extensions are allowed (bmp doc dwg dxf gif jpg pdf png >> txt xls). > > Yeah. That rings a bell. I just stuck a small image on > my test-post. I'll take advantage of that more often. > I've not had much incentive to use this feature because > of easy access to a server that supports my website. > But I'll use the attachment method more with the intent > of encouraging others to do likewise. Pictures are a VERY > important component of accurate communication. > > Bob . . . > Just remember to have mercy on us poor souls stuck with dialup & size ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "r falstad" <bobair8(at)msn.com>
Subject: Attaching Shield to "Lo"/Ground Wire at Intercom
Date: Feb 10, 2007
The installation instructions for my PS Engineering PM1000II intercom show all shields for the mics and phones grounded to their corresponding "Lo" wires. I've looked at Bob's comic books and searched the collection of FAQs and couldn't find a way to do it. The wires will be crimped onto D-SUB pins so there is only room for one wire. (For intercom installation wiring diagram, see http://www.ps-engineering.com/docs/pm1000wiring_data.shtml engineering.com/docs/pm1000wiring_data.shtml>) Can I "daisy chain" the shields as Bob shows in his "Shield Termination Techniques" comic book and ground them all to Ground Pin 1 (which goes to the "forest-of-tabs" ground block) rather than at each individual "Lo" wire pin? Or should each shield be individually grounded to its corresponding "Lo" wire? It seems I could create an uninsulated length (~0.3 in) before the end of the "Lo" wire and lightly solder the shield directly to the "Lo" wire, cover it with heatshrink and then crimp my D-Sub pin to the end of the "Lo" wire and insert it into the connector. Bob GlaStar ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Antenna in Wingtip
From: "N395V" <n395v(at)hughes.net>
Date: Feb 10, 2007
I suspect you have a Bob Archer antenna made for a metal plane like an RV. Most Nav antennas in glass planes need to be placed in the belly or upper fuselage due to space requirements. -------- Milt N395V F1 Rocket www.excaliburaviation.com Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=94252#94252 ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "glaesers" <glaesers(at)wideopenwest.com>
Subject: Re: Attaching Shield to "Lo"/Ground Wire at Intercom
Date: Feb 10, 2007
I took a solder-cup D-Sub female connector and soldered all the connectors together and soldered one wire which went to the common pin on the intercom. Then I put pins on all the shields and "Lo" wires and put them in a male connector. At one time Bob had an article that showed this, but I couldn't find it either. Dennis Glaeser RV7A ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- --------------------- The installation instructions for my PS Engineering PM1000II intercom show all shields for the mics and phones grounded to their corresponding "Lo" wires. I've looked at Bob's comic books and searched the collection of FAQs and couldn't find a way to do it. The wires will be crimped onto D-SUB pins so there is only room for one wire. ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Feb 10, 2007
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net>
Subject: In recognition of our teachers . . .
I had an interesting experience last week. I've been working a noise problem that's preventing us from delivering a lot of aircraft to their original purchase specification. They're going out with some accessories tagged as "inop" until we can develop, field and install kits. However, this is NOT the way to win friends and influence customers in favorable ways. Nor does it impress our managers and stockholders. I've been a customer of Captor Corporation for over 30 years. I made my first phone call to them about 1975 while in the employ of Electro-Mech . . . my first production engineering job. The guy who answered the phone back then was Bob Jenks. Bob and I have talked many times over the years but it's been about ten years since our last conversation. When this extra-ordinarily intransigent noise situation arose, the first resource I thought of was Captor and Bob Jenks. While visiting their facility I got to meet Bob face to face for the first time. He's 71, semi-retired and working 3 days a week mostly for fun. In the few hours I was able to spend with him, I got a data and process dump on filter techniques that bestowed upon me a quantum jump in personal understanding and competence. Many folk in Bob's position hold things pretty close to the chest. Perhaps they're not interested in teaching or perhaps they're wrapped up in that universal wet-blanket known as the "proprietary information" mantra. Not so in this case. As I drove away from Captor to catch an airplane I could not help but note of a sense of exhilaration for what I had just received. It's been a long time since I last walked out of anyone's "classroom" feeling like that. Giggled damned near all the way to the airport! Better yet, I have some new and interesting things to try in the lab on Monday . . . and to pass along to my compatriots who work there with me. Bob . . . ---------------------------------------- ( IF one aspires to be "world class", ) ( what ever you do must be exercised ) ( EVERY day . . . ) ( R. L. Nuckolls III ) ---------------------------------------- ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Feb 11, 2007
From: "Richard Girard" <jindoguy(at)gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Rotax 912 vr 965-347
As far as inexpensive regulators for a PM alternator go, Harley Davidson has used a PM alternator for years and the regulators are available in the after market from Accel, among others. Haven't tried one except in the original application, but they are usually under $50. Rick On 2/10/07, Robert L. Nuckolls, III wrote: > > nuckollsr(at)cox.net> > > > bdenton(at)bdenton.com> > > > >Could it have been the Key West regulator? > > > >Lockwood, Leading Edge, and others offer them. > > > >You see them a lot on ultralights with 447/503/582's... > > Hmmm . . . those engines have those alternators > that want to grow up and be a 'real' alternators one > day. > > I suspect the John Deere is the more robust of the > PM regulators. As soon as I can spin the hardware, > I'll find out how beefy it really is. > > Bob . . . > > -- Rick Girard "Ya'll drop on in" takes on a whole new meaning when you live at the airport. ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "B Tomm" <fvalarm(at)rapidnet.net>
Subject: In recognition of our teachers . . .
Date: Feb 11, 2007
Bob, Yes it is always comforting to know that there are smarter people than ourselves out there who willing to help, teach, mentor etc. Thanks to you too. We will never know it all, but it's always nice to meet another gentle communicator who knows more than oneself. I pay special attention to the old timers. They all have experience in something and often time to talk. An extremely valuable segment of society. Bevan RV7A finish kit -----Original Message----- From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Robert L. Nuckolls, III Sent: Saturday, February 10, 2007 9:51 PM Subject: AeroElectric-List: In recognition of our teachers . . . --> I had an interesting experience last week. I've been working a noise problem that's preventing us from delivering a lot of aircraft to their original purchase specification. They're going out with some accessories tagged as "inop" until we can develop, field and install kits. However, this is NOT the way to win friends and influence customers in favorable ways. Nor does it impress our managers and stockholders. I've been a customer of Captor Corporation for over 30 years. I made my first phone call to them about 1975 while in the employ of Electro-Mech . . . my first production engineering job. The guy who answered the phone back then was Bob Jenks. Bob and I have talked many times over the years but it's been about ten years since our last conversation. When this extra-ordinarily intransigent noise situation arose, the first resource I thought of was Captor and Bob Jenks. While visiting their facility I got to meet Bob face to face for the first time. He's 71, semi-retired and working 3 days a week mostly for fun. In the few hours I was able to spend with him, I got a data and process dump on filter techniques that bestowed upon me a quantum jump in personal understanding and competence. Many folk in Bob's position hold things pretty close to the chest. Perhaps they're not interested in teaching or perhaps they're wrapped up in that universal wet-blanket known as the "proprietary information" mantra. Not so in this case. As I drove away from Captor to catch an airplane I could not help but note of a sense of exhilaration for what I had just received. It's been a long time since I last walked out of anyone's "classroom" feeling like that. Giggled damned near all the way to the airport! Better yet, I have some new and interesting things to try in the lab on Monday . . . and to pass along to my compatriots who work there with me. Bob . . . ---------------------------------------- ( IF one aspires to be "world class", ) ( what ever you do must be exercised ) ( EVERY day . . . ) ( R. L. Nuckolls III ) ---------------------------------------- ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Europa (Alfred Buess)" <ykibuess(at)bluewin.ch>
Subject: Audio Iso Amp with Flightcom 403
Date: Feb 11, 2007
Sorry folks for repeating my question af last week. Bob: I'd like to know your answer before I install the audio iso amp. Question: I have an Apollo SL30 Nav/Comm and a Flightcom 403 Intercom, that I want to combine with your audio isolation amplifier. The headphone output of the SL30 (pin 14) is directly connected with the Recv Audio pin (21) of the 403. The audio iso amp unit is used to bring together several mono warning tones and to channel them into the 403 intercom. The 403 has a music input (pins 18 and 19) that is automatically muted when the SL30 is active. As I don't want the warning tones to be muted (and shut off when the isolate switch of the intercom is activated), I don't want to hook up the audio iso amp to the music input. My question: Can I connect the headphone output of the SL30 AND the output of the audio iso amp (pin 3) BOTH to the Recv Audio pin (21) of the 403? Or is there another, better solution? Thanks for your advice! Alfred Buess ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "kesleyelectric" <kesleyelectric(at)chooseblue.coop>
Subject: low voltage sense lead location
Date: Feb 11, 2007
Bob, I remember some time ago a discussion regarding the location of the low voltage sense lead of the LR3C regulator. I cannot find it in the archives, so I will bring it up. Should the voltage sense lead be on the main or endurance bus? I am planning Z13/8 with an SD8 on the vacuum pad, VFR. If the most useful place is the main bus, would a low voltage indicator like the one Eric sells on the Perihelion site work to monitor the E-bus. I realize that with the reliability of alternators/dynamos and a properly maintained battery, the chances of failure to that level are quite small. I'm at the point where I need to pursue this or dismiss it and dump it out of the worry bucket. Also, can the LR3C lamp be converted to a LED to match the rest of the annunciators? Thanks for your help. Regards, Tom Barter ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Feb 11, 2007
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net>
Subject: Re: low voltage sense lead location
Subject: AeroElectric-List: low voltage sense lead location Bob, I remember some time ago a discussion regarding the location of the low voltage sense lead of the LR3C regulator. I cannot find it in the archives, so I will bring it up. Should the voltage sense lead be on the main or endurance bus? WIRE IT PER INSTRUCTIONS . . . on the main bus. This is also the voltage regulator sense lead. I am planning Z13/8 with an SD8 on the vacuum pad, VFR. If the most useful place is the main bus, would a low voltage indicator like the one Eric sells on the Perihelion site work to monitor the E-bus. I realize that with the reliability of alternators/dynamos and a properly maintained battery, the chances of failure to that level are quite small. I'm at the point where I need to pursue this or dismiss it and dump it out of the worry bucket. Also, can the LR3C lamp be converted to a LED to match the rest of the annunciators? Thanks for your help. One never needs a low voltage warning for the e-bus . . . 'cause when you're down to e-bus operations, there are no alternators on line and you're GUARANTEED to have a low voltage warning light flashing. You need a voltmeter on the e-bus since this is a sort of 'gas gage' for battery only ops. It will also monitor the health of the SD-8 during times when it's being used to replace an inop main alternator. Yes, but you need a couple of resistors to make the LED compatible with the incandescent lamp driver in the LR-3. See: http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Schematics/LV_Led.jpg Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Feb 11, 2007
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net>
Subject: Re: Using D-Sub extract tool
Thanks to the prompts from several proof readers, I've added some enhancements to the D-Sub Pins Shop Notes at: http://aeroelectric.com/articles/D-Sub_Pin/Pin-Extraction.html Thanks for your help folks! Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Bob Verwey" <bonanza(at)vodamail.co.za>
Subject: Another contactor question
Date: Feb 12, 2007
John, there are no stupid questions, only stupid people Bob Verwey A35 Bonanza ZU-DLW _____ From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of John Erickson Sent: 10 Feb 2007 10:11 PM Subject: AeroElectric-List: Another contactor question OK, here's a stupid question (and I'm probably a stupid person anyway, so no need to argue about stupid questions... :-)), I'm re-wiring my RV-8 with a Z-13/20 system. Using the B&C battery contactor, I will have to splice on approximately 1.5" of 2 guage cable unless I install it upside down (or move it to another location, not something I want to do...) Question 1: What are the issues, if any of a contactor installed upside down (I have read the stuff in the Connection about the aerobatic dude who killed his starter allegedly from to many G's on the starter contactor... I kinda doubt the G's I'll pull in my -8 will be comparable...)? Question 2: If I simply reversed the diode and switched the wire from the main contact to the other side, have I essentially "reversed" the contactor? (not sure that made any sense. Look at the side of a B&C contactor and make all the wires on it a mirror image...) Thanks for any advice, John RV-8 N94DW ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Feb 11, 2007
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net>
Subject: Re: Audio Iso Amp with Flightcom 403
> > > >Sorry folks for repeating my question af last week. Bob: I'd like to know >your answer before I install the audio iso amp. Question: > >I have an Apollo SL30 Nav/Comm and a Flightcom 403 Intercom, that I want to >combine with your audio isolation amplifier. The headphone output of the >SL30 (pin 14) is directly connected with the Recv Audio pin (21) of the 403. >The audio iso amp unit is used to bring together several mono warning tones >and to channel them into the 403 intercom. The 403 has a music input (pins >18 and 19) that is automatically muted when the SL30 is active. As I don't >want the warning tones to be muted (and shut off when the isolate switch of >the intercom is activated), I don't want to hook up the audio iso amp to the >music input. My question: Can I connect the headphone output of the SL30 AND >the output of the audio iso amp (pin 3) BOTH to the Recv Audio pin (21) of >the 403? Or is there another, better solution? Run all aviation audios through the iso amp (mono version) on individual input pins. Run iso amp output to the radio headset input of the intercom. Run stereo outputs to the intercom inputs set aside for that purpose. Bob . . . ---------------------------------------- ( IF one aspires to be "world class", ) ( what ever you do must be exercised ) ( EVERY day . . . ) ( R. L. Nuckolls III ) ---------------------------------------- ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Mag & Starter Switches
From: "Bill Denton" <bdenton(at)bdenton.com>
Date: Feb 12, 2007
I have noticed that some aircraft use two separate toggle switches for the magnetos and a pushbutton for the starter, and that some aircraft use an automobile-like key-operated mag and starter switch. Obviously the toggle/pb arrangement would allow you to use the starter to turn the engine over with the mags off. Outside of this, are there any other advantages/disadvantages to one arrangement over the other? Given post-9/11 security considerations, do airport operators prefer/require the key-lockable system? Do insurors have an preference? Thanks! Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=94438#94438 ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "JOHN TIPTON" <jmtipton(at)btopenworld.com>
Subject: Re: Mag & Starter Switches
Date: Feb 12, 2007
Don't forget you can have a keyed, left right both, and a separate starter button/switch John ----- Original Message ----- From: "Bill Denton" <bdenton(at)bdenton.com> Sent: Monday, February 12, 2007 1:54 PM Subject: AeroElectric-List: Mag & Starter Switches > > > I have noticed that some aircraft use two separate toggle switches for the > magnetos and a pushbutton for the starter, and that some aircraft use an > automobile-like key-operated mag and starter switch. > > Obviously the toggle/pb arrangement would allow you to use the starter to > turn the engine over with the mags off. > > Outside of this, are there any other advantages/disadvantages to one > arrangement over the other? > > Given post-9/11 security considerations, do airport operators > prefer/require the key-lockable system? > > Do insurors have an preference? > > Thanks! > > > Read this topic online here: > > http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=94438#94438 > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Mag & Starter Switches
Date: Feb 12, 2007
From: "Hinde, Frank George (Corvallis)" <frank.hinde(at)hp.com>
Yes the on/off/both keyswitch is a single point of failure for both ignitions and good redunadancy planning will have you seperating that function into 2 separate switches. This is an experimental aircraft there are no requirements for key lockable systems and insurers don't care, although if I were an insurer I would want two independent switches. Frank -----Original Message----- From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Bill Denton Sent: Monday, February 12, 2007 5:55 AM Subject: AeroElectric-List: Mag & Starter Switches --> I have noticed that some aircraft use two separate toggle switches for the magnetos and a pushbutton for the starter, and that some aircraft use an automobile-like key-operated mag and starter switch. Obviously the toggle/pb arrangement would allow you to use the starter to turn the engine over with the mags off. Outside of this, are there any other advantages/disadvantages to one arrangement over the other? Given post-9/11 security considerations, do airport operators prefer/require the key-lockable system? Do insurors have an preference? Thanks! Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=94438#94438 ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Dr. Andrew Elliott" <a.s.elliott(at)cox.net>
Subject: 24V resistive load on 12V system?
Date: Feb 12, 2007
I want to make sure I understand this properly. Please advise if I have made some conceptual errors. I have a heated pitot tube designed for a 24V system. It is supposed to draw 8 amps at 24V. This makes its fixed resistance, according to Ohms' Law: R = V/I = 24/8 = 3 Ohms So if I install this pitot tube in a 12V system, it should draw only 4 amps: I = V/R = 12/3 = 4 A But, it will only work at about 1/2 the heat level it had in the 24V system. I can measure the stabilized temperature rise, but how hot should it have to get to be usable in the 12V system? I am thinking that since I don't have any anti-ice on the plane, I never fly in the clouds when the OAT is below freezing, so that if I can get a 25=B0C rise from the tube, I should be OK. Yes? I am *guessing* that the AN-spec 24V tube was designed heat from -56=B0C, the nominal temp above 36K', and that 1/2 the rated power should work fine, while also saving me some current draw. Thoughts? Andy Elliott, Mesa, AZ N601GE (reserved) 601XL/TD/QB, Corvair, building... ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Feb 12, 2007
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net>
Subject: Re: Mag & Starter Switches
> >I have noticed that some aircraft use two separate toggle switches for the >magnetos and a pushbutton for the starter, and that some aircraft use an >automobile-like key-operated mag and starter switch. Only single engine airplanes. Key-switches are the brainchild of marketing folks back in the 40s and early 50s that were trying to get the airplane to look as much as possible like an automobile. Has more to do with market appeal than convenience or security. >Obviously the toggle/pb arrangement would allow you to use the starter to >turn the engine over with the mags off. > >Outside of this, are there any other advantages/disadvantages to one >arrangement over the other? Toggles and push buttons are less expensive and fit on the panel in nice rows with the other switches. See: http://www.aeroelectric.com/PPS/Switch_Panels/Switches.pdf >Given post-9/11 security considerations, do airport operators >prefer/require the key-lockable system? Anything with two engines uses switches. Once you're in the cabin, you've got the airplane. Key-switches offer very little security. Lost my keys once on a rental airplane. Broke the wires off the mags by reaching through the oil filler door. Hand propped the airplane and brought it home. >Do insurors have an preference? If you want a modicum of security, consider this http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Misc/AC_Theft_Protection.jpg It's out where everyone can see it . . . a thief is unlikely to work on it out in the open. The locks on key-switches are exceedingly simple. My kid can pick one in a minute or so. Bob . . . ---------------------------------------- ( IF one aspires to be "world class", ) ( what ever you do must be exercised ) ( EVERY day . . . ) ( R. L. Nuckolls III ) ---------------------------------------- ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Feb 12, 2007
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net>
Subject: Re: 24V resistive load on 12V system?
>I want to make sure I understand this properly. Please advise if I have >made some conceptual errors. > >I have a heated pitot tube designed for a 24V system. It is supposed to >draw 8 amps at 24V. This makes its fixed resistance, according to Ohms' Law: > > R = V/I = 24/8 = 3 Ohms > >So if I install this pitot tube in a 12V system, it should draw only 4 amps: > > I = V/R = 12/3 = 4 A > >But, it will only work at about 1/2 the heat level it had in the 24V system. Actually, 1/4th the heat . . . or a bit more. What you need to do is hook your tube up to a 14V power supply and stir it in a bath of crushed ice and water. Measure current after it stabilizes - this may take a minute or so. Pitot tubes have a strong positive temperature coefficient of resistance. Here's some data I plotted off a batch of tubes a few years ago. http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Curves/Pitot_Heater_R_Plot.pdf When you drop the voltage, not only does current go down by 1/2, so does applied voltage . . . therefore the resulting power is 1/4 that of the 28v operation. > >I can measure the stabilized temperature rise, but how hot should it have >to get to be usable in the 12V system? I am thinking that since I don't >have any anti-ice on the plane, I never fly in the clouds when the OAT is >below freezing, so that if I can get a 25C rise from the tube, I should >be OK. Yes? > >I am *guessing* that the AN-spec 24V tube was designed heat from -56C, >the nominal temp above 36K', and that 1/2 the rated power should work >fine, while also saving me some current draw. Keep in mind that the goal for a de-ice system is to melt ice. When super-cooled water hits your pitot tube, the energy in the tube has to overcome the heat-of- crystalization. Know that heated pitot tubes are a match in a big dark room when it comes to flying in an icing environment. Any heat is better than no heat . . . but running a 28v tube on 14v is waaayyyy down on the efficacy curve for "any heat". Bob . . . ---------------------------------------- ( IF one aspires to be "world class", ) ( what ever you do must be exercised ) ( EVERY day . . . ) ( R. L. Nuckolls III ) ---------------------------------------- ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: 24V resistive load on 12V system?
Date: Feb 12, 2007
From: "Hinde, Frank George (Corvallis)" <frank.hinde(at)hp.com>
Heating effect is P=I*I*R Thus in your 28V system P= 8*8*3 = 192 Watts In your 12V system P= 4*4*3 = 48 Watts Thus in a 12 system the same pitot only produces a quarter of the 24V's heating effect. As Heating effect is proportional to the change in temperature for two identical mass flow situations then the temp rise will only be 25% of what it was previously. Now do you even need a heated Pitot?..Highly debatable even in an IFR platform and I assume you intend your Zodiac as a VFR machine?...If so then you certainly don't need a heated pitot. Frank ________________________________ From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Dr. Andrew Elliott Sent: Monday, February 12, 2007 7:17 AM Subject: AeroElectric-List: 24V resistive load on 12V system? I want to make sure I understand this properly. Please advise if I have made some conceptual errors. I have a heated pitot tube designed for a 24V system. It is supposed to draw 8 amps at 24V. This makes its fixed resistance, according to Ohms' Law: R = V/I = 24/8 = 3 Ohms So if I install this pitot tube in a 12V system, it should draw only 4 amps: I = V/R = 12/3 = 4 A But, it will only work at about 1/2 the heat level it had in the 24V system. I can measure the stabilized temperature rise, but how hot should it have to get to be usable in the 12V system? I am thinking that since I don't have any anti-ice on the plane, I never fly in the clouds when the OAT is below freezing, so that if I can get a 25=B0C rise from the tube, I should be OK. Yes? I am *guessing* that the AN-spec 24V tube was designed heat from -56=B0C, the nominal temp above 36K', and that 1/2 the rated power should work fine, while also saving me some current draw. Thoughts? Andy Elliott, Mesa, AZ N601GE (reserved) 601XL/TD/QB, Corvair, building... ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Feb 12, 2007
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net>
Subject: Re: Attaching Shield to "Lo"/Ground Wire at Intercom
>The installation instructions for my PS Engineering PM1000II intercom show >all shields for the mics and phones grounded to their corresponding "Lo" >wires. I've looked at Bob's comic books and searched the collection of >FAQs and couldn't find a way to do it. The wires will be crimped onto >D-SUB pins so there is only room for one wire. > >(For intercom installation wiring diagram, >see ><http://www.ps-engineering.com/docs/pm1000wiring_data.shtml>http://www.ps-engineering.com/docs/pm1000wiring_data.shtml) > >Can I "daisy chain" the shields as Bob shows in his "Shield Termination >Techniques" comic book and ground them all to Ground Pin 1 (which goes to >the "forest-of-tabs" ground block) rather than at each individual "Lo" >wire pin? > >Or should each shield be individually grounded to its corresponding "Lo" >wire? It seems I could create an uninsulated length (~0.3 in) before the >end of the "Lo" wire and lightly solder the shield directly to the "Lo" >wire, cover it with heatshrink and then crimp my D-Sub pin to the end of >the "Lo" wire and insert it into the connector. The diagram cited at: http://aeroelectric.com/articles/pigtail/pigtail.html is pretty busy. Virtually all of the shielded wires depicted can be reduced by one conductor inside the shield by using the shield as a signal conductor. For example, the AUX Headphone jack wired to pins 17 and 4 can be handled on a single shielded wire. Use the shield to provide continuity from pin 4 to the LO side of the headphone jack. This philosophy is illustrated in the wiring diagram pages of: http://www.aeroelectric.com/DIY/Audio_Isolation_Amplifier.pdf See: http://aeroelectric.com/articles/pigtail/pigtail.html for techniques used to attach one or more shields into a single wire and termination into a connector pin. Bob . . . ---------------------------------------- ( IF one aspires to be "world class", ) ( what ever you do must be exercised ) ( EVERY day . . . ) ( R. L. Nuckolls III ) ---------------------------------------- ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Feb 12, 2007
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net>
Subject: Re: Attaching Shield to "Lo"/Ground Wire at Intercom
(With CORRECTED LINK) The installation instructions for my PS Engineering PM1000II intercom show all shields for the mics and phones grounded to their corresponding "Lo" wires. I've looked at Bob's comic books and searched the collection of FAQs and couldn't find a way to do it. The wires will be crimped onto D-SUB pins so there is only room for one wire. (For intercom installation wiring diagram, see <http://www.ps-engineering.com/docs/pm1000wiring_data.shtml>http://www.ps-engineering.com/docs/pm1000wiring_data.shtml) Can I "daisy chain" the shields as Bob shows in his "Shield Termination Techniques" comic book and ground them all to Ground Pin 1 (which goes to the "forest-of-tabs" ground block) rather than at each individual "Lo" wire pin? Or should each shield be individually grounded to its corresponding "Lo" wire? It seems I could create an uninsulated length (~0.3 in) before the end of the "Lo" wire and lightly solder the shield directly to the "Lo" wire, cover it with heatshrink and then crimp my D-Sub pin to the end of the "Lo" wire and insert it into the connector. The diagram cited at: http://www.ps-engineering.com/docs/PM1000_wiring_11922.pdf is pretty busy. Virtually all of the shielded wires depicted can be reduced by one conductor inside the shield by using the shield as a signal conductor. For example, the AUX Headphone jack wired to pins 17 and 4 can be handled on a single shielded wire. Use the shield to provide continuity from pin 4 to the LO side of the headphone jack. This philosophy is illustrated in the wiring diagram pages of: http://www.aeroelectric.com/DIY/Audio_Isolation_Amplifier.pdf See: http://aeroelectric.com/articles/pigtail/pigtail.html for techniques used to attach one or more shields into a single wire and termination into a connector pin. By the way, the shield pigtails comic book cited above has been updated to fix broken links. Bob . . . ---------------------------------------- ( IF one aspires to be "world class", ) ( what ever you do must be exercised ) ( EVERY day . . . ) ( R. L. Nuckolls III ) ---------------------------------------- -- 6:50 PM -- incoming mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG. Bob . . . ---------------------------------------- ( IF one aspires to be "world class", ) ( what ever you do must be exercised ) ( EVERY day . . . ) ( R. L. Nuckolls III ) ---------------------------------------- ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Feb 12, 2007
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net>
Subject: Re: ELT Antenna
> >What is your current opinion of where the ELT antenna should be installed >on an RV-4? My ACK ELT is mounted on the upper shelf of the baggage >compartment. I am leaning toward mounting the antenna on the topside of >the turtle deck right behind the canopy. If you have a snappy location >that is better concealed I would like to know. The airplane is finished >and this is one of the small details I have left to complete. Most installations are done just ahead of the vertical fin. The idea is that the fin structure offers a modicum of protection from damage if the airplane comes to rest upside down. The location you propose would function just fine. >Also, what does the large molded rubber base do on the ELT antenna? Is it >a strain relief to keep the antenna from snapping off in the breeze at >200+ MPH? Does it cover something up like a coil or what ever? I want to >be able to trim this rubber off so I can possibly mount the antenna inside >the cabin. However I do not want to destroy the antenna by sawing off >something important. If you're a prone to genuflect before those with airs of authority, you don't want to modify the antenna in any way . . . I discovered a few months ago that ELTS are now qualified under the TSO as a set of components. Whether or not removing the rubber hurts performance will not matter to one who slices and dices regulations. Given the multi-frequency requirements for modern ELT transmitters, it is quite possible that the molded rubber base has some kind of electro-smarts built in. I don't think I'd mess with it. Bob . . . ---------------------------------------- ( IF one aspires to be "world class", ) ( what ever you do must be exercised ) ( EVERY day . . . ) ( R. L. Nuckolls III ) ---------------------------------------- ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "RV_10" <john_rv10(at)yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: Attaching Shield to "Lo"/Ground Wire at Intercom
Date: Feb 13, 2007
Is this what you are after? John Cleary -----Original Message----- From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of glaesers Sent: Sunday, 11 February 2007 3:46 PM Subject: AeroElectric-List: Re: Attaching Shield to "Lo"/Ground Wire at Intercom I took a solder-cup D-Sub female connector and soldered all the connectors together and soldered one wire which went to the common pin on the intercom. Then I put pins on all the shields and "Lo" wires and put them in a male connector. At one time Bob had an article that showed this, but I couldn't find it either. Dennis Glaeser RV7A ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- --------------------- The installation instructions for my PS Engineering PM1000II intercom show all shields for the mics and phones grounded to their corresponding "Lo" wires. I've looked at Bob's comic books and searched the collection of FAQs and couldn't find a way to do it. The wires will be crimped onto D-SUB pins so there is only room for one wire. ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "C Smith" <pilot4profit(at)sbcglobal.net>
Subject: Mag & Starter Switches
Date: Feb 12, 2007
Or as in the case of current Cessna's, only 10 or 12 different cylinders in whole manufactured fleet. Collect 'em all and you can fly any Cessna.(this I learned from a Cessna sales person). Effective theft control covers 2 areas of interest. For the aircraft itself a good prop lock. The heavy chain and padlock is a deterrent only to casual thieves. A set of bolt cutters will take one off in a couple of seconds. With battery operated hand tools and grinding wheels only the toughest bar-type (AKA- the Club) with vending machine type pin tumblers will provide security in the difficulty in their removal. Of course the weight of the deterrent becomes an issue when traveling to airports away from home. Maybe the better tactic here would be an easily removed (yet not commonly available) part that would prevent the power plant from starting, yet not be easily figured out by a quick visual. Hidden fuel valves come to mind, but could lead to disaster to the owner if forgotten, and there is enough fuel left in the system to taxi/get air born. The second area of security is your cabin and much cherished avionics. Certainly a tamper proof locking system will delay entry, but to what extent? I favor the pin tumblers, but they can be picked as well, it's just another skill/tool the would be thief needs. I think a better approach to securing the cabin is hiding the locking mechanism in an unconventional way. An advantage enjoyed only by the OBAM group. It doesn't have to be the same one used in flight to hold canopy closed. Of course if the thief is desperate enough, they will smash the plexi-glass, but if they still can't get the normal doorway open, getting in and out is still a big problem. How and where you park probably matter as much as your hardware. Thieves want easy in-n-out and concealment of their efforts. Whereas the OBAM builder thinks in terms of (to quote the omnipotent Bob himself) "$TIME$" the thief thinks in terms of risk/effort/Time. Give him a tough puzzle and exposure to discovery. That brings to mind the recent story of a prop-locked plane stolen in Mexico right out from under the occupied tower. Sometimes you just can't win. Craig Smith -----Original Message----- From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Robert L. Nuckolls, III Sent: Monday, February 12, 2007 10:30 AM Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Mag & Starter Switches --> >Do insurors have an preference? If you want a modicum of security, consider this http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Misc/AC_Theft_Protection.jpg It's out where everyone can see it . . . a thief is unlikely to work on it out in the open. The locks on key-switches are exceedingly simple. My kid can pick one in a minute or so. Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Don Mack" <don(at)dmack.net>
Subject: Correct resistor for 12v LED
Date: Feb 12, 2007
I have several 12v, 12ma LEDs from Radio Shack (part 276-272)in my panel. According to the calculators (15V max Supply, 12V LED, 12ma), I need a 27.0kohms, 1/8w resistor. Two questions: 1) led.linear1.org reports "The wizard thinks your forward voltage spec is suspiciously high, but will proceed with the calculations.". The input voltage is listed as 12-16V, 12-20ma, so I ASSuME that the calculation is correct that it just does not recognize 12v LEDs? 2) Where do I find 1/8w resistors? Don Mack |don(at)dmack.net | dmack.net ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Feb 12, 2007
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net>
Subject: Battery Tenders as recharging tools . . .
As promised, I've finished the first experiment to look at the recharge characteristics of a Battery Tender. Take a look at: http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Curves/Battery_Tender_Recharge_1.jpg I thought I'd looked at the Battery Tender performance some time ago but data taken on this test suggests this is the first time . . . Note that the Battery Tender's 'size' is not a limiting factor for putting energy back into a battery. The battery's terminal voltage was climbing nicely at a rate commensurate with the device's output rating of about 0.8 amps. The surprise comes when the device switches from a charge to sustain mode at just under 14.0 volts! To put this in context, look at: http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Curves/schumacher_3.jpg Here we see a predictable rise in voltage as the battery's chemistry converts incoming energy into stored chemical energy. Note also that the rate-of-rise takes a decidedly upward inflection sometime after the voltage climbs past 14.4 volts. This is typical of most if not all rechargeable battery chemistries. This characteristic is used to send a signal to truly 'smart' chargers to announce a nearly full state of charge. In the case for the Schumacher charger, we see that the profile changes from constant current to constant voltage where the battery is held in this "top-off" mode for about 2 hours. After that time, the charger's output drops to the expected sustaining level of about 13.0 volts. Going back to the Battery Tender, we see that the recharge voltage never rises to the inflection point indicating that the battery is about full. Further, there's no dwell at some elevated top-off voltage. I'm discharging the battery again to measure how much snort the Battery Tender put back into the battery. I'll then recharge it again with the Schumacher charger and compare notes again. This early look-see at the data suggests that admonitions against using Battery Tenders as battery chargers is correct. The Battery Tender doesn't get the job done based on what we know of battery chemistry and the charging profiles suggested by other manufacturers. The complaints I'd heard about Battery Tenders was that they were "too small" . . . in fact they appear to be quite capable with respect to energy output levels. Instead, they are deficient in smarts necessary to (1) detect end of charge, (2) hold at some elevated top-off level for a reasonable length of time followed by (3) drop to a sustaining level that doesn't charge the battery and simply offsets the battery's internal self discharge currents. Watch this space . . . Bob . . . ---------------------------------------- ( IF one aspires to be "world class", ) ( what ever you do must be exercised ) ( EVERY day . . . ) ( R. L. Nuckolls III ) ---------------------------------------- ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Feb 12, 2007
Subject: Re: Correct resistor for 12v LED
From: john(at)ballofshame.com
Well.... you probably put in 12V for the "forward" voltage. 12V should be the "source" voltage. Your forward voltage is the voltage across the LED when it's turned on. This voltage will never get much above 2V, or so (increasing the voltage will simply increase the current and eventually blow it up, though). It varies a bit depending on the color of the LED. You should be able to look it up somewhere online what your particular color needs. Hope this helps. -John www.ballofshame.com > > I have several 12v, 12ma LEDs from Radio Shack (part 276-272)in my panel. > According to the calculators (15V max Supply, 12V LED, 12ma), I need a > 27.0kohms, 1/8w resistor. Two questions: > > 1) led.linear1.org reports "The wizard thinks your forward voltage spec is > suspiciously high, but will proceed with the calculations.". The input > voltage is listed as 12-16V, 12-20ma, so I ASSuME that the calculation is > correct that it just does not recognize 12v LEDs? > > 2) Where do I find 1/8w resistors? > > Don Mack | don(at)dmack.net | dmack.net > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Feb 12, 2007
Subject: Re: Correct resistor for 12v LED
From: john(at)ballofshame.com
Ok...so I played with the calculator a bit (cool). How's this for convenient. Click on the question mark next to "forward voltage" and it will pop up a list of color vs. voltage. 1/8W resitors? Just use a 1/4W. -John www.ballofshame.com > > I have several 12v, 12ma LEDs from Radio Shack (part 276-272)in my panel. > According to the calculators (15V max Supply, 12V LED, 12ma), I need a > 27.0kohms, 1/8w resistor. Two questions: > > 1) led.linear1.org reports "The wizard thinks your forward voltage spec is > suspiciously high, but will proceed with the calculations.". The input > voltage is listed as 12-16V, 12-20ma, so I ASSuME that the calculation is > correct that it just does not recognize 12v LEDs? > > 2) Where do I find 1/8w resistors? > > Don Mack | don(at)dmack.net | dmack.net > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Feb 12, 2007
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net>
Subject: Theft deterrent . . .
> > > >Or as in the case of current Cessna's, only 10 or 12 different cylinders in >whole manufactured fleet. Collect 'em all and you can fly any Cessna.(this I >learned from a Cessna sales person). > >Effective theft control covers 2 areas of interest. For the aircraft itself >a good prop lock. The heavy chain and padlock is a deterrent only to casual >thieves. A set of bolt cutters will take one off in a couple of seconds. Depends on the chain. It DOES need to be hardened chain and lock. These are materials you probably wont find at Home Depot. My dad used to run a locksmithing operation and he sold the locks and chains that could only compromised with grinding tools and then only at considerable labor (and risk of exposure). The locks used unsymmetrical, double cut keys with the damnedest broaching profile I've ever seen . . . well beyond the picking skills of most locksmiths and probably every thief. Thefts from county road maintenance tool boxes and loss of portable compressors stopped after a switch to materials that exceeded the thief's patience and resources. Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Feb 12, 2007
From: Bob White <bob@bob-white.com>
Subject: Re: Correct resistor for 12v LED
Hi Don, If it's a 12V LED, the resistors are built in. Just connect them to your 12 V source. Going to 15V or so shouldn't hurt them but you could add a small resistor to make up the difference. Figure 3v at the 12 ma rating would be a 250 ohm resistor in series. Most LED's have an actual forward voltage of around 2V. Bob W. "Don Mack" wrote: > > I have several 12v, 12ma LEDs from Radio Shack (part 276-272)in my panel. > According to the calculators (15V max Supply, 12V LED, 12ma), I need a > 27.0kohms, 1/8w resistor. Two questions: > > 1) led.linear1.org reports "The wizard thinks your forward voltage spec is > suspiciously high, but will proceed with the calculations.". The input > voltage is listed as 12-16V, 12-20ma, so I ASSuME that the calculation is > correct that it just does not recognize 12v LEDs? > > 2) Where do I find 1/8w resistors? > > Don Mack |don(at)dmack.net | dmack.net > > > > > > > -- N93BD - Rotary Powered BD-4 - http://www.bob-white.com First Flight: 11/23/2006 7:50AM - 2.4 Hours Total Time Cables for your rotary installation - http://www.roblinphoto.com/shop/ ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Feb 12, 2007
Subject: Re: Theft deterrent . . .
From: john(at)ballofshame.com
You're dad was a locksmith. Neat....Lock picking is one of my hobbies. Ever seen an ABLOY? I've never quite figured out how you would approach picking one of these suckers. http://www.abloyusa.com/ -John > > > >> >> >> >>Or as in the case of current Cessna's, only 10 or 12 different cylinders >> in >>whole manufactured fleet. Collect 'em all and you can fly any >> Cessna.(this I >>learned from a Cessna sales person). >> >>Effective theft control covers 2 areas of interest. For the aircraft >> itself >>a good prop lock. The heavy chain and padlock is a deterrent only to >> casual >>thieves. A set of bolt cutters will take one off in a couple of seconds. > > Depends on the chain. It DOES need to be hardened chain and > lock. These are materials you probably wont find at Home Depot. > My dad used to run a locksmithing operation and he sold the locks > and chains that could only compromised with grinding tools and > then only at considerable labor (and risk of exposure). The locks > used unsymmetrical, double cut keys with the damnedest broaching > profile I've ever seen . . . well beyond the picking skills of most > locksmiths and probably every thief. > > Thefts from county road maintenance tool boxes and loss of portable > compressors stopped after a switch to materials that exceeded the > thief's patience and resources. > > Bob . . . > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Feb 12, 2007
Subject: Re: Correct resistor for 12v LED
From: "Matt Prather" <mprather(at)spro.net>
I don't think there are _any_ LED's designed to use 12v supply directly to the diode (someone might prove me wrong). However, many electronics houses are selling LED illuminated lamp fixtures that include biasing resistors built into the package. The part number you listed appears to be one of these. It doesn't need any additional biasing to make it work in a 12V environment. In other words, the forward voltage spec the calculator expects is for a bare LED. You can get away with a 1/4th watt or 1/2 watt if those are easier to find (they will be). The only problem with using the larger rating is that they will be physically larger (bulkier). Regards, Matt- > > I have several 12v, 12ma LEDs from Radio Shack (part 276-272)in my panel. > According to the calculators (15V max Supply, 12V LED, 12ma), I need a > 27.0kohms, 1/8w resistor. Two questions: > > 1) led.linear1.org reports "The wizard thinks your forward voltage spec is > suspiciously high, but will proceed with the calculations.". The input > voltage is listed as 12-16V, 12-20ma, so I ASSuME that the calculation is > correct that it just does not recognize 12v LEDs? > > 2) Where do I find 1/8w resistors? > > Don Mack | don(at)dmack.net | dmack.net > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "rtitsworth" <rtitsworth(at)mindspring.com>
Subject: Theft deterrent . . .
Date: Feb 12, 2007
Portable, battery powered, Dewalt cutoff saws "eat" hardened steel easily (Home Depot burglar supply). Thus, it's not about making things thief proof it's about making your things harder to steal than someone else's. i.e. you don't have to outrun the bears - only the other campers (grin). ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Feb 12, 2007
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net>
Subject: Re: Theft deterrent . . .
> >You're dad was a locksmith. Neat....Lock picking is one of my hobbies. >Ever seen an ABLOY? I've never quite figured out how you would approach >picking one of these suckers. > >http://www.abloyusa.com/ I don't know if it was that brand . . . I think I recall dad showing me a lock in American Locksmith that operated on a similar principal. A challenge no doubt. About 30 years ago I built an electronic lock for a customer where the "key" was a connector having a network of components under the backshell that were potted into place. A simple examination of the connector's exposed pins with any test equipment only yielded a confusing array of reactance values . . . no DC continuity existed between any pins. In fact, the networks were precision components used to set the operating frequency of two Wien-Bridge oscillators built into the receptacle that accepted the key connector. The same single shielded wire that carried the two signals back to the control panel carried DC power out to run the lock-oscillators. Even if one placed a 'scope on the interconnection wiring, the mixing of two frequencies made the pattern impossible to measure with anything other than an audio spectrum analyzer . . . not a tool that most thieves would have access to. Electronically it was a fairly busy circuit but easy to make robust. Never heard from the customer again and my "lock box" was visible on the outside of his building for a lot of years after I installed it . . . I'm guessing it did the job. The only other lock I built was a combination system that accepted inputs from a keyboard. This was a simple 4-digit lock but the system would ignore all inputs until the proper first digit was selected. It then took the next three digits to complete the sequence. The lock featured a 3-second time delay from receipt of proper sequence before electric latch was retracted. This allowed the operator to input a random sequence of digits in full view of anyone watching. You could put in as many digits as you liked while avoiding the first digit of the opening sequence. After entering the proper sequence, the operator continues to punch digits at random until the lock operated. He got a real buzz out of watching the confusion on the face of his observers. For all practical purposes, the "combination" was exceedingly long and never entered the same way twice! Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Feb 12, 2007
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net>
Subject: ICOM Hand-Held Antenna Adapter
I've received the 5 units from EDMO. I drilled the rivets out of one and produced the following pictures: http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Antenna/ICOM_HH_Adapter_1.jpg http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Antenna/ICOM_HH_Adapter_2.jpg The construction is pretty much as expected. The patina on the surface of the closed-circuit jack does not suggest any special plating. The radio-to-adapter cable is nicely built. These are nicely built and certainly as good as anything one could build using this technology. I have more orders than I have devices to ship. I'll fill the first five orders received. I'm going to think about this one a bit . . . might toss the idea out to the Tacos-at-Connie's crowd. We've not had lunch together for several months. It's about time. I'll ask all the folks who have offered to pick these things up give us feedback on their experience. If they prove to be troublesome (and assuming the T@C meeting produces a "better idea") the alternative device will be used as a warranty backup to the ICOM product. Bob . . . ---------------------------------------- ( IF one aspires to be "world class", ) ( what ever you do must be exercised ) ( EVERY day . . . ) ( R. L. Nuckolls III ) ---------------------------------------- ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Feb 12, 2007
From: Dave N6030X <N6030X(at)DaveMorris.com>
Subject: Re: ICOM Hand-Held Antenna Adapter
Bob, hand some of them out to ham operators who are VHF experimenters and ask for their evaluation. Dave Morris At 03:19 PM 2/12/2007, you wrote: > > >I've received the 5 units from EDMO. > >I drilled the rivets out of one and produced the following >pictures: > >http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Antenna/ICOM_HH_Adapter_1.jpg > >http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Antenna/ICOM_HH_Adapter_2.jpg > >The construction is pretty much as expected. The patina on >the surface of the closed-circuit jack does not suggest >any special plating. > >The radio-to-adapter cable is nicely built. > >These are nicely built and certainly as good as anything >one could build using this technology. I have more orders >than I have devices to ship. I'll fill the first five >orders received. > >I'm going to think about this one a bit . . . might toss >the idea out to the Tacos-at-Connie's crowd. We've not >had lunch together for several months. It's about time. > >I'll ask all the folks who have offered to pick these >things up give us feedback on their experience. If they >prove to be troublesome (and assuming the T@C meeting >produces a "better idea") the alternative device will >be used as a warranty backup to the ICOM product. > > > Bob . . . > > ---------------------------------------- > ( IF one aspires to be "world class", ) > ( what ever you do must be exercised ) > ( EVERY day . . . ) > ( R. L. Nuckolls III ) > ---------------------------------------- > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Feb 12, 2007
From: Dave N6030X <N6030X(at)DaveMorris.com>
Subject: Re: Mag & Starter Switches
Isn't one of the BIGGEST features of the key switch the fact that it prevents you from trying to start the engine with the non-impulse coupler magneto activated? Dave Morris At 09:30 AM 2/12/2007, you wrote: > > > >> >>I have noticed that some aircraft use two separate toggle switches >>for the magnetos and a pushbutton for the starter, and that some >>aircraft use an automobile-like key-operated mag and starter switch. > > Only single engine airplanes. Key-switches are the > brainchild of marketing folks back in the 40s and early > 50s that were trying to get the airplane to look as much > as possible like an automobile. Has more to do with > market appeal than convenience or security. ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Feb 12, 2007
Subject: Re: Mag & Starter Switches
From: "Matt Prather" <mprather(at)spro.net>
That feature is fairly easily accomplished with toggle switch controlled mags and starter switches. See: http://www.aeroelectric.com/PPS/Engine/Ignition/TogMagSw.pdf I believe either of circuits shown does what you're looking for. The non-impulse magneto is shorted out when the right-hand magneto switch is in the position which allows energizing the starter contactor. Regards, Matt- > > > Isn't one of the BIGGEST features of the key switch the fact that it > prevents you from trying to start the engine with the non-impulse > coupler magneto activated? > > Dave Morris > > At 09:30 AM 2/12/2007, you wrote: >> >> >> >>> >>> >>>I have noticed that some aircraft use two separate toggle switches >>>for the magnetos and a pushbutton for the starter, and that some >>>aircraft use an automobile-like key-operated mag and starter switch. >> >> Only single engine airplanes. Key-switches are the >> brainchild of marketing folks back in the 40s and early >> 50s that were trying to get the airplane to look as much >> as possible like an automobile. Has more to do with >> market appeal than convenience or security. > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Feb 12, 2007
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net>
Subject: Re: Mag & Starter Switches
> >Isn't one of the BIGGEST features of the key switch the fact that it >prevents you from trying to start the engine with the non-impulse coupler >magneto activated? it can be strapped to do that . . . and you can wire toggle switches to do the same thing . . . and the non-keyed dual magneto switch could do it too. See figure Z-27 of http://aeroelectric.com/articles/Rev11/AppZ_R11J.pdf Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Shunt vs hall effect sensor
From: "Don Owens" <springcanyon(at)methow.com>
Date: Feb 12, 2007
Hi all, I've been following the Z-14 wiring schematic for my electrically dependent RV-7. I also plan to use GRT EFIS and their EIS system. Without looking far enough ahead I did a great job of installing shunts for the electrical load meters. Duh! Now I realize the the GRT EIS system uses hall effect sensors! Well, maybe having an always up load meter for each electrical system wouldn't be all that bad. Does anyone have a source for good quality load meters? Who would just rip out the shunts and go with the EIS hall effect system?? Can I read the load on each of my two systems with the EIS? Thanks in advance, Don Owens Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=94572#94572 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Feb 12, 2007
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net>
Subject: Re: Shunt vs hall effect sensor
> >Hi all, > >I've been following the Z-14 wiring schematic for my electrically >dependent RV-7. I also plan to use GRT EFIS and their EIS system. Without >looking far enough ahead I did a great job of installing shunts for the >electrical load meters. Duh! Now I realize the the GRT EIS system uses >hall effect sensors! Well, maybe having an always up load meter for each >electrical system wouldn't be all that bad. Does anyone have a source for >good quality load meters? > >Who would just rip out the shunts and go with the EIS hall effect system?? >Can I read the load on each of my two systems with the EIS? You could pick up an extra hall-sensor and put a switch in to select which sensor was driving the glass . . . Alternatively, here's a loadmeter I build here from Triplett pivot and jewel movements: http://aeroelectric.com/Catalog/AEC/9007/AEC9007-700.pdf http://aeroelectric.com/Catalog/9007-120-1_Loadmeter.jpg Bob . . . ---------------------------------------- ( IF one aspires to be "world class", ) ( what ever you do must be exercised ) ( EVERY day . . . ) ( R. L. Nuckolls III ) ---------------------------------------- ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Allen Fulmer" <afulmer(at)charter.net>
Subject: Shunt vs hall effect sensor
Date: Feb 12, 2007
But Bob! It's not digital! Bob wrote: Alternatively, here's a loadmeter I build here from Triplett pivot and jewel movements: http://aeroelectric.com/Catalog/AEC/9007/AEC9007-700.pdf http://aeroelectric.com/Catalog/9007-120-1_Loadmeter.jpg Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Feb 12, 2007
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net>
Subject: Shunt vs hall effect sensor
> >But Bob! It's not digital! Yup . . . but it gets its power to operate directly from the drop in the shunt. There's still a pretty good demand for small steam gages if they're good. Had to give up on Westach but these are REAL d-a movements! I think we sold 25 ship sets of these since I put them in the catalog a year ago. Bob . . . ---------------------------------------- ( IF one aspires to be "world class", ) ( what ever you do must be exercised ) ( EVERY day . . . ) ( R. L. Nuckolls III ) ---------------------------------------- ________________________________________________________________________________
From: <bakerocb(at)cox.net>
Subject: Re: Start switch
Date: Feb 12, 2007
2/12/2007 Hello Henry, Thank you for your input copied below. My initial analysis of the cyclic intermittent inadvertent starter engagement problem on my friend's Beechcraft Sierra was exactly as you described below -- there must have been some internal malfunction of the ignition / start switch that was permitting electricity to flow in a limited manner through that switch to the activating coil in the starter relay even though the ignition / start switch had not been activated in any way. He did not attempt to move the ignition / start switch into the "START" position in order to start the engine while the starter was cycling prematurely on its own because I knew that we were not going to fly with this kind of malfunction. (See below ##) My friend turned the aircraft over to a local FBO, who, with no apparent trouble shooting efforts, decided that the problem was being caused by a faulty starter relay and they ordered a new one. I won't bore you with all the gory details of the fumbling FBO ordering 3 different relays before they got one that they thought was the correct one -- acceptable to both Beechcraft and the FAA. The bill was paid and the aircraft turned over this morning to my friend so we could go flying. It would not start. The original problem had disappeared, but we heard only the repeated activation and deactivation of the starter relay solenoid with no electrical power getting to the starter when he went to the START position on the ignition / start switch. The FBO analyzed this as a low battery -- actually two 12 volt Gill batteries in series since this is a 24 volt system. Their solution was to bring out their jump start cart and we agreed to this, not to go flying, but so we could start the aircraft and taxi over to a different FBO. There was no 24 volt source on the cart that was compatible with either the Sierra's old time Beechcraft external power receptacle or an alligator clip type plug in adapter that my friend had purchased. So the batteries were removed from the aircraft and put on the FBO's battery charger in the shop. That is where the batteries are now (8:22 PM) and the airplane is tied down on the FBO's ramp. During the afternoon we carried the original starter relay over to a different FBO who applied 24 volts to the relay coil and, by listening and using a voltmeter while we were observing, determined that it worked fine. So, yes, there may be an intermittent malfunction within the starter ignition switch and we'll do our own trouble shooting on that issue when we get the airplane in our hands away from the first FBO. But there is still the possibility of some kind of intermittent hang up malfunction within the original starter relay that gave us the symptoms that started this whole fiasco. There are at least three people: Bob Nuckolls, The Beech Aero Club, and I who want to dissect that relay to see what gives, but the owner is deferring any dissection until potential issues with the first FBO are resolved -- did they waste all this time and money by not doing any basic trouble shooting? Was the problem only in the ignition / start switch from the very beginning? I'll keep you all posted. ## But here is the real point I want to make in this response to your posting after that rambling preamble: If one has a suspected malfunction, or a known malfunction in one's ignition / start switch like that owner operating the Cessna 172 in the Aviation Safety magazine letter to the editor, do not fly the airplane. A broken innards malfunction in the start portion of that switch could migrate bits and pieces to the magneto grounding contacts in that same switch -- and when that happens you could lose one or both of your magnetos. I found it incredible that the owner could continue to operate that airplane "over the last few years" with that dangerous inadvertent starter engagement malfunction and replace all those other parts: master relay, starter relay, battery, and battery box grounding strap, before hitting upon replacing the ignition / start switch which instantly solved his problem. To his credit he was willing to share his experience with the readers of Aviation Safety magazine. Thanks again for the opportunity to make the above point. OC -- The best investment we can make is to gather knowledge. PS: Yes, I do subscribe to Aviation Safety, and, yes I did receive the magazine and read that letter shortly after my friend gave the plane to the FBO for repair. The letter helped reinforce my initial analysis, but only hands on trouble shooting will give definitive answers. Hip shooting and random parts replacement is not the proper way to maintain an airplane. PPS: I am still OC. Nothing against Bobs, but I am not a Bob, have never been a Bob, and never intend to be a Bob. ----- Original Message ----- From: <galaxyone(at)juno.com> Sent: Monday, February 12, 2007 5:06 PM Subject: Start switch Bob, This is a follow on to your starter problem. For some strange reason I was not able to post it to the is months Aviation Safety"Lectric List". There is a letter in this months Aviation Safety mag. that describes your problem and the attempts to resolve it to a "T". This aircraft was a 172 that had, had several items replaced to no avail. It was only after he replaced the key starter switch that the problem of the starter engaging after the master was turned on that the problem went away. It does make sense that if interior parts of the starter part of the switch are worn or broken the switch could be on when it appears to be off. May not be your problem at all but it is one more thought. Regards Henry ________________________________________________________________________________
From: <bakerocb(at)cox.net>
Subject: Suppressor Devices for Relay Coils
Date: Feb 12, 2007
2/12/2007 For those readers interested in this subject there is a fairly explicit dissertation in the last four pages of this engineering data sheet: http://www.leachintl2.com/english/english1/vol1/properties/US7064-4653.pdf OC -- The best investment we can make is to gather knowledge. ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Feb 12, 2007
From: Kelly McMullen <kellym(at)aviating.com>
Subject: Re: Battery Tenders as recharging tools . . .
Good data to have. Would be interesting to compare to the Battery Minder, which is similar in that it charges to around 14V at 1.33 amps, then cuts back to 13.6 to maintain. I've been playing with it on a 1 yr old CB35A, and a 7 year old CB35A that was dead when I started. Both now show fully charged electrolyte specific gravity. I alternate, a few days on each. Robert L. Nuckolls, III wrote: > > > As promised, I've finished the first experiment to look > at the recharge characteristics of a Battery Tender. Take > a look at: > > http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Curves/Battery_Tender_Recharge_1.jpg > > I thought I'd looked at the Battery Tender performance > some time ago but data taken on this test suggests this is > the first time . . . > > Note that the Battery Tender's 'size' is not a limiting factor > for putting energy back into a battery. The battery's terminal > voltage was climbing nicely at a rate commensurate with the > device's output rating of about 0.8 amps. > > The surprise comes when the device switches from a charge to > sustain mode at just under 14.0 volts! To put this in > context, look at: > > http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Curves/schumacher_3.jpg > > Here we see a predictable rise in voltage as the battery's > chemistry converts incoming energy into stored chemical energy. > Note also that the rate-of-rise takes a decidedly upward inflection > sometime after the voltage climbs past 14.4 volts. This is typical > of most if not all rechargeable battery chemistries. This > characteristic is used to send a signal to truly 'smart' chargers > to announce a nearly full state of charge. > > In the case for the Schumacher charger, we see that the profile > changes from constant current to constant voltage where the > battery is held in this "top-off" mode for about 2 hours. After > that time, the charger's output drops to the expected sustaining > level of about 13.0 volts. > > Going back to the Battery Tender, we see that the recharge voltage > never rises to the inflection point indicating that the battery > is about full. Further, there's no dwell at some elevated top-off > voltage. > > I'm discharging the battery again to measure how much snort the > Battery Tender put back into the battery. I'll then recharge it > again with the Schumacher charger and compare notes again. > > This early look-see at the data suggests that admonitions > against using Battery Tenders as battery chargers is correct. > The Battery Tender doesn't get the job done based on what > we know of battery chemistry and the charging profiles > suggested by other manufacturers. The complaints I'd heard about > Battery Tenders was that they were "too small" . . . in fact they > appear to be quite capable with respect to energy output levels. > Instead, they are deficient in smarts necessary to (1) detect end of > charge, (2) hold at some elevated top-off level for a reasonable > length of time followed by (3) drop to a sustaining level that > doesn't charge the battery and simply offsets the battery's internal > self discharge currents. > > Watch this space . . . > > > Bob . . . > > ---------------------------------------- > ( IF one aspires to be "world class", ) > ( what ever you do must be exercised ) > ( EVERY day . . . ) > ( R. L. Nuckolls III ) > ---------------------------------------- > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Feb 13, 2007
From: Dave N6030X <N6030X(at)DaveMorris.com>
Subject: Re: Battery Tenders as recharging tools . . .
I have a Battery Minder on my Gill G-35 battery now too. Before I used it, my battery used to hover around 12.2V when the plane was shut down. I ran the battery nearly dead once trying to start the engine when the weather had dropped below 30 degrees. After using the Battery Minder on it for about 3 days, it fired the engine up on a 25 degree morning in only about 5 blades, and the battery sits at over 13V when the plane is shut down. Dave Morris At 10:35 PM 2/12/2007, you wrote: > >Good data to have. Would be interesting to compare to the Battery >Minder, which is similar in that it charges to around 14V at 1.33 >amps, then cuts back to 13.6 to maintain. I've been playing with it >on a 1 yr old CB35A, and a 7 year old CB35A that was dead when I >started. Both now show fully charged electrolyte specific gravity. I >alternate, a few days on each. > >Robert L. Nuckolls, III wrote: >> >> >>As promised, I've finished the first experiment to look >>at the recharge characteristics of a Battery Tender. Take >>a look at: >> >>http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Curves/Battery_Tender_Recharge_1.jpg >> >>I thought I'd looked at the Battery Tender performance >>some time ago but data taken on this test suggests this is >>the first time . . . >> >>Note that the Battery Tender's 'size' is not a limiting factor >>for putting energy back into a battery. The battery's terminal >>voltage was climbing nicely at a rate commensurate with the >>device's output rating of about 0.8 amps. >> >>The surprise comes when the device switches from a charge to >>sustain mode at just under 14.0 volts! To put this in >>context, look at: >> >>http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Curves/schumacher_3.jpg >> >>Here we see a predictable rise in voltage as the battery's >>chemistry converts incoming energy into stored chemical energy. >>Note also that the rate-of-rise takes a decidedly upward inflection >>sometime after the voltage climbs past 14.4 volts. This is typical >>of most if not all rechargeable battery chemistries. This >>characteristic is used to send a signal to truly 'smart' chargers >>to announce a nearly full state of charge. >> >>In the case for the Schumacher charger, we see that the profile >>changes from constant current to constant voltage where the >>battery is held in this "top-off" mode for about 2 hours. After >>that time, the charger's output drops to the expected sustaining >>level of about 13.0 volts. >> >>Going back to the Battery Tender, we see that the recharge voltage >>never rises to the inflection point indicating that the battery >>is about full. Further, there's no dwell at some elevated top-off >>voltage. >> >>I'm discharging the battery again to measure how much snort the >>Battery Tender put back into the battery. I'll then recharge it >>again with the Schumacher charger and compare notes again. >> >>This early look-see at the data suggests that admonitions >>against using Battery Tenders as battery chargers is correct. >>The Battery Tender doesn't get the job done based on what >>we know of battery chemistry and the charging profiles >>suggested by other manufacturers. The complaints I'd heard about >>Battery Tenders was that they were "too small" . . . in fact they >>appear to be quite capable with respect to energy output levels. >>Instead, they are deficient in smarts necessary to (1) detect end of >>charge, (2) hold at some elevated top-off level for a reasonable >>length of time followed by (3) drop to a sustaining level that >>doesn't charge the battery and simply offsets the battery's internal >>self discharge currents. >> >>Watch this space . . . >> >> >> >> >> Bob . . . >> >> ---------------------------------------- >> ( IF one aspires to be "world class", ) >> ( what ever you do must be exercised ) >> ( EVERY day . . . ) >> ( R. L. Nuckolls III ) >> ---------------------------------------- >> >> >> > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Chris Byrne" <jack.byrne(at)bigpond.com>
Subject: Electroluminescent Light Strip
Date: Feb 13, 2007
I have a 36 inch electroluminescent light strip. It will not follow the contour of my glareshield so I have to cut it. If I cut it in half will it be the same brightness as it was if left at the original 36 inches. Or will it use the same amount of power (as supplied by its inverter) make this smaller length twice as bright. At the moment it illuminates at about the correct level without having to use a dimmer. Also can I join the second piece to the first using two short lengths of wire as I may be able to use it in another location. If this works should I link the two pieces together or should I run separate wires from the inverter. Thanks. Chris Byrne SYDNEY ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "William Slaughter" <willslau(at)alumni.rice.edu>
Subject: Battery Tenders as recharging tools . . .
Date: Feb 13, 2007
Battery Tender has quite a few different models, and the info on their website indicates that they use different charging algorithms. I could not find the "021-0123" model number on the Deltran website, but judging by the 0.8A rating, it would be a Battery Tender Jr.. I have a Battery Tender Plus, which is rated at 1.25A, and uses a different charging algorithm than the Jr., and the charging profile shown for it on the Deltran Technical Info page looks a lot more like the curve you got from the Schumacher. I'd be willing to loan mine out for a test run if you want. William Slaughter RV-8 >Robert L. Nuckolls, III wrote: >> >> >>As promised, I've finished the first experiment to look >>at the recharge characteristics of a Battery Tender. Take >>a look at: >> >>http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Curves/Battery_Tender_Recharge_1.jpg >>jpg >> >>I thought I'd looked at the Battery Tender performance >>some time ago but data taken on this test suggests this is the first >>time . . . >> >>Note that the Battery Tender's 'size' is not a limiting factor for >>putting energy back into a battery. The battery's terminal voltage was >>climbing nicely at a rate commensurate with the device's output rating >>of about 0.8 amps. >> >>The surprise comes when the device switches from a charge to sustain >>mode at just under 14.0 volts! To put this in context, look at: >> >>http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Curves/schumacher_3.jpg >> >>Here we see a predictable rise in voltage as the battery's chemistry >>converts incoming energy into stored chemical energy. Note also that >>the rate-of-rise takes a decidedly upward inflection sometime after >>the voltage climbs past 14.4 volts. This is typical of most if not all >>rechargeable battery chemistries. This characteristic is used to send >>a signal to truly 'smart' chargers to announce a nearly full state of >>charge. >> >>In the case for the Schumacher charger, we see that the profile >>changes from constant current to constant voltage where the battery is >>held in this "top-off" mode for about 2 hours. After that time, the >>charger's output drops to the expected sustaining level of about 13.0 >>volts. >> >>Going back to the Battery Tender, we see that the recharge voltage >>never rises to the inflection point indicating that the battery is >>about full. Further, there's no dwell at some elevated top-off >>voltage. >> >>I'm discharging the battery again to measure how much snort the >>Battery Tender put back into the battery. I'll then recharge it again >>with the Schumacher charger and compare notes again. >> >>This early look-see at the data suggests that admonitions against >>using Battery Tenders as battery chargers is correct. The Battery >>Tender doesn't get the job done based on what we know of battery >>chemistry and the charging profiles suggested by other manufacturers. >>The complaints I'd heard about Battery Tenders was that they were "too >>small" . . . in fact they appear to be quite capable with respect to >>energy output levels. Instead, they are deficient in smarts necessary >>to (1) detect end of charge, (2) hold at some elevated top-off level >>for a reasonable length of time followed by (3) drop to a sustaining >>level that doesn't charge the battery and simply offsets the battery's >>internal self discharge currents. >> >>Watch this space . . . >> >> >> >> >> Bob . . . >> >> ---------------------------------------- >> ( IF one aspires to be "world class", ) >> ( what ever you do must be exercised ) >> ( EVERY day . . . ) >> ( R. L. Nuckolls III ) >> ---------------------------------------- >> >> >> > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Feb 13, 2007
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net>
Subject: Battery Tenders as recharging tools . . .
> > >Battery Tender has quite a few different models, and the info on their >website indicates that they use different charging algorithms. I could not >find the "021-0123" model number on the Deltran website, but judging by the >0.8A rating, it would be a Battery Tender Jr.. I have a Battery Tender Plus, >which is rated at 1.25A, and uses a different charging algorithm than the >Jr., and the charging profile shown for it on the Deltran Technical Info >page looks a lot more like the curve you got from the Schumacher. I'd be >willing to loan mine out for a test run if you want. Sounds like a deal to me. I was surprised that when I discharged the test battery after charging with the Battery Tender Jr, the battery gave up about the same energy as it did for the initial discharge. Just over 12AH at the 3.0A rate. I'd appreciate having access to your BT+ to include in the series of experiments. I'll be sharing the data from the tests with folks at Concord too. Their battery gurus will be able to put the sanity check on our results. If you could ship your charger to me at 6936 Bainbridge, Wichita, KS 67226 I should be able to get it back to you in a day or so after receiving it. Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Feb 13, 2007
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net>
Subject: Re: Electroluminescent Light Strip
> > >I have a 36 inch electroluminescent light strip. It will not follow the >contour of my glareshield so I have to cut it. > >If I cut it in half will it be the same brightness as it was if left at the >original 36 inches. Or will it use the same amount of power (as supplied by >its inverter) make this smaller length twice as bright. At the moment it >illuminates at about the correct level without having to use a dimmer. EL lamps are essentially capacitors where the dielectric material emits visible light when electrostatically stressed. The luminousity is a function of voltage and frequency and to some extent waveform and power consumed is proportional to square inches of active lamp. Therefore, the light emitted from any given square inch of lamp is independent of how many total square inches . . . 1/2 of the original lamp would obviously emit 1/2 the total light but any give square inch of lamp would be unchanged by cutting it. >Also can I join the second piece to the first using two short lengths of >wire as I may be able to use it in another location. If this works should I >link the two pieces together or should I run separate wires from the >inverter. You can daisy chain. You don't need separate wires. I would use small (22 or 24 AWG) twisted in a drill motor to make your one twisted pairs. Bob . . . ---------------------------------------- ( IF one aspires to be "world class", ) ( what ever you do must be exercised ) ( EVERY day . . . ) ( R. L. Nuckolls III ) ---------------------------------------- ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Feb 13, 2007
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net>
Subject: Re: Battery Tenders as recharging tools . . .
> >I have a Battery Minder on my Gill G-35 battery now too. Before I used >it, my battery used to hover around 12.2V when the plane was shut down. I >ran the battery nearly dead once trying to start the engine when the >weather had dropped below 30 degrees. After using the Battery Minder on >it for about 3 days, it fired the engine up on a 25 degree morning in only >about 5 blades, and the battery sits at over 13V when the plane is shut down. It would be interesting to do a recharge test profile on a Battery Minder too . . . but I suspect it's very much like the Battery Tender. I have used Battery Tenders here in my shop for several years to keep batteries topped-off on the bench. My father-in-law has used them on his vehicles too. They do the battery maintenance job just fine. What were investigating here is an assertion supplied by someone on the web that these smallest of battery maintenance devices are unsuitable for use as chargers . . . i.e. replenishing the energy in a heavily discharged battery. The recharge profile measured on my Battery Tender Jr did not have all the features offered by some other chargers. I've attached a snippet of the trace on the Schumacher recharge profile just completed. It topped out at 14.4 volts, only about 0.5 volts higher than the Battery Tender Jr. At this point in the recharge cycle, the battery is accepting only hundreds of milliamperes of recharge current so these "dwells" at the top-off voltage don't represent much total energy. But in this case we do see the upward inflection in voltage that begins right at 14.0 volts. This may account for the fact that BTJr's performance as a charger isn't all that bad. It stopped pushing energy into the battery at about 13.9 volts. We shall see . . . Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Feb 13, 2007
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net>
Subject: Re: Battery Tenders as recharging tools . . .
> >Good data to have. Would be interesting to compare to the Battery Minder, >which is similar in that it charges to around 14V at 1.33 amps, then cuts >back to 13.6 to maintain. I've been playing with it on a 1 yr old CB35A, >and a 7 year old CB35A that was dead when I started. Both now show fully >charged electrolyte specific gravity. I alternate, a few days on each. You can hook batteries in parallel for charging and maintaining. I've had as many as three different sized batteries on my BTJrs and they all seem to live quite happily. The batteries respond to terminal voltage and are individually oblivious to how many other batteries may be sharing the charger's attention. Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Dale Fultz" <dfultz7(at)earthlink.net>
Subject: twisted wires
Date: Feb 13, 2007
I am new to some of this wiring,, where all should twisted wires be used when doing the aircraft wiring,, Thanks Dale ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "6440 Auto Parts" <sales(at)6440autoparts.com>
Subject: Re: Electroluminescent Light Strip
Date: Feb 13, 2007
Does anyone have a source for these el strips ? I bought a couple of sets off of ebay 1" x 18". They seemed to be plentiful a year of so back now looks like the el rope is the thing. Randy ----- Original Message ----- From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net> Sent: Tuesday, February 13, 2007 6:48 AM Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Electroluminescent Light Strip > > > >> >> >>I have a 36 inch electroluminescent light strip. It will not follow the >>contour of my glareshield so I have to cut it. >> >>If I cut it in half will it be the same brightness as it was if left at >>the >>original 36 inches. Or will it use the same amount of power (as supplied >>by >>its inverter) make this smaller length twice as bright. At the moment it >>illuminates at about the correct level without having to use a dimmer. > > EL lamps are essentially capacitors where the dielectric material > emits visible light when electrostatically stressed. The luminousity > is a function of voltage and frequency and to some extent waveform > and power consumed is proportional to square inches of active lamp. > > Therefore, the light emitted from any given square inch of lamp is > independent of how many total square inches . . . 1/2 of the original > lamp would obviously emit 1/2 the total light but any give square > inch of lamp would be unchanged by cutting it. > >>Also can I join the second piece to the first using two short lengths of >>wire as I may be able to use it in another location. If this works should >>I >>link the two pieces together or should I run separate wires from the >>inverter. > > You can daisy chain. You don't need separate wires. I would use > small (22 or 24 AWG) twisted in a drill motor to make your one > twisted pairs. > > Bob . . . > > > ---------------------------------------- > ( IF one aspires to be "world class", ) > ( what ever you do must be exercised ) > ( EVERY day . . . ) > ( R. L. Nuckolls III ) > ---------------------------------------- > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Dale Ensing" <densing(at)carolina.rr.com>
Subject: Re: twisted wires
Date: Feb 13, 2007
It is my understanding that twisted wire is used where there is a "signal" in the wire such as engine monitor wiring or communication wiring and not just DC current such as power to a motor or light. The electrical gurus may have more to add. Dale Ensing ----- Original Message ----- From: "Dale Fultz" <dfultz7(at)earthlink.net> Sent: Tuesday, February 13, 2007 9:50 AM Subject: AeroElectric-List: twisted wires > > > I am new to some of this wiring,, where all should twisted wires be used > when doing the aircraft wiring,, Thanks Dale > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Feb 13, 2007
From: Richard Dudley <rhdudley1(at)bellsouth.net>
Subject: Re: Electroluminescent Light Strip
Hi Randy, I purchased EL strips and inverter from an Orlando company about 4 years ago. I installed a strip under my glare shield that illuminates my whole panel. I don't know their current status but here is their info: Luxury Lighting, Robert Temple General Manager, www.LuxuryLighting.net, RTemple(at)LuxuryLighting.net, 866-681-0072 I just checked their website and it looks as though they are flourishing. I used what they call their "Flatlight linear strips". It puts out amazing amount of light. Regards, Richard Dudley -6A starting second Condition Inspection 6440 Auto Parts wrote: > > > Does anyone have a source for these el strips ? I bought a > couple of sets off of ebay 1" x 18". They seemed to be plentiful a > year of so back now looks like the el rope is the thing. > > Randy > > ----- Original Message ----- From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" > > To: > Sent: Tuesday, February 13, 2007 6:48 AM > Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Electroluminescent Light Strip > > >> >> >> >>> >>> >>> I have a 36 inch electroluminescent light strip. It will not follow the >>> contour of my glareshield so I have to cut it. >>> >>> If I cut it in half will it be the same brightness as it was if left >>> at the >>> original 36 inches. Or will it use the same amount of power (as >>> supplied by >>> its inverter) make this smaller length twice as bright. At the >>> moment it >>> illuminates at about the correct level without having to use a dimmer. >> >> >> EL lamps are essentially capacitors where the dielectric material >> emits visible light when electrostatically stressed. The luminousity >> is a function of voltage and frequency and to some extent waveform >> and power consumed is proportional to square inches of active lamp. >> >> Therefore, the light emitted from any given square inch of lamp is >> independent of how many total square inches . . . 1/2 of the original >> lamp would obviously emit 1/2 the total light but any give square >> inch of lamp would be unchanged by cutting it. >> >>> Also can I join the second piece to the first using two short >>> lengths of >>> wire as I may be able to use it in another location. If this works >>> should I >>> link the two pieces together or should I run separate wires from the >>> inverter. >> >> >> You can daisy chain. You don't need separate wires. I would use >> small (22 or 24 AWG) twisted in a drill motor to make your one >> twisted pairs. >> >> Bob . . . >> >> >> ---------------------------------------- >> ( IF one aspires to be "world class", ) >> ( what ever you do must be exercised ) >> ( EVERY day . . . ) >> ( R. L. Nuckolls III ) >> ---------------------------------------- >> >> >> >> >> >> > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Feb 13, 2007
From: <gmcjetpilot(at)yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: Shunt vs hall effect sensor
Bob: That is not necessary, the GRT EIS has 6 aux inputs. He can connect two, three or more hall effect sensors, all with individual hi/lo alarm parameters. Also, if he wants to keep the shunt and discrete meters if his shunt is 1-to-1, e.g.,1mV per 1amp, he can use an inexpensive digital panel meter directly ($10-$20). George >From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net> >Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Shunt vs hall effect sensor > >You could pick up an extra hall-sensor and put a switch >in to select which sensor was driving the glass . . . > >Alternatively, here's a loadmeter I build here from >Triplett pivot and jewel movements: > >Bob . . . --------------------------------- Now that's room service! Choose from over 150,000 hotels in 45,000 destinations on Yahoo! Travel to find your fit. ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Feb 13, 2007
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net>
Subject: Re: twisted wires
> >I am new to some of this wiring,, where all should twisted wires be used >when doing the aircraft wiring,, Thanks Dale There are three ways that a wire can become an efficient receptor or radiator of noise. Electromagnetic - Close proximity of a potential victim wire to a wire that carries strong -AND- dynamic current will magnetically couple a component of that current in the form of "noise". Electrostatic - Close proximity of a potential victim to a wire that carries a strong -AND- dynamic voltage will electrostatically (capacitively) couple a component of that voltage in the form of "noise". Electromagnetic Radiation - A wire that carries (or is exposed to) a strong radio frequency field may become an antenna that emits or becomes victim to that energy. Of the three, electromagnetic is the strongest and most prevalent noise propagation mode from wire to wire. Electrostatic is next and electromagnetic is last in terms of probability for system integration problems having to do with "noise". A simple and extremely effective means for reducing potential for either victimhood or antagonistic participation in a noise problem is to make sure that every electron that travels one way in a circuit is paired in close proximity with another electron in the same circuit but traveling the opposite direction. The twisting of an outbound and inbound current path is easy to do and offers a high degree of isolation for the electromagnetic coupling case . . . and offers some benefit for the other cases as well. Having said that, know also that there are very few instances where noise mitigation processes are automatically called for as a good design practice. I mentioned it for the EL panels only because I had a noise issue on a big Piper about 20 years ago where EL inverter noise was getting into the audio system and we fixed the problem by twisting the pairs of wires that ran from the distribution connector out to an array of individual EL panels. This was not intended to cause anyone to be concerned for having not twisted any wires in other situations. The major risk situations are generally taken care of in the installation instructions for the systems . . . so don't run off and start twisting things before we talk about it here on the List. Bob . . . ---------------------------------------- ( IF one aspires to be "world class", ) ( what ever you do must be exercised ) ( EVERY day . . . ) ( R. L. Nuckolls III ) ---------------------------------------- ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "raymondj" <raymondj(at)frontiernet.net>
Subject: twisted wires
Date: Feb 13, 2007
Bob, Is there a down side to twisting besides the $time$ issue? Thanks, Raymond Julian Kettle River, MN -----Original Message----- From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of Robert L. Nuckolls, III Sent: Tuesday, February 13, 2007 1:42 PM Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: twisted wires > >I am new to some of this wiring,, where all should twisted wires be used >when doing the aircraft wiring,, Thanks Dale There are three ways that a wire can become an efficient receptor or radiator of noise. Electromagnetic - Close proximity of a potential victim wire to a wire that carries strong -AND- dynamic current will magnetically couple a component of that current in the form of "noise". Electrostatic - Close proximity of a potential victim to a wire that carries a strong -AND- dynamic voltage will electrostatically (capacitively) couple a component of that voltage in the form of "noise". Electromagnetic Radiation - A wire that carries (or is exposed to) a strong radio frequency field may become an antenna that emits or becomes victim to that energy. Of the three, electromagnetic is the strongest and most prevalent noise propagation mode from wire to wire. Electrostatic is next and electromagnetic is last in terms of probability for system integration problems having to do with "noise". A simple and extremely effective means for reducing potential for either victimhood or antagonistic participation in a noise problem is to make sure that every electron that travels one way in a circuit is paired in close proximity with another electron in the same circuit but traveling the opposite direction. The twisting of an outbound and inbound current path is easy to do and offers a high degree of isolation for the electromagnetic coupling case . . . and offers some benefit for the other cases as well. Having said that, know also that there are very few instances where noise mitigation processes are automatically called for as a good design practice. I mentioned it for the EL panels only because I had a noise issue on a big Piper about 20 years ago where EL inverter noise was getting into the audio system and we fixed the problem by twisting the pairs of wires that ran from the distribution connector out to an array of individual EL panels. This was not intended to cause anyone to be concerned for having not twisted any wires in other situations. The major risk situations are generally taken care of in the installation instructions for the systems . . . so don't run off and start twisting things before we talk about it here on the List. Bob . . . ---------------------------------------- ( IF one aspires to be "world class", ) ( what ever you do must be exercised ) ( EVERY day . . . ) ( R. L. Nuckolls III ) ---------------------------------------- ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Feb 13, 2007
From: Mitchell Faatz <mitch(at)skybound.com>
Subject: NAV audio hum - simple question
I've verified the hum coming out of the Garmin 430's NAV 1 audio hi pin (on connector 4006), it has peaks at 500 and 1500 Hz, and is 60 millivolts when measured with an oscilloscope. Many people won't care about this because they have audio panels and the NAV audio is typically turned off all the time unless you're identifying a VOR. I care, because I don't have an audio panel and my NAV 1 audio is always present (mixed by Bob's Iso Amp with COM audio, marker beacon, and traffic warnings). I can knock down the level of the hum a little bit with a T-Pass filter of sorts: two 500 ohm resisters with a 100 pF cap going to ground in the middle. I have hi-buck Bose-X noise canceling headphones and stereo music, and here is the million dollar question: Will a 60 millivolt hum into an intercom be audible when the engine is running? If so, my choices are 1) return the unit to Garmin for testing/fixing (hopefully), might have a bad capacitor on board or something, or it might be considered "normal" by them, in which case I've just wasted two weeks. 2) put the nav 1 audio on an on/off switch on the instrument panel, which I would like to avoid. Thanks for any educated responses! Mitch Faatz RV-6A Never Ending Finish Kit Auburn, CA ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Bill Denton" <bdenton(at)bdenton.com>
Subject: NAV audio hum - simple question
Date: Feb 13, 2007
As a short-term solution, why not just turn off NAV audio by pushing the VLOC volume knob? Or you can just turn down the volume with the same knob. -----Original Message----- From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of Mitchell Faatz Sent: Tuesday, February 13, 2007 3:16 PM Subject: AeroElectric-List: NAV audio hum - simple question I've verified the hum coming out of the Garmin 430's NAV 1 audio hi pin (on connector 4006), it has peaks at 500 and 1500 Hz, and is 60 millivolts when measured with an oscilloscope. Many people won't care about this because they have audio panels and the NAV audio is typically turned off all the time unless you're identifying a VOR. I care, because I don't have an audio panel and my NAV 1 audio is always present (mixed by Bob's Iso Amp with COM audio, marker beacon, and traffic warnings). I can knock down the level of the hum a little bit with a T-Pass filter of sorts: two 500 ohm resisters with a 100 pF cap going to ground in the middle. I have hi-buck Bose-X noise canceling headphones and stereo music, and here is the million dollar question: Will a 60 millivolt hum into an intercom be audible when the engine is running? If so, my choices are 1) return the unit to Garmin for testing/fixing (hopefully), might have a bad capacitor on board or something, or it might be considered "normal" by them, in which case I've just wasted two weeks. 2) put the nav 1 audio on an on/off switch on the instrument panel, which I would like to avoid. Thanks for any educated responses! Mitch Faatz RV-6A Never Ending Finish Kit Auburn, CA ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Feb 13, 2007
From: Mitchell Faatz <mitch(at)skybound.com>
Subject: Re: NAV audio hum - simple question
The hum is present with the NAV audio all the way down. Bill Denton wrote: > > As a short-term solution, why not just turn off NAV audio by pushing the > VLOC volume knob? Or you can just turn down the volume with the same knob. > > > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com > [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of > Mitchell Faatz > Sent: Tuesday, February 13, 2007 3:16 PM > To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com > Subject: AeroElectric-List: NAV audio hum - simple question > > > I've verified the hum coming out of the Garmin 430's NAV 1 audio hi pin > (on connector 4006), it has peaks at 500 and 1500 Hz, and is 60 > millivolts when measured with an oscilloscope. Many people won't care > about this because they have audio panels and the NAV audio is typically > turned off all the time unless you're identifying a VOR. I care, > because I don't have an audio panel and my NAV 1 audio is always present > (mixed by Bob's Iso Amp with COM audio, marker beacon, and traffic > warnings). I can knock down the level of the hum a little bit with a > T-Pass filter of sorts: two 500 ohm resisters with a 100 pF cap going to > ground in the middle. I have hi-buck Bose-X noise canceling headphones > and stereo music, and here is the million dollar question: > > Will a 60 millivolt hum into an intercom be audible when the engine is > running? > > If so, my choices are > 1) return the unit to Garmin for testing/fixing (hopefully), might have > a bad capacitor on board or something, or it might be considered > "normal" by them, in which case I've just wasted two weeks. > 2) put the nav 1 audio on an on/off switch on the instrument panel, > which I would like to avoid. > > Thanks for any educated responses! > Mitch Faatz RV-6A Never Ending Finish Kit Auburn, CA > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Feb 13, 2007
Subject: Re: NAV audio hum - simple question
From: john(at)ballofshame.com
Maybe I'm not envisioning this right (my mind is fried trying to get through a bug at work) but the filter you described sounds like a low pass filter. I think you would want a high pass filter assuming that you don't ultimately track this down to some other problem somewhere else. Like I said, I could just be thinking about it all wrong due to not enough coffee and too much thinking today :) -John www.ballofshame.com > > > I've verified the hum coming out of the Garmin 430's NAV 1 audio hi pin > (on connector 4006), it has peaks at 500 and 1500 Hz, and is 60 > millivolts when measured with an oscilloscope. Many people won't care > about this because they have audio panels and the NAV audio is typically > turned off all the time unless you're identifying a VOR. I care, > because I don't have an audio panel and my NAV 1 audio is always present > (mixed by Bob's Iso Amp with COM audio, marker beacon, and traffic > warnings). I can knock down the level of the hum a little bit with a > T-Pass filter of sorts: two 500 ohm resisters with a 100 pF cap going to > ground in the middle. I have hi-buck Bose-X noise canceling headphones > and stereo music, and here is the million dollar question: > > Will a 60 millivolt hum into an intercom be audible when the engine is > running? > > If so, my choices are > 1) return the unit to Garmin for testing/fixing (hopefully), might have > a bad capacitor on board or something, or it might be considered > "normal" by them, in which case I've just wasted two weeks. > 2) put the nav 1 audio on an on/off switch on the instrument panel, > which I would like to avoid. > > Thanks for any educated responses! > Mitch Faatz RV-6A Never Ending Finish Kit Auburn, CA > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Bill Denton" <bdenton(at)bdenton.com>
Subject: NAV audio hum - simple question
Date: Feb 13, 2007
If you are not getting any "nav audio" with the volume knob turned all of the way down, one would suspect that the problem lies outside of the radio... -----Original Message----- From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of Mitchell Faatz Sent: Tuesday, February 13, 2007 4:07 PM Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: NAV audio hum - simple question The hum is present with the NAV audio all the way down. Bill Denton wrote: > > As a short-term solution, why not just turn off NAV audio by pushing the > VLOC volume knob? Or you can just turn down the volume with the same knob. > > > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com > [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of > Mitchell Faatz > Sent: Tuesday, February 13, 2007 3:16 PM > To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com > Subject: AeroElectric-List: NAV audio hum - simple question > > > > I've verified the hum coming out of the Garmin 430's NAV 1 audio hi pin > (on connector 4006), it has peaks at 500 and 1500 Hz, and is 60 > millivolts when measured with an oscilloscope. Many people won't care > about this because they have audio panels and the NAV audio is typically > turned off all the time unless you're identifying a VOR. I care, > because I don't have an audio panel and my NAV 1 audio is always present > (mixed by Bob's Iso Amp with COM audio, marker beacon, and traffic > warnings). I can knock down the level of the hum a little bit with a > T-Pass filter of sorts: two 500 ohm resisters with a 100 pF cap going to > ground in the middle. I have hi-buck Bose-X noise canceling headphones > and stereo music, and here is the million dollar question: > > Will a 60 millivolt hum into an intercom be audible when the engine is > running? > > If so, my choices are > 1) return the unit to Garmin for testing/fixing (hopefully), might have > a bad capacitor on board or something, or it might be considered > "normal" by them, in which case I've just wasted two weeks. > 2) put the nav 1 audio on an on/off switch on the instrument panel, > which I would like to avoid. > > Thanks for any educated responses! > Mitch Faatz RV-6A Never Ending Finish Kit Auburn, CA > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Feb 13, 2007
Subject: Re: NAV audio hum - simple question
From: john(at)ballofshame.com
Never mind. You definately don't want to get rid of 500hz and 1500hz. LOL...divide by 10 problem on my end. Where's my coffee?.... -John www.ballofshame.com > > Maybe I'm not envisioning this right (my mind is fried trying to get > through a bug at work) but the filter you described sounds like a low pass > filter. I think you would want a high pass filter assuming that you don't > ultimately track this down to some other problem somewhere else. > > Like I said, I could just be thinking about it all wrong due to not enough > coffee and too much thinking today :) > > -John > www.ballofshame.com > >> >> >> I've verified the hum coming out of the Garmin 430's NAV 1 audio hi pin >> (on connector 4006), it has peaks at 500 and 1500 Hz, and is 60 >> millivolts when measured with an oscilloscope. Many people won't care >> about this because they have audio panels and the NAV audio is typically >> turned off all the time unless you're identifying a VOR. I care, >> because I don't have an audio panel and my NAV 1 audio is always present >> (mixed by Bob's Iso Amp with COM audio, marker beacon, and traffic >> warnings). I can knock down the level of the hum a little bit with a >> T-Pass filter of sorts: two 500 ohm resisters with a 100 pF cap going to >> ground in the middle. I have hi-buck Bose-X noise canceling headphones >> and stereo music, and here is the million dollar question: >> >> Will a 60 millivolt hum into an intercom be audible when the engine is >> running? >> >> If so, my choices are >> 1) return the unit to Garmin for testing/fixing (hopefully), might have >> a bad capacitor on board or something, or it might be considered >> "normal" by them, in which case I've just wasted two weeks. >> 2) put the nav 1 audio on an on/off switch on the instrument panel, >> which I would like to avoid. >> >> Thanks for any educated responses! >> Mitch Faatz RV-6A Never Ending Finish Kit Auburn, CA >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: PeterHunt1(at)aol.com
Date: Feb 13, 2007
Subject: Theft Deterrent
I wired both mags to a hidden switch which grounds the mags. Engine cranks, but never fires with the hidden switch in the ground position. I mounted the switch such that forward the plugs fire and rearward the engine won't start. I have a similar arrangement on my classic cars. Pete RV-6 Clearwater ________________________________________________________________________________
From: BobsV35B(at)aol.com
Date: Feb 13, 2007
Subject: Re: Theft Deterrent
In a message dated 2/13/2007 5:09:24 P.M. Central Standard Time, PeterHunt1(at)aol.com writes: I wired both mags to a hidden switch which grounds the mags. Engine cranks, but never fires with the hidden switch in the ground position. I mounted the switch such that forward the plugs fire and rearward the engine won't start. I have a similar arrangement on my classic cars. Pete RV-6 Clearwater Ok Pete, When I want to steal your RV. I will be sure to bring along a pair of dikes to cut the P lead wires! Happy Skies, Old Bob AKA Bob Siegfried Ancient Aviator Stearman N3977A Brookeridge Air Park LL22 Downers Grove, IL 60516 630 985-8503 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Feb 13, 2007
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net>
Subject: twisted wires
> >Bob, > > Is there a down side to twisting besides the $time$ issue? Nope, never hurts . . . well, it WOULD increase the cross section of a wire bundle. Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Feb 13, 2007
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net>
Subject: Re: NAV audio hum - simple question
> >I've verified the hum coming out of the Garmin 430's NAV 1 audio hi pin >(on connector 4006), it has peaks at 500 and 1500 Hz, and is 60 >millivolts when measured with an oscilloscope. Many people won't care >about this because they have audio panels and the NAV audio is typically >turned off all the time unless you're identifying a VOR. I care, because >I don't have an audio panel and my NAV 1 audio is always present (mixed by >Bob's Iso Amp with COM audio, marker beacon, and traffic warnings). I can >knock down the level of the hum a little bit with a T-Pass filter of >sorts: two 500 ohm resisters with a 100 pF cap going to ground in the >middle. I have hi-buck Bose-X noise canceling headphones and stereo >music, and here is the million dollar question: > >Will a 60 millivolt hum into an intercom be audible when the engine is >running? > >If so, my choices are >1) return the unit to Garmin for testing/fixing (hopefully), might have a >bad capacitor on board or something, or it might be considered "normal" by >them, in which case I've just wasted two weeks. >2) put the nav 1 audio on an on/off switch on the instrument panel, which >I would like to avoid. Hmmmm . . . you may well be experiencing one of those unforeseen consequences of quantum technology jumps. For years, I've been able to sit in cockpits of some REALLY expensive airplanes and hear things in the phones that (to my way of thinking at least) shouldn't be audible. Indeed, once the engines are running and you've got wind noise blowing over the the fuselage, the ambient noises overpowered the offending noises. More than one customer has complained about hearing things they'd never heard before after installing a good noise cancelling headset system. It may be that Garmin will readily admit to the "noise" being present but still well within any published signal to noise ratio specifications. Those frequencies sound like they might be associated with the "AC" voltages needed to drive LCD screens. If push comes to the hard place, it may take a couple of notch filters to attenuate them to acceptable if not inaudible levels. I'll have to remember to ask the customer support techs if they've had any cases of unacceptable noise level complaints resulting from the installation of super headsets! Bob . . . ---------------------------------------- ( IF one aspires to be "world class", ) ( what ever you do must be exercised ) ( EVERY day . . . ) ( R. L. Nuckolls III ) ---------------------------------------- ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: 14 V Voltmeter Markings
From: "Bill Denton" <bdenton(at)bdenton.com>
Date: Feb 13, 2007
Can anyone tell me what the proper range marks are for a 14 V aircraft voltmeter? Thanks! Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=94864#94864 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Feb 13, 2007
From: Ken <klehman(at)albedo.net>
Subject: Re: Electroluminescent Light Strip
I used http://www.e-lite.com and cut the strip into 3 pieces. Thay can be daisy chained but it was easier to just wire them in parallel for me. I had some temporary issues with moisture contamination or something at the cuts but all worked out fine. The installation directions for most of the inverters that I looked at specified a specific range of square inches of luminescent strip for proper inverter operation. Off the top of my head it was something like 28 to 38 in2 for the inverter that I used. The square wave inverter output went up to about 180 volts so I did twist the wires together ;) Ken Chris Byrne wrote: > >I have a 36 inch electroluminescent light strip. It will not follow the >contour of my glareshield so I have to cut it. > >If I cut it in half will it be the same brightness as it was if left at the >original 36 inches. Or will it use the same amount of power (as supplied by >its inverter) make this smaller length twice as bright. At the moment it >illuminates at about the correct level without having to use a dimmer. > >Also can I join the second piece to the first using two short lengths of >wire as I may be able to use it in another location. If this works should I >link the two pieces together or should I run separate wires from the >inverter. > >Thanks. > >Chris Byrne >SYDNEY > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "William Slaughter" <willslau(at)alumni.rice.edu>
Subject: Battery Tenders as recharging tools . . .
Date: Feb 13, 2007
I'll try and get it packed up as soon as practical, but I've got a lot of irons in the fire this week, and it might well be Saturday before I can get it on it's way. William -----Original Message----- From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Robert L. Nuckolls, III Sent: Tuesday, February 13, 2007 6:43 AM Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Battery Tenders as recharging tools . . . --> > > >Battery Tender has quite a few different models, and the info on their >website indicates that they use different charging algorithms. I could >not find the "021-0123" model number on the Deltran website, but >judging by the 0.8A rating, it would be a Battery Tender Jr.. I have a >Battery Tender Plus, which is rated at 1.25A, and uses a different >charging algorithm than the Jr., and the charging profile shown for it >on the Deltran Technical Info page looks a lot more like the curve you >got from the Schumacher. I'd be willing to loan mine out for a test run >if you want. Sounds like a deal to me. I was surprised that when I discharged the test battery after charging with the Battery Tender Jr, the battery gave up about the same energy as it did for the initial discharge. Just over 12AH at the 3.0A rate. I'd appreciate having access to your BT+ to include in the series of experiments. I'll be sharing the data from the tests with folks at Concord too. Their battery gurus will be able to put the sanity check on our results. If you could ship your charger to me at 6936 Bainbridge, Wichita, KS 67226 I should be able to get it back to you in a day or so after receiving it. Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Feb 13, 2007
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net>
Subject: Re: 14 V Voltmeter Markings
> >Can anyone tell me what the proper range marks are for a 14 V aircraft >voltmeter? > >Thanks! The term "proper" may be debated by some but here's how I marked the expanded scale voltmeter we used to sell . . . http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Instruments/loadvolt.jpg Bob . . . ---------------------------------------- ( IF one aspires to be "world class", ) ( what ever you do must be exercised ) ( EVERY day . . . ) ( R. L. Nuckolls III ) ---------------------------------------- ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Feb 13, 2007
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net>
Subject: Battery Tenders as recharging tools . . .
> > >I'll try and get it packed up as soon as practical, but I've got a lot of >irons in the fire this week, and it might well be Saturday before I can get >it on it's way. No big hurry, this test equipment isn't going anywhere. Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Feb 14, 2007
From: Bill Bradburry <bbradburry(at)allvantage.com>
Subject: What should I check?
I am wiring my plane like Z-19. I currently only have one battery installed in the engine battery position. Yesterday I had the engine master switch on, and thinking that if I wanted to charge the battery while the engine was running, I would need to turn the main master battery switch to alternator. I had not yet started the engine. When I switched the main master to alternator, I heard a series of rapid clicks and thought that I saw some smoke drift over the panel. I immediately turned it off. Later on inspection I discovered that I had not connected the ground wire to pin 1 of the main master switch. (what a dope!) I have not been able to discover any burned wires or parts. What did I probably burn up? Can someone direct me to the probable areas to check? Thanks, Bill B ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Feb 14, 2007
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net>
Subject: Re: What should I check?
> > >I am wiring my plane like Z-19. I currently only have one battery >installed in the engine battery position. Yesterday I had the engine >master switch on, and thinking that if I wanted to charge the battery >while the engine was running, I would need to turn the main master battery >switch to alternator. I had not yet started the engine. >When I switched the main master to alternator, I heard a series of rapid >clicks and thought that I saw some smoke drift over the panel. I >immediately turned it off. >Later on inspection I discovered that I had not connected the ground wire >to pin 1 of the main master switch. (what a dope!) >I have not been able to discover any burned wires or parts. What did I >probably burn up? Can someone direct me to the probable areas to check? Impossible to deduce from the information you've provided. If and open ground wire to the master switch were the only problem, you would not have closed the battery contactor and things should have been "black". If you had power on the airplane after having moved the switch, then the battery contactor had to be closed. This suggest wiring errors that go beyond the one you cited. When powering a system up for the first time, I'll suggest that folks pull all the fuses (or open all breakers) and check to see that battery contactors operate as expected. If you're needing to use batteries as the source of first power (as opposed to a plug-in-the-wall power supply) then it's a good idea to replace the battery-to-master-contactor jumper with a temporary in-line fuse holder. Put a 5A fuse in to energize contactors, power up fuse-less busses, etc to see that voltage is getting to where it belongs. Then increase the battery fuse size and begin brining things on line one fuse or breaker at a time. That's another nice thing about fuseblocks . . . you can power up circuits for the first time with undersized fuses . . . this can be a smoke-free technique for checking out complex control circuits like landing gear indicator lights, control contactors, etc. You should be able to check out the vast majority of systems in your airplane, one-at-a-time with no more than a 10A fuse in series with the battery. Only after you're satisfied that there are no "holes for smoke to escape from" do you replace the fuse-jumper with a fat wire so you can crank the engine and run the alternator. Better yet, acquire a plug-in-the-wall power supply like http://tinyurl.com/23nf7m These are readily available in a variety of sizes. I used to sell a 25A device off my website. These are current limited supplies that will shut down for heavy shorts. You can use the series-fuse technique for first-power on systems with very light loads. For the vast majority of builders, the battery is their #1 source for test-energy . . . cheap, reasonably reliable and it's part of the finished system. Unfortunately, the battery is most able and willing to dump hundreds of amps into a mis-wired system and the outcomes are never happy. If you haven't added a small, first-power-friendly supply to you suite of shop tools, then at least get an inline fuseholder to build a temporary firewall between your battery and potentially fragile wiring mistakes. Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Feb 14, 2007
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net>
Subject: Poor man's DAS
I can't recall if I've mentioned this company before here on the list but for those interested in watching, gathering, storing and plotting various data from their airplane or elsewhere, take a look at this product: http://www.labjack.com/labjack_u3.php?prodId=25 I've had one on the shelf for about a year but didn't have the incentive (work order) to get it out of the box and see what it takes to make it sing, dance and do dishes. Got a task coming up for a customer that can use a small portion of its features so I got it out and fired it up last night. It's almost TOO capable . . . takes awhile to wade through all the "mommy, mommy, look what I can do!!!" things to get it running with a simple task: read and store 3 channels of analog data. But the more I play with it, the more impressed I am with the capability it offers for a paulty $100. One OBAM aviation task I'm considering for it is to measure and store voltage and current values for a battery recharge cycle using the various $low$ charger/maintainers. It's pretty easy to look at a recharge voltage curve and assume that the last 10% of the time under the curve accounts for 10% of total energy transfer. However, we know that's not the case. What the voltage curves don't show us is that during the final phase of the upward climb for applied voltage, current going into the battery is going down, hence the last 10% of charge time may account for only a small percentage of total energy transferred to the battery. It would be cool to really go measure that. So as soon as my customer takes the hit on my exorbitant fees to learn how to use this thing do to his job, I'll be able to move the equipment over to the bench where the battery tests are going on for some elightening 'fun' stuff. The second battery recharge using a Battery Tender completed this morning. The attached image shows the first and second recharge voltage curves. The first curve is in red, the second in black. I note that this charge cycle ended earlier (battery wearing out? It's several years old) but the charge cycle extended into the end-of-charge voltage inflection. Given that devices like the Battery Tender probably use analog comparators to sense when states change, the earlier curve may have terminated a tad early on noise . . . nonetheless, it appears that these whimpy little 'chargers' may be quite capable of stuffing all the snort back into an SVLA battery . . . all it takes is patience. Bob . . . ---------------------------------------- ( IF one aspires to be "world class", ) ( what ever you do must be exercised ) ( EVERY day . . . ) ( R. L. Nuckolls III ) ---------------------------------------- ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Feb 14, 2007
From: Gilles Thesee <Gilles.Thesee@ac-grenoble.fr>
Subject: Hand soldering reliability
Hi Bob and all, A friend working in hi level electronics just pointed us to the following site : http://esamultimedia.esa.int/docs/industry/SME/2004-Training/M&P/Annex1_ECSS_Q_70_08A.pdf Seems much interesting to me. FWIW, Regards, Gilles Thesee http://contrails.free.fr ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Feb 14, 2007
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net>
Subject: Re: Hand soldering reliability
><Gilles.Thesee@ac-grenoble.fr> > >Hi Bob and all, > >A friend working in hi level electronics just pointed us to the following >site : > >http://esamultimedia.esa.int/docs/industry/SME/2004-Training/M&P/Annex1_ECSS_Q_70_08A.pdf Yup . . . this is an impressive document. It's probably used as the textbook for a whole raft of recurrent training programs that industry seems to embrace under their ISO9000 charters to "say what you do, do what you say". The problem with these tomes is that they're invariably loaded with enough 'data' to justify their use as the text for a 10 hour, 20 hour . . . shucks, let's do a week long training session. The bottom line is that 95% plus of these documents is either ignored or forgotten in the practice of processes described therein. Of course, when some quality issue pops up that can be attributed to "failure to observe the ISO9000 approved processes", then some poor sap can be tagged with fault and summarily dealt with. Let us not lose our grip on the notion that ultimate reliability of a solder joint depends on some really simple and readily observable characteristics. For your OBAM aircraft project it boils down to use good solder that FLOWS readily over the materials to be joined in a short period of time. This is a judgement call that can be honed only with some practice. Get some tools, solder, wire and as assortment of junkbox parts and FIDDLE with them. An hour or so at your workbench fastening things together with solder and inspecting the results will go a long way toward calibrating your own judgement as to whether or not you're doing a good job. The goal is to get a smooth joint with a MINIMUM of applied solder and MINIMUM time for heat-on-the-joint. I'm not for a moment suggesting that documents like the one cited are incorrect or even a bad idea IF your goal is to "say what you do, do what you say." But if your goal is to acquire some confidence in your ability to produce very serviceable solder joints, you can get there in a fraction of the time and worry with some hands-on experience. Bob . . . ---------------------------------------- ( IF one aspires to be "world class", ) ( what ever you do must be exercised ) ( EVERY day . . . ) ( R. L. Nuckolls III ) ---------------------------------------- ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Poor man's DAS
Date: Feb 14, 2007
From: "Hinde, Frank George (Corvallis)" <frank.hinde(at)hp.com>
Hey Bob, Glad to see the Battery tender junior re-gets your endorsement...Especially as I'd just bought one. This device looks pretty useful, I could imagine using it in flight to gather all sorts of data or to compare to a suspect engine monitoring system for example. The only issue I see is the analogue inputs are not rated up to 14v (10v was the max) but somehow you have been measuring the full charging voltage...How did you do that? Speak slowly...Im a Mechanical engineer...:) Frank -----Original Message----- From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Robert L. Nuckolls, III Sent: Wednesday, February 14, 2007 7:31 AM Subject: AeroElectric-List: Poor man's DAS I can't recall if I've mentioned this company before here on the list but for those interested in watching, gathering, storing and plotting various data from their airplane or elsewhere, take a look at this product: http://www.labjack.com/labjack_u3.php?prodId=25 I've had one on the shelf for about a year but didn't have the incentive (work order) to get it out of the box and see what it takes to make it sing, dance and do dishes. Got a task coming up for a customer that can use a small portion of its features so I got it out and fired it up last night. It's almost TOO capable . . . takes awhile to wade through all the "mommy, mommy, look what I can do!!!" things to get it running with a simple task: read and store 3 channels of analog data. But the more I play with it, the more impressed I am with the capability it offers for a paulty $100. One OBAM aviation task I'm considering for it is to measure and store voltage and current values for a battery recharge cycle using the various $low$ charger/maintainers. It's pretty easy to look at a recharge voltage curve and assume that the last 10% of the time under the curve accounts for 10% of total energy transfer. However, we know that's not the case. What the voltage curves don't show us is that during the final phase of the upward climb for applied voltage, current going into the battery is going down, hence the last 10% of charge time may account for only a small percentage of total energy transferred to the battery. It would be cool to really go measure that. So as soon as my customer takes the hit on my exorbitant fees to learn how to use this thing do to his job, I'll be able to move the equipment over to the bench where the battery tests are going on for some elightening 'fun' stuff. The second battery recharge using a Battery Tender completed this morning. The attached image shows the first and second recharge voltage curves. The first curve is in red, the second in black. I note that this charge cycle ended earlier (battery wearing out? It's several years old) but the charge cycle extended into the end-of-charge voltage inflection. Given that devices like the Battery Tender probably use analog comparators to sense when states change, the earlier curve may have terminated a tad early on noise . . . nonetheless, it appears that these whimpy little 'chargers' may be quite capable of stuffing all the snort back into an SVLA battery . . . all it takes is patience. Bob . . . ---------------------------------------- ( IF one aspires to be "world class", ) ( what ever you do must be exercised ) ( EVERY day . . . ) ( R. L. Nuckolls III ) ---------------------------------------- ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "kesleyelectric" <kesleyelectric(at)chooseblue.coop>
Subject: voltmeter switch
Date: Feb 14, 2007
Bob and list, In a reply a few days ago, it was suggested that a voltmeter on the endurance bus would be a good idea to monitor the health of the battery and the SD8 during alternator out operation. Rather than installing a second voltmeter, I am considering using a 2-3 switch for the e-bus alternate feed and wiring it as shown on the attached diagram. The voltmeter is a UMA "steam gauge". The voltmeter would read the voltage on the appropriate bus, according to the position of the switch. Feedback welcome. Regards, Tom Barter Avid Magnum ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Eric Parlow" <ericparlow(at)hotmail.com>
Subject: Most Reliable D-Sub Connections?
Date: Feb 14, 2007
Given a DB-44 with high density pins...... What's more reliable: 1.) Machined pins crimped with DFM AFM8 4 point crimper 2.) Formed pins crimped with open jaw hand crimper and soldered, w/ insulation crimped also. 3.) Formed pins only crimped with open jaw hand crimper Gold flashed? ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Feb 14, 2007
Subject: Re: Most Reliable D-Sub Connections?
From: john(at)ballofshame.com
I don't think I've ever used anything but option #1 on a high density D-Sub. By formed I'm guessing you mean open barrel? I didn't even know they made high density pins like that...I've never bothered to look. You can't do much better than option #1. You get strain relief from the backshell of the connector. The Daniels crimper is EXPENSIVE, though. If you want them crimped and you're only making a couple of cables, it's probably way cheaper to just have someone like Stein make them for you. If you really want to solder them instead, I would use a connector with solder cups on them. I will say, though, Daniels makes a NICE crimper! I'm a tool junkie and I can't resist stuff like this. -John www.ballofshame.com > > > Given a DB-44 with high density pins...... > > What's more reliable: > > 1.) Machined pins crimped with DFM AFM8 4 point crimper > > 2.) Formed pins crimped with open jaw hand crimper and soldered, w/ > insulation crimped also. > > 3.) Formed pins only crimped with open jaw hand crimper > > Gold flashed? > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "B Tomm" <fvalarm(at)rapidnet.net>
Subject: Poor man's DAS
Date: Feb 14, 2007
Bob, I'm interested in this Labjack too for a different application. My question is, does it come with software that is loaded on a PC to control the labjack? If not, what software does one use or does one have to write their own from scratch? Bevan -----Original Message----- From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Robert L. Nuckolls, III Sent: Wednesday, February 14, 2007 7:31 AM Subject: AeroElectric-List: Poor man's DAS I can't recall if I've mentioned this company before here on the list but for those interested in watching, gathering, storing and plotting various data from their airplane or elsewhere, take a look at this product: http://www.labjack.com/labjack_u3.php?prodId=25 I've had one on the shelf for about a year but didn't have the incentive (work order) to get it out of the box and see what it takes to make it sing, dance and do dishes. Got a task coming up for a customer that can use a small portion of its features so I got it out and fired it up last night. It's almost TOO capable . . . takes awhile to wade through all the "mommy, mommy, look what I can do!!!" things to get it running with a simple task: read and store 3 channels of analog data. But the more I play with it, the more impressed I am with the capability it offers for a paulty $100. One OBAM aviation task I'm considering for it is to measure and store voltage and current values for a battery recharge cycle using the various $low$ charger/maintainers. It's pretty easy to look at a recharge voltage curve and assume that the last 10% of the time under the curve accounts for 10% of total energy transfer. However, we know that's not the case. What the voltage curves don't show us is that during the final phase of the upward climb for applied voltage, current going into the battery is going down, hence the last 10% of charge time may account for only a small percentage of total energy transferred to the battery. It would be cool to really go measure that. So as soon as my customer takes the hit on my exorbitant fees to learn how to use this thing do to his job, I'll be able to move the equipment over to the bench where the battery tests are going on for some elightening 'fun' stuff. The second battery recharge using a Battery Tender completed this morning. The attached image shows the first and second recharge voltage curves. The first curve is in red, the second in black. I note that this charge cycle ended earlier (battery wearing out? It's several years old) but the charge cycle extended into the end-of-charge voltage inflection. Given that devices like the Battery Tender probably use analog comparators to sense when states change, the earlier curve may have terminated a tad early on noise . . . nonetheless, it appears that these whimpy little 'chargers' may be quite capable of stuffing all the snort back into an SVLA battery . . . all it takes is patience. Bob . . . ---------------------------------------- ( IF one aspires to be "world class", ) ( what ever you do must be exercised ) ( EVERY day . . . ) ( R. L. Nuckolls III ) ---------------------------------------- ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Feb 14, 2007
From: Gilles Thesee <Gilles.Thesee@ac-grenoble.fr>
Subject: Re: Hand soldering reliability
Bill Boyd a crit : > but the ISO9000 > seal on manufactured goods has always said to me, "No value added, so > you'll pay more." > ... > I like to think of it as a surtax on docile, politically-correct > sheep; the latest European export we didn't really need over here. > Have I got it wrong? > Hey Bill, Is US quality management really much better than ISO 9000, or is it just another manifestation of "NIH" ? Any comments on the technical content of the document ? Regards, Gilles Thesee http://contrails.free.fr ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Feb 14, 2007
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net>
Subject: Poor man's DAS
> >Bob, > >I'm interested in this Labjack too for a different application. My question >is, does it come with software that is loaded on a PC to control the >labjack? If not, what software does one use or does one have to write their >own from scratch? > >Bevan It comes with a manually operated test program that lets you individually wiggle any i/o port and make measurements. Really handy for setting up or troubleshooting. It also comes with a scaled down version of DAQFactory, the "express" version that lets you set up DAS and control routines and capture/plot data. I have the test tools up and running. I hope to get into the DAS application this weekend. You can also write routines to access the Labjack from a variety of applications such as LabView and Visual Basic. Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Feb 14, 2007
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net>
Subject: Re: Hand soldering reliability
> >You don't have it wrong but that's because ISO9000 says nothing about the >quality of the end product. All being ISO9000 certified means is you've >documented the processes you use and you perform periodic reviews (I'm WAY >oversimplifying and paraphrasing here but that's basically it). > >The idea is that you document the key processes so that results are >repeatable. They can be repeatably bad or repeatably good. Think of it >as the commercial version of "mil-spec". Things can be spec'd to turn out >like junk but you know that every one is junky in exactly the same way :) Yup. You got it. The fly in the soup is that one presumes that: (1) the process is golden. (2) the folks who describe the process used language that paints the same image in the reader's mind as the writer had when the words were written. (3) the reader can read and understand what is read. (4) if product doesn't come out as depicted in the process, it's presumed to be a problem with folks not following the rules. The whole idea was that proper documentation for any process could replace mentoring, apprenticeship, and replace dependency on continuous refinement of skills through experience. When I know that the ISO audit folks are going to be in the area, I'm careful to be out of the area. I'd hate to embarrass my boss. Bottom line is that documents crafted to satisfy the ISO9000 model are seldom very useful to craftsmen who strive to understand the processes they're using. Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Feb 14, 2007
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net>
Subject: Re: Most Reliable D-Sub Connections?
> > >Given a DB-44 with high density pins...... > >What's more reliable: > >1.) Machined pins crimped with DFM AFM8 4 point crimper > >2.) Formed pins crimped with open jaw hand crimper and soldered, w/ >insulation crimped also. > >3.) Formed pins only crimped with open jaw hand crimper When installed with the proper tools by an experienced user, all of these technologies will provide useful service. However, the machined pins and 4-point crimpers are as free of process-driven error as any of the technologies. I've pitched all my open-barrel tools and pin inventory. The ease with which the best-we-know-how-to-do can be accomplished with the machined pins is just too much to pass up. >Gold flashed? You bet. Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Feb 14, 2007
From: "Walter Fellows" <walter.fellows(at)gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Hand soldering reliability
Gilles Thanks for providing the reference document. Walter On 2/14/07, Gilles Thesee <Gilles.Thesee@ac-grenoble.fr> wrote: > > Gilles.Thesee@ac-grenoble.fr> > > Bill Boyd a =E9crit : > > but the ISO9000 > > seal on manufactured goods has always said to me, "No value added, so > > you'll pay more." > > ... > > I like to think of it as a surtax on docile, politically-correct > > sheep; the latest European export we didn't really need over here. > > Have I got it wrong? > > > > Hey Bill, > > > Is US quality management really much better than ISO 9000, or is it just > another manifestation of "NIH" ? > Any comments on the technical content of the document ? > > Regards, > Gilles Thesee > http://contrails.free.fr > > =========== =========== =========== > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Feb 14, 2007
From: Ken <klehman(at)albedo.net>
Subject: Re: Poor man's DAS
Isn't the real value of an intelligent charger simply that it prevents or limits overcharging and battery damage? I suspect that any charging scheme that prevents overcharging is 99% of the answer regardless of the exact programming algorithm. A wall wart and an LM317 voltage regulator set for float voltage for example has worked well for me for many years. Since the current at float voltage (self discharge current) seems to end up the same, I'm confident that the slow charge is fully charging the battery and that I'm not overcharging. As noted , limiting the voltage really only slows the last few percent of charging. I've been playing a bit with desulphating pulse charging. It hasn't helped badly sulphated batteries for me so I've been sceptical. However lately I've been using a 60 hz 40 volt square wave (discharging a capacitor) to periodically top up seldom used batteries (non aviation) and I think it might be improving the cranking current that I can get out of them and extending their lives at least a bit. Might be neat to try to generate some hard numbers for that. Ken > snip > . . . nonetheless, it appears that these > whimpy little 'chargers' may be quite capable of stuffing all > the snort back into an SVLA battery . . . all it takes is patience. > > Bob . . . > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "rtitsworth" <rtitsworth(at)mindspring.com>
Subject: Electronics Intl MVP-50 Dsub 37's connectors
Date: Feb 14, 2007
Bob, etal I have an ElecIntl MVP-50 engine monitor. The various probes connect to three Dsub 37 connectors on the box (via a user created harness). To get the engine prob wires through the firewall I have a few options: 1. Drill a hole, and use a flange and a piece of fire sleeve and a couple wire ties (quick and cheep) 2. Get a few large Amp/mil-spec bayonet style multi-pin round plugs (expensive and heavy) 3. Fabricate/find three Dsub 37 bulkhead connectors and use the provided cable components and a standard Dsub 37-to-37 straight thru cable. Thus: connect the probes to the provided Dsum37 connectors, connect those to the dsub37 bulkhead connectors, connect the back side of those to the dsub37-to-37 straight through cables, connect the other end of the cables to the engine monitor box (dsub 37). i.e. Seems it would be "clean" to just use the same style connectors throughout. Have you ever see a thing such as Dsub37 bulkhead socket? i.e. like a normal one with bigger flanges. Have you ever seen one that had male pins on one side and female plugs on the other (straight through)? Ideally it would be > 1/2" depth in the center to get through the firewall. Or perhaps a similar gender changer and then I'd find/make a mating cable? Rick ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Feb 14, 2007
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net>
Subject: Re: Poor man's DAS
> > Isn't the real value of an intelligent charger simply that it prevents > or limits overcharging and battery damage? I suspect that any charging > scheme that prevents overcharging is 99% of the answer regardless of the > exact programming algorithm. A wall wart and an LM317 voltage regulator > set for float voltage for example has worked well for me for many years. Yes . . . for sustaining a battery in storage, you support the battery at or slightly above the stable open circuit terminal voltage which is on the order of 12.9 to 13.0 volts at room temperature. To fully charge a battery at room temperature, 13.8 volts will eventually do it but to speed things up toward the end a shutoff/top-off of 14.0 to 15.0 volts is not uncommon for smart chargers. > Since the current at float voltage (self discharge current) seems to end > up the same, I'm confident that the slow charge is fully charging the > battery and that I'm not overcharging. As noted , limiting the voltage > really only slows the last few percent of charging. Well, I can try it out and see. On one of the recharge cycles I'll set it up on a constant current power supply limited at 13.0 volts and see what kind of energy the battery accepts. >I've been playing a bit with desulphating pulse charging. It hasn't helped >badly sulphated batteries for me so I've been sceptical. However lately >I've been using a 60 hz 40 volt square wave (discharging a capacitor) to >periodically top up seldom used batteries (non aviation) and I think it >might be improving the cranking current that I can get out of them and >extending their lives at least a bit. Might be neat to try to generate >some hard numbers for that. Just had a direct e-mail question from a reader: "Comments/Questions: Hi Bob. I took your class several years ago in Watsonville, CA and I thought you might have the answer for me. I am wondering how often my battery should be changed out. It is a Concorde RG-35AXC battery and it was placed in service "new" in October of 2002. This battery is in a C-182. It flies approximately 100 hours per year. I have noticed the battery not cranking the O-470 as strong as it did 6 months ago. I am just wondering what the expected life service for a battery of this type is. Thanks for your help!" To which I answered: There is no really hard data on "expected" service life of a battery. There are huge variables not the least of which include how many times it has been fully depleted and how long it was allowed to sit in a discharged state. I'll suggest that if the battery is noticeably soft while cranking an engine, it has probably been unserviceable as a standby source of energy for a long time. Replacement of batteries should be based on energy available to run endurance mode goodies for what ever length of time you choose. The FAA is fond of "30 minutes". I'm fond of "Duration of Fuel Aboard". Which ever you choose, if you periodically test the battery for its ability to meet your endurance goals, you'll find that it gets replaced long before it won't crank the engine any more. And again, "service life", whether based on engine cranking ability or demonstrated endurance performance can be influenced strongly by the environment in which the battery lives. I'd be hard pressed to either persuade or dissuade you from believing that your October 2002 purchase was not a good value. ----------------- There are a number of products that tout some ability to reverse sulfation. The problem is that the techniques range from simply "pulse charging" to finely tuned pulses of energy that supposedly match the natural resonant frequency of the sulfate molecule . . . 3.26 Mhz as I recall. Current levels for suggested pulses range from hundreds of milliamps to as much as 20 amps or more. Do a Goggle on "desulphation" and "dsulfation" and you'll get a total of 69,000 hits the vast majority of which discuss some process touted to rejuvenate a sulfate-distressed battery. Even our friend Jim Weir published an article in April 2002 Kitplanes that suggested some popular flavor of battery performance booster. The wild variability of processes and techniques offered in the marketplace suggests that nobody has hit upon the one true process. Some guy from Soneil in Canada sent me some chargers that featured "battery desulfating" capabilty. I've studied both a 14v and 28v version on a DAS and 'scope and as near as I can tell, they perform just like a Schumacher "smart charger" . . . I can detect no special energy output that might target the evil sulfate crystals. I'll suggest that parking the airplane on a maintainer and doing cap checks at one year and every 6 months thereafter will yield the ideal replacement interval for any given battery. If your endurance criteria is zero minutes, then run it until it won't crank the engine any more. Further, it's a sure bet that your perceived service life will exceed that of the guy in the next hangar that wants 3 hours of support for the e-bus. I just stuck a discharged SVLA battery on the 13.0 volt power supply. We'll see what the battery will suck up at that voltage. Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
From: <berkut13(at)berkut13.com>
Subject: Radio audio troubles
Date: Feb 14, 2007
Hi Gurus, It's been awhile, but I hope all is well with you all. I'm having audio issues with my new Becker 4201 #2 com and was wondering if you could help. The issue is the output audio from the radio whenever there is another radio switched into the same output. As soon as any other input is selected on the audio panel at the same time, the com#2 volume goes very very low and is overpowered. Sidetone during transmit seems un-affected as does the audio of the other sources selected - only the Com2 audio drops down. By itself...the radio sounds fine, and operates properly. The #1 com (iCom A200) works fine and is nice and loud with any number of inputs selected on the audio panel (KA-134). Adding additional inputs has little to no affect on com1 volume. It works great - as it should. According to the KA-134 schematics, the only thing it's doing with the phone outputs from the radios is mechanically switching them (no electronics) together to a single output line to the intercom. Because of this, I was wondering if the impedance differences of the radios are a problem. However, I have no real understanding of the magic involved here. They are as follows according to the respective docs: Com1 iCom - 500 ohms Com2 Becker - 600 ohms Eng mon - 560 ohms Nav KN-53 - 500 ohms RST Marker Receiver - unknown I am still puzzled why Com1 has no issues with any number of other inputs, and Com2 does....impedance differences and all. Any ideas? I have schematics for the KA-134 if you want to see it...but for this, it's just mechanical switches. Thanks for any help! James Redmon Berkut13 N97TX ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Feb 15, 2007
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net>
Subject: Re: Radio audio troubles
> >Hi Gurus, > >It's been awhile, but I hope all is well with you all. > >I'm having audio issues with my new Becker 4201 #2 com and was wondering if >you could help. > >The issue is the output audio from the radio whenever there is another radio >switched into the same output. As soon as any other input is selected on >the audio panel at the same time, the com#2 volume goes very very low and is >overpowered. Sidetone during transmit seems un-affected as does the audio of >the other sources selected - only the Com2 audio drops down. By >itself...the radio sounds fine, and operates properly. > >The #1 com (iCom A200) works fine and is nice and loud with any number of >inputs selected on the audio panel (KA-134). Adding additional inputs has >little to no affect on com1 volume. It works great - as it should. > >According to the KA-134 schematics, the only thing it's doing with the phone >outputs from the radios is mechanically switching them (no electronics) >together to a single output line to the intercom. Because of this, I was >wondering if the impedance differences of the radios are a problem. >However, I have no real understanding of the magic involved here. > >They are as follows according to the respective docs: >Com1 iCom - 500 ohms >Com2 Becker - 600 ohms >Eng mon - 560 ohms >Nav KN-53 - 500 ohms >RST Marker Receiver - unknown Actually, those "output impedance" values are completely bogus. See: http://aeroelectric.com/articles/Rev11/18Audio_R11.pdf The true output impedance of any of these devices is considerably lower than the values stated. What they really mean to say is, "This product will produce rated output performance when presented with xxx ohms of LOAD. If the mental image I have from reading your words is coincident with your own, then it appears that something may be amiss in the audio isolation amplifier. The whole idea of such a device is ISOLATION. This means that adding, deleting or suffering a failure in any of the audio sources should have no effect on performance of remaining sources. Try swapping affected radios to different inputs to the amplifier and see if the symptoms swap with the radios or stay common to the switches on the amplifier. Bob . . . ---------------------------------------- ( IF one aspires to be "world class", ) ( what ever you do must be exercised ) ( EVERY day . . . ) ( R. L. Nuckolls III ) ---------------------------------------- ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Feb 15, 2007
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net>
Subject: Re: Electronics Intl MVP-50 Dsub 37's connectors
> > > >Bob, etal > >I have an ElecIntl MVP-50 engine monitor. The various probes connect to >three Dsub 37 connectors on the box (via a user created harness). >To get the engine prob wires through the firewall I have a few options: > >1. Drill a hole, and use a flange and a piece of fire sleeve and a couple >wire ties (quick and cheep) >2. Get a few large Amp/mil-spec bayonet style multi-pin round plugs >(expensive and heavy) >3. Fabricate/find three Dsub 37 bulkhead connectors and use the provided >cable components and a standard Dsub 37-to-37 straight thru cable. Thus: >connect the probes to the provided Dsum37 connectors, connect those to the >dsub37 bulkhead connectors, connect the back side of those to the >dsub37-to-37 straight through cables, connect the other end of the cables to >the engine monitor box (dsub 37). i.e. Seems it would be "clean" to just >use the same style connectors throughout. > >Have you ever see a thing such as Dsub37 bulkhead socket? Not one that's fire-rated . . . >i.e. like a >normal one with bigger flanges. Have you ever seen one that had male pins >on one side and female plugs on the other (straight through)? Ideally it >would be > 1/2" depth in the center to get through the firewall. Or perhaps >a similar gender changer and then I'd find/make a mating cable? What's your design goal? If ease of installation an maintenance supercedes concerns for fire wall integrity, then panel mounted d-subs to take wires through the fire wall are a consideration. If it were my airplane, I'd take the bundle through fittings not unlike these . . http://aeroelectric.com/articles/Firewall_Penetration/firewall.html These are techniques used on some present production TC aircraft. There are no doubt equivalent and perhaps more attractive techniques. I've not had time to research them. Bob . . . ---------------------------------------- ( IF one aspires to be "world class", ) ( what ever you do must be exercised ) ( EVERY day . . . ) ( R. L. Nuckolls III ) ---------------------------------------- ________________________________________________________________________________
From: " Peter Laurence" <Dr.Laurence(at)mbdi.org>
Subject: Re: Correct resistor for 12v LED
Date: Feb 15, 2007
Don, If I read this correctly, The max amps of the LED is 20MA. If this is being used in your airplane, then it's going to see approx. 13V. This would require a 13/.020 -- somewere around 650 ohm resistor. Peter > > I have several 12v, 12ma LED's from Radio Shack (part 276-272)in my panel. > According to the calculators (15V max Supply, 12V LED, 12ma), I need a > 27.0kohms, 1/8w resistor. Two questions: > > 1) led.linear1.org reports "The wizard thinks your forward voltage spec is > suspiciously high, but will proceed with the calculations.". The input > voltage is listed as 12-16V, 12-20ma, so I ASSuME that the calculation is > correct that it just does not recognize 12v LEDs? > > 2) Where do I find 1/8w resistors? > > Don Mack | don(at)dmack.net | dmack.net > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Feb 15, 2007
From: Ernest Christley <echristley(at)nc.rr.com>
Subject: Re: Electronics Intl MVP-50 Dsub 37's connectors
Robert L. Nuckolls, III wrote: > > What's your design goal? If ease of installation an maintenance > supercedes concerns for fire wall integrity, then panel mounted > d-subs to take wires through the fire wall are a consideration. > I've either have, or have had, some D-subs that had a ceramic material in the center that held the pins. I have no technical data at all about what the filler material was, but it looked more robust than the typical plastic center sections. I don't know where I got the old connectors from, and a quick Google search didn't turn up anything useful. If I still have them in my toolbox, I'll post a picture before and after I put a torch to them. -- ,|"|"|, Ernest Christley | ----===<{{(oQo)}}>===---- Dyke Delta Builder | o| d |o http://ernest.isa-geek.org | ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Feb 15, 2007
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net>
Subject: Re: Correct resistor for 12v LED
Check this part out at: http://www.radioshack.com/product/index.jsp?productId 62570&cp It's not very explicit in the listing but examination of the photos shows a resistor already installed. Further, on one page, they call this a "12v" LED. This product can be hooked directly to your electrical system with NO external resistor needed. Bob . . . > > >Don, > >If I read this correctly, The max amps of the LED is 20MA. If this is >being used in your airplane, then it's going to see approx. 13V. This >would require a 13/.020 -- somewere around 650 ohm resistor. > >Peter > > >> >>I have several 12v, 12ma LED's from Radio Shack (part 276-272)in my panel. >>According to the calculators (15V max Supply, 12V LED, 12ma), I need a >>27.0kohms, 1/8w resistor. Two questions: >> >>1) led.linear1.org reports "The wizard thinks your forward voltage spec is >>suspiciously high, but will proceed with the calculations.". The input >>voltage is listed as 12-16V, 12-20ma, so I ASSuME that the calculation is >>correct that it just does not recognize 12v LEDs? >> >>2) Where do I find 1/8w resistors? >> >>Don Mack | don(at)dmack.net | dmack.net >> >> >> >> >> >> > > >-- >4:17 PM > > >-- incoming mail is certified Virus Free. >Checked by AVG. Bob . . . ---------------------------------------- ( IF one aspires to be "world class", ) ( what ever you do must be exercised ) ( EVERY day . . . ) ( R. L. Nuckolls III ) ---------------------------------------- ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Feb 15, 2007
From: Dave N6030X <N6030X(at)DaveMorris.com>
Subject: Re: Electronics Intl MVP-50 Dsub 37's connectors
Is there any problem with breaking a thermocouple wire at the firewall with a bulkhead connector? Dave Morris At 08:08 PM 2/14/2007, you wrote: > > > >Bob, etal > >I have an ElecIntl MVP-50 engine monitor. The various probes connect to >three Dsub 37 connectors on the box (via a user created harness). >To get the engine prob wires through the firewall I have a few options: > >1. Drill a hole, and use a flange and a piece of fire sleeve and a couple >wire ties (quick and cheep) >2. Get a few large Amp/mil-spec bayonet style multi-pin round plugs >(expensive and heavy) >3. Fabricate/find three Dsub 37 bulkhead connectors and use the provided >cable components and a standard Dsub 37-to-37 straight thru cable. Thus: >connect the probes to the provided Dsum37 connectors, connect those to the >dsub37 bulkhead connectors, connect the back side of those to the >dsub37-to-37 straight through cables, connect the other end of the cables to >the engine monitor box (dsub 37). i.e. Seems it would be "clean" to just >use the same style connectors throughout. > >Have you ever see a thing such as Dsub37 bulkhead socket? i.e. like a >normal one with bigger flanges. Have you ever seen one that had male pins >on one side and female plugs on the other (straight through)? Ideally it >would be > 1/2" depth in the center to get through the firewall. Or perhaps >a similar gender changer and then I'd find/make a mating cable? > >Rick > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: <berkut13(at)berkut13.com>
Subject: Re: Avionics-List: Re: Com audio issues
Date: Feb 15, 2007
Yup...switches with "ganged" inputs. See below link for the schematic. (300K .jpg) http://www.berkut13.com/dloads/ka-134.jpg I'm glad you attached Dan's reply, I never received it. I guess I can perform surgery on the input lines and install a 220-ohm resistor on each. Yeah, it's a hunk of junk King! I wish I had never installed it...but it's far worse to try to extract it and start over now. Anyone know if the VAL (same size) has a isolation circuit built in? It might become a "throw money at it" solution if the resistors don't help. What I don't understand is why Com1 (iCom) can be "switched" in with all the other inputs with no adverse affects. But, the com2 (Becker) can't - ANY input source that's switches in takes the Becker to almost zero and, of course, when the volume is turned all the way up it's all distorted. Add all you want to the iCom and the blend in just fine. Is that what John is suggesting might be cause by the iCom possibly having a significantly lower impedance than the other radios? I can also tell you that the iCom's output is very robust compared to the other radios. It's quite loud, deep and clear with very little turn of the volume knob - very sensitive. Not sure that says anything other that it's got a good amp on it, but I'll put that out there too. Again, thanks for all the help! James ----- Original Message ----- From: "Jesse Kluijfhout, PE1RUI" <jessevli(at)zeelandnet.nl> Sent: Thursday, February 15, 2007 11:22 AM Subject: Avionics-List: Re: Com audio issues > --> Avionics-List message posted by: "Jesse Kluijfhout, PE1RUI" > > > Suspect the Icom for low impedance as Dan descriped. I did had the same > problem with a no audio panel (just switches) aircraft. When the Icom > audio output was turned on, the audio of the other radio would be very low > as well. The resistor as Dan descriped solved this issue. > > Best regards, > > Jesse >> It is rather poor practice to just mechanically parallel the outputs. >> Normally the audio panel would provide a simple op amp circuit which >> would >> enable the outputs to be combined without affecting each other at all. >> Are >> you sure it does just parallel them all up? If it does then I would >> expect >> any output to be attenuated noticeably when paralleling multiple others. >> John >> James, >> >> I agree with John. Actually the output impedance of each unit is >> probably >> not 500 or 600 ohms. It could be as small as 1 ohm or as large as 600 >> ohms, but >> >> designed to drive a 500 or 600 ohm load. If you put a resistor of about >> 200 >> ohms in series with each unit, then you give each one a chance to compete >> with >> >> the others. >> >> Dan Hopper >> RV-7A >> Retired EE ________________________________________________________________________________
From: <berkut13(at)berkut13.com>
Subject: Re: Radio audio troubles
Date: Feb 15, 2007
> Actually, those "output impedance" values are completely > bogus. See: > > http://aeroelectric.com/articles/Rev11/18Audio_R11.pdf > > The true output impedance of any of these devices > is considerably lower than the values stated. What > they really mean to say is, "This product will produce > rated output performance when presented with xxx ohms > of LOAD. I forwarded this to the office. It'll take a bit to read and absorb it. > If the mental image I have from reading your words is > coincident with your own, then it appears that something > may be amiss in the audio isolation amplifier. Amiss?...yup..there isn't one. So, that should be "amiss-ing" ;-) > Try swapping affected radios to different inputs to > the amplifier and see if the symptoms swap with the radios > or stay common to the switches on the amplifier. I sent an email with a link to the KA-134 schematic...it's just switches for these circuits to the "phones output". -James ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "John and Kim Lumkes" <lumkes(at)msoe.edu>
Subject: Re: Poor man's DAS
Date: Feb 15, 2007
I can personally vouch for the Labjack series. I have purchased and installed approximately 25 units in a teaching laboratory; no matter how many mistakes the student made, only one unit ever failed and the factory replaced it at no charge. I now use them again at my "new" position, and have my own personal one at home. I have used it to record data around the house (temp's, flow, etc.) and plan on installing one in the airplane with a mini-ITX PC to have my own data logger / EIS. The interface can easily be done in Labview, and having the "carpc" will also allow me to run PocketFMS on a split screen. This is definitely "experimental" and so all required gauges will also be "steam wired". There so many ICs now like thermocouple amplifiers with built in cold junctions, small economical pressure transducers, etc., that adding features are easier now than ever before for amateur electrical system integrators (like myself). Long term plans: adding solid state gyros (IC chips now have this ability) for AHRS and wing leveling / GPS based auto-pilot. John ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "6440 Auto Parts" <sales(at)6440autoparts.com>
Subject: Re: Correct resistor for 12v LED
Date: Feb 15, 2007
They look like they would make a very clean looking and easy install. Also looks like they have them in green and red. Randy ----- Original Message ----- From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net> Sent: Thursday, February 15, 2007 11:50 AM Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Correct resistor for 12v LED > > > Check this part out at: > > http://www.radioshack.com/product/index.jsp?productId 62570&cp > > It's not very explicit in the listing but examination of the > photos shows a resistor already installed. Further, on one > page, they call this a "12v" LED. > > This product can be hooked directly to your electrical system with > NO external resistor needed. > > Bob . . . > > >> >> >>Don, >> >>If I read this correctly, The max amps of the LED is 20MA. If this is >>being used in your airplane, then it's going to see approx. 13V. This >>would require a 13/.020 -- somewere around 650 ohm resistor. >> >>Peter >> >> >> >> >>> >>>I have several 12v, 12ma LED's from Radio Shack (part 276-272)in my >>>panel. >>>According to the calculators (15V max Supply, 12V LED, 12ma), I need a >>>27.0kohms, 1/8w resistor. Two questions: >>> >>>1) led.linear1.org reports "The wizard thinks your forward voltage spec >>>is >>>suspiciously high, but will proceed with the calculations.". The input >>>voltage is listed as 12-16V, 12-20ma, so I ASSuME that the calculation is >>>correct that it just does not recognize 12v LEDs? >>> >>>2) Where do I find 1/8w resistors? >>> >>>Don Mack | don(at)dmack.net | dmack.net >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>-- >>4:17 PM >> >> >> >> >> >>-- incoming mail is certified Virus Free. >>Checked by AVG. > > > Bob . . . > > ---------------------------------------- > ( IF one aspires to be "world class", ) > ( what ever you do must be exercised ) > ( EVERY day . . . ) > ( R. L. Nuckolls III ) > ---------------------------------------- > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Feb 15, 2007
From: Dan Reeves <n516dr(at)yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: Hand soldering reliability
Exactly! Nothing against great doco and processes but, in my opinion, the real goal of ISO, CMM, etc is to make people Plug and Play. After all, who needs a highly skilled Robert L. Nuckoll's for example when you can Unplug him and Play someone else who has their handy-dandy, repeatable, ISO, CMM, certified, process in hand? (Rhetorical question,,,,I do!!!) Creativity? ISO, CMM, etc are the kiss of death in this regard. A process is like a road map with one road on it. Hit a roadblock and good luck getting anyone to realize there are a million other roads that will take you to the same place. Tools? I hear there are great tools out there like laser scapal's,,,doesn't make me want let someone who is unskilled anywhere near me even though they have a great tool. Managers seem to confuse the concept that great tools make the highly skilled more productive,,,,they don't make the unskilled skilled. "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" wrote: > >You don't have it wrong but that's because ISO9000 says nothing about the >quality of the end product. All being ISO9000 certified means is you've >documented the processes you use and you perform periodic reviews (I'm WAY >oversimplifying and paraphrasing here but that's basically it). > >The idea is that you document the key processes so that results are >repeatable. They can be repeatably bad or repeatably good. Think of it >as the commercial version of "mil-spec". Things can be spec'd to turn out >like junk but you know that every one is junky in exactly the same way :) Yup. You got it. The fly in the soup is that one presumes that: (1) the process is golden. (2) the folks who describe the process used language that paints the same image in the reader's mind as the writer had when the words were written. (3) the reader can read and understand what is read. (4) if product doesn't come out as depicted in the process, it's presumed to be a problem with folks not following the rules. The whole idea was that proper documentation for any process could replace mentoring, apprenticeship, and replace dependency on continuous refinement of skills through experience. When I know that the ISO audit folks are going to be in the area, I'm careful to be out of the area. I'd hate to embarrass my boss. Bottom line is that documents crafted to satisfy the ISO9000 model are seldom very useful to craftsmen who strive to understand the processes they're using. Bob . . . --------------------------------- We won't tell. Get more on shows you hate to love (and love to hate): Yahoo! TV's Guilty Pleasures list. ________________________________________________________________________________
From: <berkut13(at)berkut13.com>
Subject: Re: Radio audio troubles
Date: Feb 15, 2007
Yup...switches with "ganged" inputs. See below link for the schematic. (300K .jpg) http://www.berkut13.com/dloads/ka-134.jpg I'm glad you attached Dan's reply, I never received it. I guess I can perform surgery on the input lines and install a 220-ohm resistor on each. Yeah, it's a hunk of junk King! I wish I had never installed it...but it's far worse to try to extract it and start over now. Anyone know if the VAL (same size) AP-100 has a isolation circuit built in? It might become a "throw money at it" solution if the resistors don't help. What I don't understand is why Com1 (iCom) can be "switched" in with all the other inputs with no adverse affects. But, the com2 (Becker) can't - ANY input source that's switches in takes the Becker to almost zero and, of course, when the volume is turned all the way up it's all distorted. Add all you want to the iCom and the blend in just fine. Is that what John is suggesting might be cause by the iCom possibly having a significantly lower impedance than the other radios? I can also tell you that the iCom's output is very robust compared to the other radios. It's quite loud, deep and clear with very little turn of the volume knob - very sensitive. Not sure that says anything other that it's got a good amp on it, but I'll put that out there too. Again, thanks for all the help! James ----- Original Message ----- From: "Jesse Kluijfhout, PE1RUI" <jessevli(at)zeelandnet.nl> Sent: Thursday, February 15, 2007 11:22 AM Subject: Avionics-List: Re: Com audio issues > --> Avionics-List message posted by: "Jesse Kluijfhout, PE1RUI" > > > Suspect the Icom for low impedance as Dan descriped. I did had the same > problem with a no audio panel (just switches) aircraft. When the Icom > audio output was turned on, the audio of the other radio would be very low > as well. The resistor as Dan descriped solved this issue. > > Best regards, > > Jesse >> It is rather poor practice to just mechanically parallel the outputs. >> Normally the audio panel would provide a simple op amp circuit which >> would >> enable the outputs to be combined without affecting each other at all. >> Are >> you sure it does just parallel them all up? If it does then I would >> expect >> any output to be attenuated noticeably when paralleling multiple others. >> John >> James, >> >> I agree with John. Actually the output impedance of each unit is >> probably >> not 500 or 600 ohms. It could be as small as 1 ohm or as large as 600 >> ohms, but >> >> designed to drive a 500 or 600 ohm load. If you put a resistor of about >> 200 >> ohms in series with each unit, then you give each one a chance to compete >> with >> >> the others. >> >> Dan Hopper >> RV-7A >> Retired EE ________________________________________________________________________________
From: <berkut13(at)berkut13.com>
Subject: Re: Com audio issues
Date: Feb 15, 2007
Referring to the schematic for the KA-134 in previous email: >>Are you sure that the switches connect the output of your problem >>audio source directly to another output? Maybe I have missed something. > I see what I was missing! I didn't see the "headphone out" at the top > right. Yeah...and the bloody thing is marketed as having an isolation amp built in. That's true...but what they don't tell you is that it's for the cabin speaker and ramp hail ONLY! Grrrrr!! ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Feb 15, 2007
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net>
Subject: Re: Electronics Intl MVP-50 Dsub 37's connectors
> >Is there any problem with breaking a thermocouple wire at the firewall >with a bulkhead connector? Not at all . . . with reservations. As you pass from thermocouple wire to (stuff) to thermocouple wire, you need to be sure that you do exactly the same thing to the other paired thermocouple conductor. I've used a LOT of d-sub connectors to make handy breaks in bundles containing thermocouple wires. Use the machined pins to get a really good grip on the thermocouple wire and it will be fine. Yes, you're introducing "foreign" alloys into the system however, the "new" thermocouples are always in pairs and co-located so that their effects are equal-opposite and cancel out. Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Feb 15, 2007
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net>
Subject: Re: Speaker termination
>Hi Bob, > I'm about to close up the front of my "9" and there is a pair of >wires coming from the Icom A200 for an external speaker. Should I >terminate them with a resistor or just leave them open. I do not intend >to utilize a speaker in the cockpit. Good for you. Refer to the instruction manual. If they don't call out a dummy load, you can just leave it open. Actually, the few radios I've see that called for a dummy load on unused outputs would probably have been quit stable without it. The only think I can think of that would prompt a designer to require loading an unused input is to accommodate an output stage instability under light loads. Modern audio amplifier ships don't have this problem. Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Feb 15, 2007
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net>
Subject: Re: Hand soldering reliability
> > The bottom line is that 95% plus of these documents is > > either ignored or forgotten in the practice of processes > > described therein. Of course, when some quality issue > > pops up that can be attributed to "failure to observe > > the ISO9000 approved processes", then some poor sap > > can be tagged with fault and summarily dealt with. > >Quality circles, TQM, 6-Sigma, and all the rest now in the dust >bin....the ISO business seems to have more legs than most of >the others, tho. After awhile you'll spend most of your time >tracking performance instead of performing. I guess humans are >just hell-bent to quantify everything. Not all humans, just those tasked with 'managing' processes they do not understand. The Policy and Procedure meme is a "Virus of the Mind". See . . . http://www.cscs.umich.edu/~crshalizi/Dawkins/viruses-of-the-mind.html Some such virii have run their course in the adventures of human kind, others are still growing and there are certainly new ones yet to germinate, gestate and run their courses. I'm working a noise issue on a motor right now that is plagued with a variety of memes . . . all of which push us away from the best-we-know-how-to-do, add weight to the airplane, generate cert programs that will run months, and produce far too many customers who will remember unhappy experiences with out product. The science for the solution is stone simple, light, and an excellent example of how two gray-haired ol' farts sat down and pooled their collective understanding and experience. Of course, this runs against the ISO9000 and FAR memes. I have suggested on occasion that our official ISO9000 documentation package could be reduced to one page that states, "Hire smart folks, give them authority and then run out ahead of your troops removing impediments to progress." Instead, all of the folks I work with are suffering various forms of paralysis that arise from their own intellectual virii. My task is made several times more difficult because I have to take on the role of physician specializing in maladies that have nothing to do with engineering. Its a dirty job but somebody's got to do it. Bob . . . ---------------------------------------- ( IF one aspires to be "world class", ) ( what ever you do must be exercised ) ( EVERY day . . . ) ( R. L. Nuckolls III ) ---------------------------------------- ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Feb 15, 2007
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net>
Subject: Re: Com audio issues
> >Referring to the schematic for the KA-134 in previous email: > >>>Are you sure that the switches connect the output of your problem >>>audio source directly to another output? Maybe I have missed something. > >>I see what I was missing! I didn't see the "headphone out" at the top right. > > >Yeah...and the bloody thing is marketed as having an isolation amp built >in. That's true...but what they don't tell you is that it's for the cabin >speaker and ramp hail ONLY! Grrrrr!! Hmmmm . . . well . . . there's always plan-b: http://www.aeroelectric.com/DIY/Audio_Isolation_Amplifier.pdf Bob . . . ---------------------------------------- ( IF one aspires to be "world class", ) ( what ever you do must be exercised ) ( EVERY day . . . ) ( R. L. Nuckolls III ) ---------------------------------------- ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Tim Andres" <tim2542(at)sbcglobal.net>
Subject: Pulse width modulation on linear actuators
Date: Feb 15, 2007
Can any one tell if the duty cycle on a PWM will equate at least roughly with motor speed? ie will a 20% duty cycle slow the motor down to approximately %20 or does it not work that way? I have a linear actuator for pitch trim that that travels 2"/sec, I need about .5"/sec. Thanks, Tim Andres -- ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Feb 16, 2007
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net>
Subject: Re: Pulse width modulation on linear actuators
> >Can any one tell if the duty cycle on a PWM will equate at least roughly >with motor speed? ie will a 20% duty cycle slow the motor down to >approximately %20 or does it not work that way? I have a linear actuator for >pitch trim that that travels 2"/sec, I need about .5"/sec. Probably. PM motors have field fields which makes RPM proportional to applied voltage. The RMS (power) available from any source is also proportional to duty cycle for a non-continuous flow. In any case, I presume you're going to make the duty cycle adjustable so whether it takes 25% duty cycle or 27% duty cycle to achieve exactly the speed you want is irrelevant. You can also use linear techniques. An adjustable but regulated voltage source not unlike the dimmers described in . . . http://www.aeroelectric.com/articles//DimmerFabrication.pdf . . . may be considered also. How much current does your motor draw at full speed? Bob . . . ---------------------------------------- ( IF one aspires to be "world class", ) ( what ever you do must be exercised ) ( EVERY day . . . ) ( R. L. Nuckolls III ) ---------------------------------------- ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Feb 16, 2007
From: Ernest Christley <echristley(at)nc.rr.com>
Subject: Re: Pulse width modulation on linear actuators
Tim Andres wrote: > >Can any one tell if the duty cycle on a PWM will equate at least roughly >with motor speed? ie will a 20% duty cycle slow the motor down to >approximately %20 or does it not work that way? I have a linear actuator for >pitch trim that that travels 2"/sec, I need about .5"/sec. >Thanks, Tim Andres > > > MPJA sells a motor control unit that does exactly that and at just over $12, I don't think you can beat the price. http://mpja.com/productview.asp?product=6067+KT -- ,|"|"|, Ernest Christley | ----===<{{(oQo)}}>===---- Dyke Delta Builder | o| d |o http://ernest.isa-geek.org | ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "John and Kim Lumkes" <lumkes(at)msoe.edu>
Subject: Re: Poor man's DAS
Date: Feb 16, 2007
Kevin, High Temps: Standard thermocouples with a an Analog Device AD594 or similar Low Temps: many options, I use a LM34, outputs degrees F in mV with a 5V supply Cheap Low precision distance: Sharp IR GP2D120 Low pressures: check Jameco or similar, search Keywords for pressure sensor; they have several Motorola Freescale 0-1.45psi for 8-14 dollars. You can directly measure a thermocouple output with a good 16bit A/D converter; probably not directly with the labjack. This is only a small sampling of the exploding field of "cheap" electronics, very capable linear IC circuits, and little programmable controllers. Bob and John, Thank you very much for the recommendation for the Labjack. This unit should allow me to add some missing items to my flight test data. John - where do you purchase suitable, affordable, robust transducers? I'm looking to measure some temperatures, and flight control positions. Kevin Horton RV-8 (finishing kit) Ottawa, Canada ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Feb 16, 2007
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net>
Subject: Re: Poor man's DAS
> >Bob and John, > >Thank you very much for the recommendation for the Labjack. This >unit should allow me to add some missing items to my flight test data. > >John - where do you purchase suitable, affordable, robust >transducers? I'm looking to measure some temperatures, and flight >control positions. For temperatures up to 150C consider the LM135 series devices by National. These are voltage sensitive zeners with a regulation voltage of 10mv/degree-K. You can bias these little fellers up with a single resistor pull-up to 5v. The measured voltage at 25C is (273+25)x10 = 2.980 volts. For higher temperatures, my favorite jelly-bean is the AD596/597 series thermocouple to 10mv/degree-C converter chips. For control positions, consider "string pots" or "draw string pots". These are spring loaded drums of fine cable mounted on a potentiometer. See: http://www.dataq.com/support/documentation/pdf/article_pdfs/stringpotan.pdf http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Data_Acquisition/String-Pot.jpg Here's one I made using a piece of retraction spring from a pocket tape measure, a miniature RV-4 series potentiometer and some odd bits of aluminum stock. The "cable" is 7-strand u-control flying wire from a hobby shop. This was used to measure a stroke of about 1/2" on the master brake cylinders of a cockpit simulator. You can measure longer strokes by using multi-turn pots. The metal work is pretty straightforward. These can be had as purchased items. See: http://www.globalspec.com/FeaturedProducts/Detail/celesco/Compact_String_Pot_SP1/29565/0?fromSpotlight=1 http://www.unimeasure.com/ http://www.impresssensors.co.uk/draw-wire.htm They're not inexpensive. Bob . . . ---------------------------------------- ( IF one aspires to be "world class", ) ( what ever you do must be exercised ) ( EVERY day . . . ) ( R. L. Nuckolls III ) ---------------------------------------- ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "rtitsworth" <rtitsworth(at)mindspring.com>
Subject: 24v vs 27 volt power supplies
Date: Feb 16, 2007
Bob, etal, I'm building a 24v (28v) experimental aircraft power system (Z14-dual battery-dual bus) using a "series" of 18Ah 12v RG batteries for each 24v "battery". I currently do not own a 24V battery charger. Since I do not generally plan on re-charging the batteries often, I was planning on charging them (individually or in parallel) (when necessary) with a 12 volt charger (which I currently own). I've also thought of purchasing one of the smaller 24v 1Amp battery tenders for easy top off and/or 90% charging when time allows. However, I'd like to have a 24v (28v) power source for bench testing and hanger testing/training. Assume a required current draw rate of 10-20 Amps for perhaps several hours at a time. Thus, I'm assuming the 1Amp rate of the tender will be insufficient/undesirable, even if hooked to the fully charged batteries, as the batteries could get drawn down pretty low after a couple hours (and I don't want to abuse my new batteries). Thus, I am considering getting a 24v (28v) benchtop power supply or (full size) 24v battery charger. Ideally, I'd like to use the power supply (or charger) with the plane (in the hanger with elec equipment installed) and at home for bench testing. I (ignorantly) envision two alternatives: 1] Get a 24v battery charger and also use it as a bench testing power supply. (or...) 2] Get a 24v (or 27v) power supply for bench testing and also connect it to the plane's ground power jack for in-plane electronics testing/training. What are the ramifications of using a 24v battery charger as a 24v power supply for bench testing aircraft avionics (@ home without a battery)? I realize the output will be more like 28v - but I'm assuming the avionics will be happy with that. Will it even work? What if I used a couple of old auto batteries at home to "quiet/buffer" the charger? Or alternatively, if I get a benchtop power supply (10-20 amps'ish), should I get a 24v model or 27v model? Seems the 24v model might still abuse/exercise the airplane batteries a bit since the actual resting battery voltage might be slightly above 24v until they are drawn down some. Seems however that the 27v model might get a bit overloaded if the batteries aren't fully charged when the power supply is attached as it will try and lift (charge) the batteries to 27v (ASAP-unregulated). Other advantages/disadvantages and considerations? Or, perhaps these are a couple of naive thoughts (i.e. a "little" knowledge can be dangerous). p.s. The thought crossed my mind the in lieu of a build-log I'd just submit a sequential list of all my naive questions to this (very helpful) forum (lol) - i.e. the FAA 51% education and recreation mandate. Seems there's no end to the learning opportunities here, thanks all in advance. Rick ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Feb 16, 2007
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net>
Subject: Re: 24v vs 27 volt power supplies
> > >Bob, etal, > >I'm building a 24v (28v) experimental aircraft power system (Z14-dual >battery-dual bus) using a "series" of 18Ah 12v RG batteries for each 24v >"battery". >I currently do not own a 24V battery charger. >Since I do not generally plan on re-charging the batteries often, I was >planning on charging them (individually or in parallel) (when necessary) >with a 12 volt charger (which I currently own). You can do this. Batteries charge based on impressed terminal voltage. In days of old, service stations and auto-parts stores had many batteries sharing a single power supply for maintaining many batteries in a ready to sell state. Similarly, a battery charger of any size has no way of knowing how many batteries are connected . . . the act of adding more individual batteries appears no differently to the charger than if you'd simply connected a single, larger battery. >I've also thought of purchasing one of the smaller 24v 1Amp battery tenders >for easy top off and/or 90% charging when time allows. Early results of experiments we're conducting right now suggest that the line of Lilliputian chargers known as Battery Tenders, Battery Minders, et. als. ARE capable of fully charging a battery of any practical size . . . if you have the patience. I'll have a better definition of this assertion in a few days. >However, I'd like to have a 24v (28v) power source for bench testing and >hanger testing/training. Assume a required current draw rate of 10-20 Amps >for perhaps several hours at a time. Thus, I'm assuming the 1Amp rate of >the tender will be insufficient/undesirable, even if hooked to the fully >charged batteries, as the batteries could get drawn down pretty low after a >couple hours (and I don't want to abuse my new batteries). Yeah . . . I wish you hadn't bought new batteries for your shop work . . . It was hard to stand in the booth at OSH and watch folks walk away with brand new batteries after having revealed that they were a year or more away from flying. Nonetheless, it's quite possible to keep these critters reasonably 'fresh' in anticipation of first flight. Your 20A requirement is pretty severe. What kind of electrowhizzy takes that much snort? If this is a real requirement, the options get expensive. You might be able to find some surplus power supplies. 24v are common in outputs of up to 10A. Here's a 28V power supply: http://mpja.com/productview.asp?product=16033+PS These can be paralleled so if you can find some really cheap ones as industrial surplus, you can parallel for more snort. This on is unusual in that it's rated at 28V output . . . 24 is more common but those will run your goodies just fine. Keep in mind that your 24 v battery starts out at 25 volts and goes down from there. 22v is 95% used up. So your electrowhizzies should run just fine from a 24.0 volt supply. >Or alternatively, if I get a benchtop power supply (10-20 amps'ish), should >I get a 24v model or 27v model? Seems the 24v model might still >abuse/exercise the airplane batteries a bit since the actual resting battery >voltage might be slightly above 24v until they are drawn down some. Seems >however that the 27v model might get a bit overloaded if the batteries >aren't fully charged when the power supply is attached as it will try and >lift (charge) the batteries to 27v (ASAP-unregulated). If you get a real technician's power supply, it will be adjustable voltage and current limit and very quiet for use as a stand along supply. HOWEVER . . . take care in using bench supplies to charge batteries. For example, when deprived of AC input power (switch turned off or power fails) some supplies will go into ov trip (crowbar) and put a dead short across the battery. Very smelly smoke. Consider a surplus supply like this: http://tinyurl.com/2lrw8e I have several critters like this around the shop and they're quite useful for doing ANY task. The really neat feature is adjustable current limiting. You can set the supply's output so that should the unfortunate fault occur, energy delivered into the system is not capable burning things. >p.s. The thought crossed my mind the in lieu of a build-log I'd just submit >a sequential list of all my naive questions to this (very helpful) forum >(lol) - i.e. the FAA 51% education and recreation mandate. Seems there's no >end to the learning opportunities here, thanks all in advance. You got that right. KNOWLEDGE is essentially free, EDUCATION is always expensive. Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "kesleyelectric" <kesleyelectric(at)chooseblue.coop>
Subject: FW: voltmeter switch
Date: Feb 16, 2007
_____ From: kesleyelectric [mailto:kesleyelectric(at)chooseblue.coop] Sent: Wednesday, February 14, 2007 11:14 AM Subject: voltmeter switch Bob and list, In a reply a few days ago, it was suggested that a voltmeter on the endurance bus would be a good idea to monitor the health of the battery and the SD8 during alternator out operation. Rather than installing a second voltmeter, I am considering using a 2-3 switch for the e-bus alternate feed and wiring it as shown on the attached diagram. The voltmeter is a UMA "steam gauge". The voltmeter would read the voltage on the appropriate bus, according to the position of the switch. Feedback welcome. Regards, Tom Barter Avid Magnum ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Feb 16, 2007
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net>
Subject: Re: FW: voltmeter switch
> >Bob and list, >In a reply a few days ago, it was suggested that a voltmeter on the >endurance bus would be a good idea to monitor the health of the battery >and the SD8 during alternator out operation. Rather than installing a >second voltmeter, I am considering using a 2-3 switch for the e-bus >alternate feed and wiring it as shown on the attached diagram. The >voltmeter is a UMA "steam gauge". The voltmeter would read the voltage on >the appropriate bus, according to the position of the switch. > >Feedback welcome. > >Regards, That's how I would do it. Bob . . . ---------------------------------------- ( IF one aspires to be "world class", ) ( what ever you do must be exercised ) ( EVERY day . . . ) ( R. L. Nuckolls III ) ---------------------------------------- ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Feb 16, 2007
From: "Walter Fellows" <walter.fellows(at)GMAIL.COM>
Subject: Re: 24v vs 27 volt power supplies
Bob Thanks, this comprehensive guide to power supplies is very helpful. I run into relatively high amperage surplus units from time to time but have never been quite sure of what features to look for. Walter On 2/16/07, Robert L. Nuckolls, III wrote: > > nuckollsr(at)cox.net> > > > > > > > >Bob, etal, > > > >I'm building a 24v (28v) experimental aircraft power system (Z14-dual > >battery-dual bus) using a "series" of 18Ah 12v RG batteries for each 24v > >"battery". > > >I currently do not own a 24V battery charger. > > > >Since I do not generally plan on re-charging the batteries often, I was > >planning on charging them (individually or in parallel) (when necessary) > >with a 12 volt charger (which I currently own). > > You can do this. Batteries charge based on impressed terminal > voltage. In days of old, service stations and auto-parts stores > had many batteries sharing a single power supply for maintaining > many batteries in a ready to sell state. Similarly, a battery > charger of any size has no way of knowing how many batteries > are connected . . . the act of adding more individual batteries > appears no differently to the charger than if you'd simply connected > a single, larger battery. > > > >I've also thought of purchasing one of the smaller 24v 1Amp battery > tenders > >for easy top off and/or 90% charging when time allows. > > Early results of experiments we're conducting right now suggest > that the line of Lilliputian chargers known as Battery Tenders, > Battery Minders, et. als. ARE capable of fully charging a battery > of any practical size . . . if you have the patience. I'll have > a better definition of this assertion in a few days. > > > >However, I'd like to have a 24v (28v) power source for bench testing and > >hanger testing/training. Assume a required current draw rate of 10-20 > Amps > >for perhaps several hours at a time. Thus, I'm assuming the 1Amp rate of > >the tender will be insufficient/undesirable, even if hooked to the fully > >charged batteries, as the batteries could get drawn down pretty low after > a > >couple hours (and I don't want to abuse my new batteries). > > Yeah . . . I wish you hadn't bought new batteries for your > shop work . . . It was hard to stand in the booth at OSH > and watch folks walk away with brand new batteries after > having revealed that they were a year or more away from > flying. Nonetheless, it's quite possible to keep these > critters reasonably 'fresh' in anticipation of first > flight. > > Your 20A requirement is pretty severe. What kind of > electrowhizzy takes that much snort? If this is a real > requirement, the options get expensive. > > You might be able to find some surplus power supplies. > 24v are common in outputs of up to 10A. Here's a 28V > power supply: > > http://mpja.com/productview.asp?product=16033+PS > > These can be paralleled so if you can find some > really cheap ones as industrial surplus, you can > parallel for more snort. This on is unusual in that > it's rated at 28V output . . . 24 is more common > but those will run your goodies just fine. Keep in > mind that your 24 v battery starts out at 25 volts > and goes down from there. 22v is 95% used up. So > your electrowhizzies should run just fine from a > 24.0 volt supply. > > > > >Or alternatively, if I get a benchtop power supply (10-20 amps'ish), > should > >I get a 24v model or 27v model? Seems the 24v model might still > >abuse/exercise the airplane batteries a bit since the actual resting > battery > >voltage might be slightly above 24v until they are drawn down > some. Seems > >however that the 27v model might get a bit overloaded if the batteries > >aren't fully charged when the power supply is attached as it will try and > >lift (charge) the batteries to 27v (ASAP-unregulated). > > If you get a real technician's power supply, it > will be adjustable voltage and current limit and > very quiet for use as a stand along supply. > > HOWEVER . . . take care in using bench supplies > to charge batteries. For example, when deprived of > AC input power (switch turned off or power fails) > some supplies will go into ov trip (crowbar) and > put a dead short across the battery. Very smelly > smoke. Consider a surplus supply like this: > > http://tinyurl.com/2lrw8e > > I have several critters like this around the shop > and they're quite useful for doing ANY task. The really > neat feature is adjustable current limiting. You > can set the supply's output so that should the > unfortunate fault occur, energy delivered into > the system is not capable burning things. > > > >p.s. The thought crossed my mind the in lieu of a build-log I'd just > submit > >a sequential list of all my naive questions to this (very helpful) forum > >(lol) - i.e. the FAA 51% education and recreation mandate. Seems there's > no > >end to the learning opportunities here, thanks all in advance. > > > You got that right. KNOWLEDGE is essentially free, > EDUCATION is always expensive. > > Bob . . . > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Feb 16, 2007
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net>
Subject: To SD-8 or NOT to SD-8 . . . that is the question.
>Dear Bob, >I have been watching at the Aeroelectric Connection every now and then. >Got a quick few questions for you: > >Would a SD-8 Alternator (which I already have!) be enough to supply two >Odyssey PC-680 batteries in a basic VFR Airplane? >I plan on having a comm-radio, a transponder, a GPS, one electronic >ignition, and perhaps a TruTraks ADI/Autopilot. Engine Monitoring is via >various of Vans engine related gauges. > >Oh, and Nav-Lights/Strobes for collision avoidance, but I don't plan to >fly at nighttime. Any thoughts? Unless you PLAN to have a vacuum system and the panel mounted hardware that goes along with it, then you have a perfectly good, engine driven power available to do something else. To my way of thinking, the cost (about $400) and weight (under 4#) is a fairly low cost investment to achieve system ENDURANCE that our TC flying brothers can only salivate over. Now, if you don't fly at night and given the weight in lead you're willing to carry, perhaps the $400/4# investment has little if any promise of return. That's a call you'll have to make. With a second alternator, could you consider dropping to one battery? That 4# more to delete 16# for a net change of 12# in the right direction. Perhaps the investment is now more attractive. I'll suggest you get on the AeroElectric List and discuss this with the folks who are wrestling with the same questions. > >Also, what is the latest edition of your Aeroelectric Book and what is the >current cost? It's up to Revision 11. If you have an R10 book you can update it at no charge with downloadable docuements at: http://aeroelectric.com/whatsnew.html The book can be ordered at: http://aeroelectric.com/Catalog/AECcatalog.html Bob . . . ---------------------------------------- ( IF one aspires to be "world class", ) ( what ever you do must be exercised ) ( EVERY day . . . ) ( R. L. Nuckolls III ) ---------------------------------------- ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: To SD-8 or NOT to SD-8 . . . that is the question.
Date: Feb 16, 2007
From: "Hinde, Frank George (Corvallis)" <frank.hinde(at)hp.com>
Put it this way, I have a fuel injected electric wing pumps only, IFR panel with no vacuum system. At 2600RPM I can just run the 430, a single fuel pump and all the instruments and still maintain better than 12V. The SD-8 is making nearer 12A in my opinion, So yeah in a VFR only airplane with a mechanical fuel the SD-8 is more than adequate Frank -----Original Message----- From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Robert L. Nuckolls, III Sent: Friday, February 16, 2007 10:53 AM Subject: AeroElectric-List: To SD-8 or NOT to SD-8 . . . that is the question. --> >Dear Bob, >I have been watching at the Aeroelectric Connection every now and then. >Got a quick few questions for you: > >Would a SD-8 Alternator (which I already have!) be enough to supply two >Odyssey PC-680 batteries in a basic VFR Airplane? >I plan on having a comm-radio, a transponder, a GPS, one electronic >ignition, and perhaps a TruTraks ADI/Autopilot. Engine Monitoring is >via various of Vans engine related gauges. > >Oh, and Nav-Lights/Strobes for collision avoidance, but I don't plan to >fly at nighttime. Any thoughts? Unless you PLAN to have a vacuum system and the panel mounted hardware that goes along with it, then you have a perfectly good, engine driven power available to do something else. To my way of thinking, the cost (about $400) and weight (under 4#) is a fairly low cost investment to achieve system ENDURANCE that our TC flying brothers can only salivate over. Now, if you don't fly at night and given the weight in lead you're willing to carry, perhaps the $400/4# investment has little if any promise of return. That's a call you'll have to make. With a second alternator, could you consider dropping to one battery? That 4# more to delete 16# for a net change of 12# in the right direction. Perhaps the investment is now more attractive. I'll suggest you get on the AeroElectric List and discuss this with the folks who are wrestling with the same questions. > >Also, what is the latest edition of your Aeroelectric Book and what is >the current cost? It's up to Revision 11. If you have an R10 book you can update it at no charge with downloadable docuements at: http://aeroelectric.com/whatsnew.html The book can be ordered at: http://aeroelectric.com/Catalog/AECcatalog.html Bob . . . ---------------------------------------- ( IF one aspires to be "world class", ) ( what ever you do must be exercised ) ( EVERY day . . . ) ( R. L. Nuckolls III ) ---------------------------------------- ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Konrad L. Werner" <klwerner(at)comcast.net>
Subject: Re: To SD-8 or NOT to SD-8 . . . that is the question.
Date: Feb 16, 2007
Hi Frank, Where did you get the # of 12 Amp. for the SD-8 in a Lycoming? Konrad ----- Original Message ----- From: Hinde, Frank George (Corvallis) To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com Sent: Friday, February 16, 2007 12:14 PM Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: To SD-8 or NOT to SD-8 . . . that is the question. (Corvallis)" Put it this way, I have a fuel injected electric wing pumps only, IFR panel with no vacuum system. At 2600RPM I can just run the 430, a single fuel pump and all the instruments and still maintain better than 12V. The SD-8 is making nearer 12A in my opinion, So yeah in a VFR only airplane with a mechanical fuel the SD-8 is more than adequate Frank -----Original Message----- From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Robert L. Nuckolls, III Sent: Friday, February 16, 2007 10:53 AM To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com Subject: AeroElectric-List: To SD-8 or NOT to SD-8 . . . that is the question. --> >Dear Bob, >I have been watching at the Aeroelectric Connection every now and then. >Got a quick few questions for you: > >Would a SD-8 Alternator (which I already have!) be enough to supply two >Odyssey PC-680 batteries in a basic VFR Airplane? >I plan on having a comm-radio, a transponder, a GPS, one electronic >ignition, and perhaps a TruTraks ADI/Autopilot. Engine Monitoring is >via various of Vans engine related gauges. > >Oh, and Nav-Lights/Strobes for collision avoidance, but I don't plan to >fly at nighttime. Any thoughts? Unless you PLAN to have a vacuum system and the panel mounted hardware that goes along with it, then you have a perfectly good, engine driven power available to do something else. To my way of thinking, the cost (about $400) and weight (under 4#) is a fairly low cost investment to achieve system ENDURANCE that our TC flying brothers can only salivate over. Now, if you don't fly at night and given the weight in lead you're willing to carry, perhaps the $400/4# investment has little if any promise of return. That's a call you'll have to make. With a second alternator, could you consider dropping to one battery? That 4# more to delete 16# for a net change of 12# in the right direction. Perhaps the investment is now more attractive. I'll suggest you get on the AeroElectric List and discuss this with the folks who are wrestling with the same questions. > >Also, what is the latest edition of your Aeroelectric Book and what is >the current cost? It's up to Revision 11. If you have an R10 book you can update it at no charge with downloadable docuements at: http://aeroelectric.com/whatsnew.html The book can be ordered at: http://aeroelectric.com/Catalog/AECcatalog.html Bob . . . ---------------------------------------- ( IF one aspires to be "world class", ) ( what ever you do must be exercised ) ( EVERY day . . . ) ( R. L. Nuckolls III ) ---------------------------------------- ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: To SD-8 or NOT to SD-8 . . . that is the question.
Date: Feb 16, 2007
From: "Hinde, Frank George (Corvallis)" <frank.hinde(at)hp.com>
>From the known loads of my electrical components, fule pump was measured at about 4A, GNS 430 at about 3.5 and so on...It maybe that some of the published amperages of equipment are on the conservative side. So do I know an SD-8 makes 12A?...No I don't for sure but annecdotally i think its making quite a bit more than 8A. Cheers Frank ________________________________ From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Konrad L. Werner Sent: Friday, February 16, 2007 11:34 AM Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: To SD-8 or NOT to SD-8 . . . that is the question. Hi Frank, Where did you get the # of 12 Amp. for the SD-8 in a Lycoming? Konrad ----- Original Message ----- From: Hinde, Frank George (Corvallis) To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com Sent: Friday, February 16, 2007 12:14 PM Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: To SD-8 or NOT to SD-8 . . . that is the question. (Corvallis)" Put it this way, I have a fuel injected electric wing pumps only, IFR panel with no vacuum system. At 2600RPM I can just run the 430, a single fuel pump and all the instruments and still maintain better than 12V. The SD-8 is making nearer 12A in my opinion, So yeah in a VFR only airplane with a mechanical fuel the SD-8 is more than adequate Frank -----Original Message----- From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Robert L. Nuckolls, III Sent: Friday, February 16, 2007 10:53 AM To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com Subject: AeroElectric-List: To SD-8 or NOT to SD-8 . . . that is the question. III" --> >Dear Bob, >I have been watching at the Aeroelectric Connection every now and then. >Got a quick few questions for you: > >Would a SD-8 Alternator (which I already have!) be enough to supply two >Odyssey PC-680 batteries in a basic VFR Airplane? >I plan on having a comm-radio, a transponder, a GPS, one electronic >ignition, and perhaps a TruTraks ADI/Autopilot. Engine Monitoring is >via various of Vans engine related gauges. > >Oh, and Nav-Lights/Strobes for collision avoidance, but I don't plan to >fly at nighttime. Any thoughts? Unless you PLAN to have a vacuum system and the panel mounted hardware that goes along with it, then you have a perfectly good, engine driven power available to do something else. To my way of thinking, the cost (about $400) and weight (under 4#) is a fairly low cost investment to achieve system ENDURANCE that our TC flying brothers can only salivate over. Now, if you don't fly at night and given the weight in lead you're willing to carry, perhaps the $400/4# investment has little if any promise of return. That's a call you'll have to make. With a second alternator, could you consider dropping to one battery? That 4# more to delete 16# for a net change of 12# in the right direction. Perhaps the investment is now more attractive. I'll suggest you get on the AeroElectric List and discuss this with the folks who are wrestling with the same questions. > >Also, what is the latest edition of your Aeroelectric Book and what is >the current cost? It's up to Revision 11. If you have an R10 book you can update it at no charge with downloadable docuements at: http://aeroelectric.com/whatsnew.html The book can be ordered at: http://aeroelectric.com/Catalog/AECcatalog.html Bob . . . ---------------------------------------- ( IF one aspires to be "world class", ) ( what ever you do must be exercised ) ( EVERY day . . . ) ( R. L. Nuckolls III ) ---------------------------------------- nbsp; Features Subscriptions href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List">http://www. p ; available via href="http://forums.matronics.com">http://forums.matronics.com ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Bill Maxwell" <wrmaxwell(at)bigpond.com>
Subject: Re: Speaker termination
Date: Feb 17, 2007
You can safely leave the dummy load resistor out. Bill ----- Original Message ----- From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net> Sent: Friday, February 16, 2007 11:09 AM Subject: AeroElectric-List: Re: Speaker termination > > > >>Hi Bob, >> I'm about to close up the front of my "9" and there is a pair of >>wires coming from the Icom A200 for an external speaker. Should I >>terminate them with a resistor or just leave them open. I do not intend >>to utilize a speaker in the cockpit. > > Good for you. Refer to the instruction manual. If they > don't call out a dummy load, you can just leave it open. > Actually, the few radios I've see that called for a dummy > load on unused outputs would probably have been quit > stable without it. > > The only think I can think of that would prompt a designer > to require loading an unused input is to accommodate > an output stage instability under light loads. Modern > audio amplifier ships don't have this problem. > > Bob . . . > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Feb 16, 2007
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net>
Subject: Will SVLA charge on a sustaining voltage?
After a 3.0A discharge to 11.0 volts where the battery delivered at total of 11.2 ah of capacity, I connected the battery to a 13.0 volt power supply and waited 18+ hours until the 're-charge' current was down to under 30 milliampers. A subsequent 3.0A discharge produced only 8.8 AH of useful output. The same battery is back on a Battery Tender Jr for another charge/discharge cycle. This experiment suggests that there's something to the notion of carrying the battery's recharge profile up to the point where rate-of-change for voltage takes the upward inflection which is the battery's way of letting the outside world know that it's getting pretty close to full. Bob . . . ---------------------------------------- ( IF one aspires to be "world class", ) ( what ever you do must be exercised ) ( EVERY day . . . ) ( R. L. Nuckolls III ) ---------------------------------------- ________________________________________________________________________________
From: <berkut13(at)berkut13.com>
Subject: Com issues - resolved
Date: Feb 16, 2007
Well gang...it's fixed. I added 150ohm resistors to all input audio leads into the panel. Everything is living together quite nicely now. I guess something in the combination was not playing well with the new radio. However, there was one wild card that might also have something to do with it. While I was removing, moving, installing, and re-installing the pins in the 134's connector, one of the ground leads (mic I think) broke off a pin. I was forced to strip and crimp a new molex pin on there and re-secure. This was done in the same operation as the resistors. After all that, the audio was loud and clear with all radios mixed in, regardless of the combination. I'm not convinced this was the issue, since the radio did work correctly by itself. So...was it the resistors?...was it a bad ground?...was it a gremlin? Personally, I don't care anymore...it's fixed! Thanks for all the help, everyone. Nothing like beating your head against the wall in a cold hangar. James Redmon Berkut #013 N97TX http://www.berkut13.com ________________________________________________________________________________
From: <bakerocb(at)cox.net>
Subject: Battery Charging
Date: Feb 17, 2007
2/17/2007 Hello Bob Nuckolls, You wrote: From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net> Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: 24v vs 27 volt power supplies .....skip..... Similarly, a battery charger of any size has no way of knowing how many batteries are connected . . . the act of adding more individual batteries appears no differently to the charger than if you'd simply connected a single, larger battery......skip....." Could you please make clear in which manner multiple batteries should be connected to the charger -- either in series or parallel? Also if the battery charger has some defined limited output of current, such as 6 amps, would that not affect the rate at which multiple low state batteries could be initially charged? Thanks for your always helpful inputs. OC ________________________________________________________________________________
From: <bakerocb(at)cox.net>
Subject: Daytime Anticollision Lights
Date: Feb 17, 2007
2/17/2007 Hello To "SD-8 or NOT to SD-8 . . . that is the question" "....skip....Oh, and Nav-Lights/Strobes for collision avoidance, but I don't plan to fly at nighttime.....skip....." Please note what FAR Sec. 91.209 (b) says about operating anticollision lights in the daytime, as well as from sunset to sunrise, if the aircraft is equipped with an anticollision light system. "91.209. Aircraft lights. No person may: (b) Operate an aircraft that is equipped with an anticollision light system, unless it has lighted anticollision lights. However, the anticollision lights need not be lighted when the pilot-in-command determines that, because of operating conditions, it would be in the interest of safety to turn the lights off." Operating continuously or normally in the daytime with anticollision lights off, if the aircraft is so equipped, regardless of operating conditions would probably not be considered "in the interest of safety" by the FAA. OC -- The best investment we can make is to gather knowledge. ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Feb 17, 2007
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net>
Subject: Re: Com issues - resolved
> >Well gang...it's fixed. > >I added 150ohm resistors to all input audio leads into the panel. >Everything is living together quite nicely now. I guess something in the >combination was not playing well with the new radio. > >However, there was one wild card that might also have something to do with >it. While I was removing, moving, installing, and re-installing the pins >in the 134's connector, one of the ground leads (mic I think) broke off a >pin. I was forced to strip and crimp a new molex pin on there and >re-secure. This was done in the same operation as the resistors. After >all that, the audio was loud and clear with all radios mixed in, >regardless of the combination. I'm not convinced this was the issue, >since the radio did work correctly by itself. > >So...was it the resistors?...was it a bad ground?...was it a gremlin? >Personally, I don't care anymore...it's fixed! I suspect that your victim radio was being loaded down by and exceptionally LOW output impedance of the other radio. With its low output impedance, it was able to deliver useful audio output energy into a system that was "loaded" not only by the system that drove you headphones but by the other radio. This is the phenomenon explained in the audio systems chapter I cited earlier. Adding the resistors artificially raised the output impedance of all sources. This degrades the transfer of energy to the headphones . . .but no so much that increasing radio volume can't overcome it. At the same time, it breaks the ability of a radio having exceptionally low output impedance from exercising the loading effect you were experiencing. Bob . . . ---------------------------------------- ( IF one aspires to be "world class", ) ( what ever you do must be exercised ) ( EVERY day . . . ) ( R. L. Nuckolls III ) ---------------------------------------- ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Feb 17, 2007
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net>
Subject: Re: Battery Charging
> >2/17/2007 > >Hello Bob Nuckolls, You wrote: > >From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net> >Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: 24v vs 27 volt power supplies > >.....skip..... Similarly, a battery charger of any size has no way of >knowing how many batteries >are connected . . . the act of adding more individual batteries appears no >differently to the charger than if you'd simply connected a single, larger >battery......skip....." > >Could you please make clear in which manner multiple batteries should be >connected to the charger -- either in series or parallel? Batteries are charged by impressing a specific votlage across their terminals. E.g. you charge a 12 volt lead acid battery by holding its terminals at 13.8 to as much as 15 volts . . . See: http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Curves/schumacher_3.jpg You wait for a period of time -OR- until recharge current drops below some nominally low value. I've heard Concord folks cite "100 milliamps" as the indication that the battery is no longer converting discharged chemistry into charged chemistry. After this time, it's useful to drop the charger's output voltage to a "sustaining" level that cannot charge but only offset internal leakages (self discharge) currents that exist in EVERY battery technology. To insure that all batteries in an array of two or more see the same terminal voltage during the recharge-sustain process, they must be in PARALLEL. >Also if the battery charger has some defined limited output of current, >such as 6 amps, would that not affect the rate at which multiple low state >batteries could be initially charged? Absolutely. A 1.5A charger can deliver 1.5AH of charge per hour. Hook dead 32, 18 and 10 AH batteries in parallel and you've tasked the charger with delivering enough energy to replenish all batteries in the array . . or 60 AH. One should expect this process to take 40+ hours to complete. All batteries are being recharged on the same time curve with each getting a share of the 1.5 AH/HR that's available from the charger. Bob . . . ---------------------------------------- ( IF one aspires to be "world class", ) ( what ever you do must be exercised ) ( EVERY day . . . ) ( R. L. Nuckolls III ) ---------------------------------------- ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Feb 17, 2007
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net>
Subject: Re: Daytime Anticollision Lights
> >2/17/2007 > >Hello To "SD-8 or NOT to SD-8 . . . that is the question" > > >"....skip....Oh, and Nav-Lights/Strobes for collision avoidance, but I >don't plan to fly at nighttime.....skip....." > >Please note what FAR Sec. 91.209 (b) says about operating anticollision >lights in the daytime, as well as from sunset to sunrise, if the aircraft >is equipped with an anticollision light system. > >"91.209. Aircraft lights. No person may: > >(b) Operate an aircraft that is equipped with an anticollision light >system, unless it has lighted anticollision lights. However, the >anticollision lights need not be lighted when the pilot-in-command >determines that, because of operating conditions, it would be in the >interest of safety to turn the lights off." > >Operating continuously or normally in the daytime with anticollision >lights off, if the aircraft is so equipped, regardless of operating >conditions would probably not be considered "in the interest of safety" by >the FAA. > >OC -- The best investment we can make is to gather knowledge. To quote one of my heros, C.F. Kettering: "Knowledge is not understanding. You can know a lot and still understand nothing." The investment begins with $time$ necessary to gather knowledge but if we do not invest still more $time$ (and perhaps seek explanation) to help us understand, then return on the original investment is at best meager and at worst wasted. Bob . . . ---------------------------------------- ( IF one aspires to be "world class", ) ( what ever you do must be exercised ) ( EVERY day . . . ) ( R. L. Nuckolls III ) ---------------------------------------- ________________________________________________________________________________
From: <berkut13(at)berkut13.com>
Subject: Re: Com issues - resolved
Date: Feb 17, 2007
Yep, I read that chapter and found it very enlightening. When I was wiring up the airplane, I skipped that section since I out-sourced the panel wiring harness to a local avionics shop. I guess another lesson here is to read the WHOLE book when you're building airplanes...'cuz if you are maintaining airplanes too, you are going to need ALL the info sometime in the future. ;-) Bob, thanks again for the education. -James ----- Original Message ----- From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net> Sent: Saturday, February 17, 2007 8:26 AM Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Com issues - resolved > I suspect that your victim radio was being loaded down by > and exceptionally LOW output impedance of the other radio. > With its low output impedance, it was able to deliver useful > audio output energy into a system that was "loaded" not only > by the system that drove you headphones but by the other > radio. This is the phenomenon explained in the audio systems > chapter I cited earlier. ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Feb 17, 2007
From: Dave N6030X <N6030X(at)DaveMorris.com>
Subject: Re: Daytime Anticollision Lights
At 07:36 AM 2/17/2007, you wrote: >"91.209. Aircraft lights. No person may: > >(b) Operate an aircraft that is equipped with an anticollision light >system, unless it has lighted anticollision lights. However, the >anticollision lights need not be lighted when the pilot-in-command >determines that, because of operating conditions, it would be in the >interest of safety to turn the lights off." > >Operating continuously or normally in the daytime with anticollision >lights off, if the aircraft is so equipped, regardless of operating >conditions would probably not be considered "in the interest of >safety" by the FAA. How about this: Mr. FAA judge, sir, as pilot-in-command, I determined it was not in the best interest of safety to operate my anticollision light system because a) it draws 5A of power during taxi, when my generator is not putting out enough current to keep the battery from discharging, and b) at taxi speeds it causes excessive noise in my radios while I am trying to listen for traffic in the pattern / copy clearances / whatever c) I calculated that the 14,400 square inches of my aircraft glinting in the sunlight occupy more retinal space in the eyes of any potential observers than the 4 square inches of blinking light on my tail Dave Morris ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "CH701" <701stol(at)gmail.com>
Subject: Battery Charging
Date: Feb 17, 2007
Speaking of battery charging, a recent issue of Sport Aviation had an article entitled "Pulse De-sulfator for Lead-acid Batteries." It described the process of resurrecting weak or sulfated batteries, and included some theory and a schematic of a circuit to address the process. I'm just wondering what this community has to offer on the subject... Here's a link to the authors site: http://www.geocities.com/powertugs/eaa79parts.html Todd Henning Scratch CH701 Builder -----Original Message----- From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Robert L. Nuckolls, III Sent: Saturday, February 17, 2007 8:42 AM Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Battery Charging --> > >2/17/2007 > >Hello Bob Nuckolls, You wrote: > >From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net> >Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: 24v vs 27 volt power supplies > >.....skip..... Similarly, a battery charger of any size has no way of >knowing how many batteries are connected . . . the act of adding more >individual batteries appears no differently to the charger than if >you'd simply connected a single, larger battery......skip....." > >Could you please make clear in which manner multiple batteries should >be connected to the charger -- either in series or parallel? Batteries are charged by impressing a specific votlage across their terminals. E.g. you charge a 12 volt lead acid battery by holding its terminals at 13.8 to as much as 15 volts . . . See: http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Curves/schumacher_3.jpg You wait for a period of time -OR- until recharge current drops below some nominally low value. I've heard Concord folks cite "100 milliamps" as the indication that the battery is no longer converting discharged chemistry into charged chemistry. After this time, it's useful to drop the charger's output voltage to a "sustaining" level that cannot charge but only offset internal leakages (self discharge) currents that exist in EVERY battery technology. To insure that all batteries in an array of two or more see the same terminal voltage during the recharge-sustain process, they must be in PARALLEL. >Also if the battery charger has some defined limited output of current, >such as 6 amps, would that not affect the rate at which multiple low >state batteries could be initially charged? Absolutely. A 1.5A charger can deliver 1.5AH of charge per hour. Hook dead 32, 18 and 10 AH batteries in parallel and you've tasked the charger with delivering enough energy to replenish all batteries in the array . . or 60 AH. One should expect this process to take 40+ hours to complete. All batteries are being recharged on the same time curve with each getting a share of the 1.5 AH/HR that's available from the charger. Bob . . . ---------------------------------------- ( IF one aspires to be "world class", ) ( what ever you do must be exercised ) ( EVERY day . . . ) ( R. L. Nuckolls III ) ---------------------------------------- ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Feb 17, 2007
From: John Coloccia <john(at)ballofshame.com>
Subject: Re: Daytime Anticollision Lights
Best question of all is if you're setting up for VFR-Day only, why not just leave all the lights off entirely? Save the weight, the power draw and the drag. These lights are all but useless in the daytime, anyhow. -John www.ballofshame.com Dave N6030X wrote: > > > At 07:36 AM 2/17/2007, you wrote: >> "91.209. Aircraft lights. No person may: >> >> (b) Operate an aircraft that is equipped with an anticollision light >> system, unless it has lighted anticollision lights. However, the >> anticollision lights need not be lighted when the pilot-in-command >> determines that, because of operating conditions, it would be in the >> interest of safety to turn the lights off." >> >> Operating continuously or normally in the daytime with anticollision >> lights off, if the aircraft is so equipped, regardless of operating >> conditions would probably not be considered "in the interest of >> safety" by the FAA. > > How about this: > > Mr. FAA judge, sir, as pilot-in-command, I determined it was not in > the best interest of safety to operate my anticollision light system > because > > a) it draws 5A of power during taxi, when my generator is not putting > out enough current to keep the battery from discharging, and > b) at taxi speeds it causes excessive noise in my radios while I am > trying to listen for traffic in the pattern / copy clearances / whatever > c) I calculated that the 14,400 square inches of my aircraft glinting > in the sunlight occupy more retinal space in the eyes of any potential > observers than the 4 square inches of blinking light on my tail > > Dave Morris > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Tim Andres" <tim2542(at)sbcglobal.net>
Subject: Pulse width modulation on linear actuators
Date: Feb 17, 2007
Thanks Bob & sorry for the delay, the actuator takes 5 amps at rated load. Tim -----Original Message----- From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Robert L. Nuckolls, III Sent: Thursday, February 15, 2007 11:38 PM Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Pulse width modulation on linear actuators > >Can any one tell if the duty cycle on a PWM will equate at least roughly >with motor speed? ie will a 20% duty cycle slow the motor down to >approximately %20 or does it not work that way? I have a linear actuator for >pitch trim that that travels 2"/sec, I need about .5"/sec. Probably. PM motors have field fields which makes RPM proportional to applied voltage. The RMS (power) available from any source is also proportional to duty cycle for a non-continuous flow. In any case, I presume you're going to make the duty cycle adjustable so whether it takes 25% duty cycle or 27% duty cycle to achieve exactly the speed you want is irrelevant. You can also use linear techniques. An adjustable but regulated voltage source not unlike the dimmers described in . . . http://www.aeroelectric.com/articles//DimmerFabrication.pdf . . . may be considered also. How much current does your motor draw at full speed? Bob . . . ---------------------------------------- ( IF one aspires to be "world class", ) ( what ever you do must be exercised ) ( EVERY day . . . ) ( R. L. Nuckolls III ) ---------------------------------------- -- -- ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Tim Andres" <tim2542(at)sbcglobal.net>
Subject: Pulse width modulation on linear actuators
Date: Feb 17, 2007
Thanks Ernest! -----Original Message----- From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Ernest Christley Sent: Friday, February 16, 2007 5:12 AM Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Pulse width modulation on linear actuators Tim Andres wrote: > >Can any one tell if the duty cycle on a PWM will equate at least roughly >with motor speed? ie will a 20% duty cycle slow the motor down to >approximately %20 or does it not work that way? I have a linear actuator for >pitch trim that that travels 2"/sec, I need about .5"/sec. >Thanks, Tim Andres > > > MPJA sells a motor control unit that does exactly that and at just over $12, I don't think you can beat the price. http://mpja.com/productview.asp?product=6067+KT -- ,|"|"|, Ernest Christley | ----===<{{(oQo)}}>===---- Dyke Delta Builder | o| d |o http://ernest.isa-geek.org | -- -- ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Feb 17, 2007
From: Ken <klehman(at)albedo.net>
Subject: Re: Will SVLA charge on a sustaining voltage?
I always deal with partially discharged batteries rather than fully discharged ones but I have probably waited at least a couple of days to notice the recharge current to fall to the float current and that is typically under 10 ma depending on the battery. The actual energy under that upward inflected curve is small but it still takes awhile to get the equivalent at very small charging current of course. I use 13.5 volts for AGM batteries which probably helps. 13.5 is more in line with what I've seen on things like burglar alarms and small UPS batteries. Someone will no doubt mention that there is more to this than just restoring a full charge though. Below is a repeat of a very good post out of the archives which suggests that charging with that voltage inflection is a good thing for storage batteries that don't get a bit of overcharging in a vehicle. It might also give a possible reason why pulse charging might have some benefit even if the desulphation theory is bunk. The strong inflection that shuts off the built in charger on my booster battery pack is a better scheme for frequently used batteries and probably for VRLA batteries in general. That $30. booster battery pack has a 15AH battery and it often runs a 120vac inverter and it also makes a handy (less than an amp) charger by just clipping it onto another battery and plugging it in to let them both charge in parallel. Ken There are four main reasons why AGMs wear out. 1) Loss of electrolyte 2) Grid corrosion 3) Sulfation 4) Paste degradation If you overcharge an AGM excessively, it will lose electrolyte and dry out. This is NOT why they wear out in airplanes and cars (typically.) Typically, AGMs go bad because they are not properly charged. If you don't over charge them a little bit on a regular basis, the negative plate gets further and further behind the positive plate. The negative plate then sulfates and you lose capacity and cranking power. (In the short term, you lose capacity simply because the negative plate is not fully charged.) Why you don't need to add water to an AGM is that the oxygen and hydrogen gas recombine in the separator to form water. This recombination process is not 100% efficient, and it causes the negative plate to take slightly less charge than the positive plate when you re-charge the battery. Each cycle gets the negative plate a bit more behind. Occasionally, you need to purposely overcharge the battery to let the negative plate catch up with the positive plate. A couple times per year, you bring the battery up to 14.8 volts and let the current taper off to less than an amp. You then push in a constant current of about 4% of the amp-hr rating of the battery for about an hour. This cleans off the negative plate. High-end voltage regulators do something like this (like on boats and motor homes). Every time you start up the engine, it charges up the battery to normal voltage, then it gives the battery a slight overcharge for a few minutes. Makes the big expensive AGM batteries last much longer. >>>> What causes the other types of failures, just in case you wanted to know. <<< Excessive overcharging will cause the loss of electrolyte. Severe discharge, causing reversal of a cell or two, will also cause electrolyte loss. Grid corrosion occurs if you leave the battery on float for a long time. The oxygen gas formed eats at the grids that support the paste. Sulfation is caused by leaving the battery discharged for extended periods of time. Not fully charging the battery and leaving that way will also cause sulfation. Paste degradation is caused by repeated severe and/or deep discharges. Cranking the battery flat over and over is a good way to cause paste degradation. Robert L. Nuckolls, III wrote: > > > After a 3.0A discharge to 11.0 volts where the battery > delivered at total of 11.2 ah of capacity, I connected > the battery to a 13.0 volt power supply and waited 18+ > hours until the 're-charge' current was down to under > 30 milliampers. > > A subsequent 3.0A discharge produced only 8.8 AH of > useful output. The same battery is back on a Battery > Tender Jr for another charge/discharge cycle. > > This experiment suggests that there's something to > the notion of carrying the battery's recharge profile > up to the point where rate-of-change for voltage takes > the upward inflection which is the battery's way of > letting the outside world know that it's getting pretty > close to full. > > Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Feb 17, 2007
From: Ken <klehman(at)albedo.net>
Subject: Re: Daytime Anticollision Lights
My 3 favorite conspicuity items are: Wig wag lights seem useful especially near airports. A non white painted airplane. A little $400. traffic alerter such as the one by Zaon is perhaps even more useful than strobes for some folks especially those that don't look outside much. More pilots leave their transponder on even in the circuit than I expected. Useless if the other guy doesn't have a transponder. Ken John Coloccia wrote: > > > Best question of all is if you're setting up for VFR-Day only, why not > just leave all the lights off entirely? Save the weight, the power > draw and the drag. These lights are all but useless in the daytime, > anyhow. > > -John > www.ballofshame.com ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Feb 17, 2007
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net>
Subject: Re: Daytime Anticollision Lights
>I am still amazed me how this thread came into life? My original question >that started it was to see if my SD-8 would be an adequate alternator to >supply enough energy to a certain setup... > >But blink once and schwup-di-wup we deviate into a whole different >direction right quick. How did we get from Electrics & Physics to FAA >Rules & Lawyers so darn quick??? > >Whatever will be mounted in the ship will be used in accordance to Rules, >Regs and/or Logic, ...so is my SD-8 alternator adequate or not for the >specific demands mentioned earlier? > >I still don't know what the best Primer is? Any ideas anyone ??? It seems that someone along the way noted that the SD-8 is good for just over 8 amps when your engine is running at the red line. Beyond that, there's no more data that can be offered from the List because we don't know what your load analysis is for electro- whizzies in addition to exterior lights . . . and whether or not you're comfortable with charging around the pattern at 2700 RPM. I believe the simple answer is that the SD-8 is not adequate to the task for the way most of us load and use our systems, even in a day-vfr only environment. The SD-8 was the product that launched B&C Specialty Products about 27 years ago. I met Bill Bainbridge for the first time when he walked into Electo-Mech asking to buy the castings we used on our Bonanza stand-by generators. They mated with the AND20000, vacuum pump drive pad. That alternator IS flying on a whole raft of Longez and Variez aircraft as the sole source of engine driven energy for running electro-whizzies and charging a small battery. Few of these aircraft even had starters. For a time there was a belt driven cousin to the SD-8 that ran from the prop shaft . . . it WAS good for 12A or so. Over the years, the SD-8 has been best assigned duties as a second source of engine driven power for the purpose backing up a larger machine. The primary value of the SD-8 is to provide UNLIMITED endurance for an 8A e-bus load while holding 100% of battery's contained energy in reserve for approach to landing. Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Konrad L. Werner" <klwerner(at)comcast.net>
Subject: Re: Daytime Anticollision Lights
Date: Feb 17, 2007
Thank you Bob, Now there is an answer that is of great use to me. My SD-8 when used as a backup alternator will certainly prolong the demise of the battery for long enough to make it down safely, should the main alternator ever fail on me. Thank you again for your input. Konrad ----- Original Message ----- From: Robert L. Nuckolls, III To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com Sent: Saturday, February 17, 2007 1:16 PM Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Daytime Anticollision Lights >I am still amazed me how this thread came into life? My original question >that started it was to see if my SD-8 would be an adequate alternator to >supply enough energy to a certain setup... > >But blink once and schwup-di-wup we deviate into a whole different >direction right quick. How did we get from Electrics & Physics to FAA >Rules & Lawyers so darn quick??? > >Whatever will be mounted in the ship will be used in accordance to Rules, >Regs and/or Logic, ...so is my SD-8 alternator adequate or not for the >specific demands mentioned earlier? > >I still don't know what the best Primer is? Any ideas anyone ??? It seems that someone along the way noted that the SD-8 is good for just over 8 amps when your engine is running at the red line. Beyond that, there's no more data that can be offered from the List because we don't know what your load analysis is for electro- whizzies in addition to exterior lights . . . and whether or not you're comfortable with charging around the pattern at 2700 RPM. I believe the simple answer is that the SD-8 is not adequate to the task for the way most of us load and use our systems, even in a day-vfr only environment. The SD-8 was the product that launched B&C Specialty Products about 27 years ago. I met Bill Bainbridge for the first time when he walked into Electo-Mech asking to buy the castings we used on our Bonanza stand-by generators. They mated with the AND20000, vacuum pump drive pad. That alternator IS flying on a whole raft of Longez and Variez aircraft as the sole source of engine driven energy for running electro-whizzies and charging a small battery. Few of these aircraft even had starters. For a time there was a belt driven cousin to the SD-8 that ran from the prop shaft . . . it WAS good for 12A or so. Over the years, the SD-8 has been best assigned duties as a second source of engine driven power for the purpose backing up a larger machine. The primary value of the SD-8 is to provide UNLIMITED endurance for an 8A e-bus load while holding 100% of battery's contained energy in reserve for approach to landing. Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "kesleyelectric" <kesleyelectric(at)chooseblue.coop>
Subject: Cad files
Date: Feb 17, 2007
Bob and list, After loading TurboCAD v.10 on my computer in hopes of opening and editing the .dwg files on the Aeroelectric website, I cannot get them to open. A message pops up saying "no filter found matching this file". I have been through the reference manual, but as a new user it did not shed light on the problem. Any suggestions appreciated. Tom Barter Avid Magnum ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Feb 17, 2007
From: Steve Allison <stevea(at)svpal.org>
Subject: Re: Cad files
kesleyelectric wrote: > Bob and list, > > After loading TurboCAD v.10 on my computer in hopes of opening and > editing the .dwg files on the Aeroelectric website, I cannot get them > to open. A message pops up saying "no filter found matching this > file". I have been through the reference manual, but as a new user it > did not shed light on the problem. Any suggestions appreciated. > > Tom Barter > Avid Magnum Tom, For some unknown reason my TurboCAD v10 system started doing the same thing last week. I could not open my own drawings. I ended up completely un-installing and re-installing TurboCAD. After that, it worked again. Steve ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Feb 17, 2007
From: "Bill Boyd" <sportav8r(at)gmail.com>
Subject: schematic revision
Several listers had requested and received a copy of my power distribution diagram a few weeks ago. To those many individuals, I address this update. Bench testing of the original design has exposed a flaw in the way the Perihelion OV module is wired in. The module cannot tolerate over 18 volts on any of its terminals for more than a few milliseconds. Not very robust-sounding for a module designed to trip at 16.2 volts, and an expensive lesson to learn the hard way, but in the end, I think this piece of hardware can be adapted successfully to this application. The attached .xls file shows the revised connections for the OV module, and I believe it lays out the bus architecture in a more easily understood fashion. If you have an externally regulated alternator on your plane, this scheme is of no concern to you and not worth your time to study. If you have an IR alternator and no external OV protection you are happy with, and need redundant power for an all-electric ship, you might want to give it a look. This is what I am going with, until Bob releases his IR alternator tamer, and maybe even after ;-) Open in Microsoft Excel. Comments welcome. -Bill Boyd ________________________________________________________________________________
From: <bakerocb(at)cox.net>
Subject: Daytime Anticollision Lights
Date: Feb 18, 2007
2/17/2007 Hello Bill Denton, Thanks for your input. 1) You wrote: "The intent of "the anticollision lights need not be lighted when the pilot-in-command determines that, because of operating conditions, it would be in the interest of safety to turn the lights off" was to avoid blinding other pilots with bright strobe flashes." This may be true on the ground, but the bigger issue was a pilot suffering vertigo while airborne in the clouds by having his anticollision light flashing and reflected light coming into the cockpit. 2) You wrote: "But even the most stupid junior lawyer at the FAA could nail you to the wall if you're operating all over the field without the lights being on." I don't think the FAA sees the anticollision light as essential for ground use. I think that there are some airlines that as SOP have pilots turn on the anti collision light as they are cleared to take the runway for take off. All other times it is considered courteous to have them off when on the ground. OC -- The best investment we can make is the effort to gather and understand knowledge. (Is that better Bob Nuckolls?) From: "Bill Denton" <bdenton(at)bdenton.com> Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Daytime Anticollision Lights The intent of "the anticollision lights need not be lighted when the pilot-in-command determines that, because of operating conditions, it would be in the interest of safety to turn the lights off" was to avoid blinding other pilots with bright strobe flashes. You will notice that the regulations refer to turning them off when conditions warrant, not to not turning them on at all. I recognize that there might be conditions where a pilot might consider it inadvisable to initially turn them on. But even the most stupid junior lawyer at the FAA could nail you to the wall if you're operating all over the field without the lights being on. What you are going to run up against is a mentality that says "you don't have to have them, but if you do have them, they better work and you had better use them properly". I would wonder if someone might not be jeopardizing your Airworthiness Certificate if they operated in the manner suggested... ________________________________________________________________________________
From: <bakerocb(at)cox.net>
Subject: Daytime Anticollision Lights
Date: Feb 18, 2007
2/18/2004 Hello Konrad, Thanks for your input. I apologize for not previously addressing you by name, but your name was not included in the posting that I read that was provided through Bob Nuckolls. 1) You wrote: "....skip....Oh, and Nav-Lights/Strobes for collision avoidance, but I don't plan to fly at nighttime.....skip....." And I wrote: "Please note what FAR Sec. 91.209 (b) says about operating anticollision lights in the daytime, as well as from sunset to sunrise, if the aircraft is equipped with an anticollision light system." I wrote that because I was concerned that some reader, not necessarily you, might conclude that the sole considerations he would have about installing, or not, and operating anticollision lights was electrical load and whether he was operating between sunset and sunrise. I did not want to let that erroneous conclusion stand without some clarification. 2) You wrote: "But blink once and schwup-di-wup we deviate into a whole different direction right quick. How did we get from Electrics & Physics to FAA Rules & Lawyers so darn quick???" We got there because fairly early on in my homebuilding experience I learned that we builders, including myself, were so focused on building that the rules pertaining to our configuring, building, registering, certifying, and operating our aircraft were way in the back of our minds. Some times that condition rose up to bite us and we said: "If only I had known that earlier". I also learned that the FAA and EAA had some knowledge of how things could and should work in the homebuilding community that was not readily apparent by just reading the FAR's. So as I got bruised and educated in this arena I made it my goal to share what I have learned with other builders and pilots. There are still enough gray areas so that no one, including me, has all the definitive answers, but I'd still like to share what I have learned -- hopefully for the benefit of others. OC -- The best investment we can make is the effort to gather and understand knowledge (then share it). From: "Konrad L. Werner" <klwerner(at)comcast.net> Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Daytime Anticollision Lights I am still amazed me how this thread came into life? My original question that started it was to see if my SD-8 would be an adequate alternator to supply enough energy to a certain setup... But blink once and schwup-di-wup we deviate into a whole different direction right quick. How did we get from Electrics & Physics to FAA Rules & Lawyers so darn quick??? Whatever will be mounted in the ship will be used in accordance to Rules, Regs and/or Logic, ...so is my SD-8 alternator adequate or not for the specific demands mentioned earlier? I still don't know what the best Primer is? Any ideas anyone ??? ________________________________________________________________________________
From: BobsV35B(at)aol.com
Date: Feb 18, 2007
Subject: Re: Daytime Anticollision Lights
Good Morning OC, May I add a little comment from one who has spent a lot of wasted time taxiing around airports? The gripe by folks on the ground mainly concern strobe lights. When they first came on the scene, if you turned one on while still on the ground, somebody was sure to ask that it be turned off. The Powers That Be had some testing done and we were all informed that the flash was of such short duration that there was no way it could affect our night vision. Nevertheless, the complaints continued and still do to this day. However, most of us really liked having rotating beacons lit while taxiing. If you have ever sat in a cockpit twenty feet above the surface, you have realized that it is very difficult to spot a small airplane that has only position lights for conspicuity. The standard, new then, but now old fashioned, rotating Grimes Beacon worked very well, but the ones I liked the best were the ones mounted on the belly. That light never could shine into anyone's eye, yet it lit up a broad space on the ground. While I came very close to taxiing over small aircraft several times, I never missed seeing one that had a belly beacon lit. As an aside, it is my opinion that the most conspicuous light of all is the Grimes oscillating beacon mounted on the belly! On my personal airplanes, I have always installed a belly beacon. If I was flying an airplane not so equipped, I would use the one on top. If the airplane has only strobes, I would very carefully watch for other airplanes and turn on the strobe when one got within a hundred feet of me. If that elicited a snide remark about "getting that idiot to turn off his strobe", so be it! The accident where a US Air flight landed on a commuter holding in position would probably not have occurred if the commuter had been equipped with a beacon either in addition to or instead of the strobe. If I Recall Correctly, it was company policy for the commuter to not turn on the strobe until takeoff clearance had been received. Since they had no beacon, the only conspicuity lighting that was available for the US Air pilots to see was that little white tail light. I want a rotating (or oscillating!) beacon on my airplane. With or without strobes. Happy Skies, Old Bob AKA Bob Siegfried Ancient Aviator Stearman N3977A Brookeridge Air Park LL22 Downers Grove, IL 60516 630 985-8503 In a message dated 2/18/2007 7:46:12 A.M. Central Standard Time, bakerocb(at)cox.net writes: --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: 2/17/2007 Hello Bill Denton, Thanks for your input. 1) You wrote: "The intent of "the anti collision lights need not be lighted when the pilot-in-command determines that, because of operating conditions, it would be in the interest of safety to turn the lights off" was to avoid blinding other pilots with bright strobe flashes." This may be true on the ground, but the bigger issue was a pilot suffering vertigo while airborne in the clouds by having his anti collision light flashing and reflected light coming into the cockpit. 2) You wrote: "But even the most stupid junior lawyer at the FAA could nail you to the wall if you're operating all over the field without the lights being on." I don't think the FAA sees the anti collision light as essential for ground use. I think that there are some airlines that as SOP have pilots turn on the anti collision light as they are cleared to take the runway for take off. All other times it is considered courteous to have them off when on the ground. OC -- The best investment we can make is the effort to gather and understand knowledge. (Is that better Bob Nuckolls?) ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Feb 18, 2007
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net>
Subject: Re: Daytime Anticollision Lights
> >2/17/2007 > >Hello Bill Denton, Thanks for your input. > >1) You wrote: "The intent of "the anticollision lights need not be lighted >when the >pilot-in-command determines that, because of operating conditions, it would >be in the interest of safety to turn the lights off" was to avoid blinding >other pilots with bright strobe flashes." > >This may be true on the ground, but the bigger issue was a pilot suffering >vertigo while airborne in the clouds by having his anticollision light >flashing and reflected light coming into the cockpit. > >2) You wrote: "But even the most stupid junior lawyer at the FAA >could nail you to the wall if you're operating all over the field without >the lights being on." > >I don't think the FAA sees the anticollision light as essential for ground >use. I think that there are some airlines that as SOP have pilots turn on >the anti collision light as they are cleared to take the runway for take >off. All other times it is considered courteous to have them off when on >the ground. I recall my first trip to the airplane with the flight instructor wherein he suggested that it was a good thing to turn on the flashing beacon just before starting the engine as a notice to others that you were about to become a potential hazard . . . In the past few days, we've had two small children killed under the wheels of cars here in Wichita. One small fellow had pulled away from his grandfathers grip to catch up with his brother who had crossed the lane to a drive-up window ahead of him. The car had stopped for the mother and other brother. The car was moving forward again when the second child decided to make his move. These incidents have sparked a lot of discussion in the media among folks who decry how "unsafe our society has become for children". No doubt the promulgators of hazard will become vulnerable to legal attacks of one kind or another. I recall from my childhood the loss of several children in my school due to various accidents. While our little town grieved over the loss of these individuals, I don't remember any call for new initiatives with a goal of reducing risks of similar events in the future. But like dozens of discussions in various venues at the FAA about lighting this, flashing that and prescribing sanctions against scofflaws, our town will be blessed with the opinions of many who will offer their own calls for "changes in society's behavior to prevent this from ever happening again". Years after these meetings took place, new initiatives erected and sanctions prescribed, the reasons offered by teachers for their existence will be as varied (and perhaps even conflicting) as the variety of rationales offered for the use or non-use of lighting on our airplanes. Long after the reasons that were offered when the rules were crafted are forgotten, the rules will still exist, propagandists will still be rationalizing them in a variety of ways. I use the word propagandist as opposed to teacher because most are simply parroting what they've heard or interpreted on their own without benefit of knowing the thinking of those who crafted the rules years ago and in places far away. The simple ideas behind exterior lighting are profound. Lights help you see. Lights help people see you. ANYTHING one does to make their airplane stand out from the environs has the obvious value of reducing risk. By how much? Nobody will ever know by virtue of a double-blind, scientific study of numbers derived from repeatable experiments. Nonetheless, fellow pilots, regulators and even your next door neighbor will have an opinion bolstered by some anecdote describing how two airplanes came together . . . or some kid met an untimely end in the McDonalds drive-thru. If running lights has some non-zero value for reducing risk, nobody is likely to sanction you for having lights. However, they might well decide to make an example of you for not having shown a light. The ultimate responsibility for doing a good thing about lighting an airplane rests with us and not upon those who run around with rule books under their arms trying to justify next year's raise. Being good citizens in the air and on the ground should be driven by something other than (1) dependance upon anecdotal interpretation of rules (2) or done just to avoid sanctions for having broken the rules. The best thing we can do here on the List is figure out ways to "make it happen" and perhaps concentrate less on whether or not it should happen and why. >OC -- The best investment we can make is the effort to gather and >understand knowledge. (Is that better Bob Nuckolls?) Makes sense to me my friend! Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Gaye and Vaughn" <vaughnray(at)bvunet.net>
Subject: Re: Daytime Anticollision Lights
Date: Feb 18, 2007
Long before manufacturers were required to wire cars and motorcycles to run with their headlights on, I always turned the headlights on my motorcycle on, even though the bike that I had at the time could barely keep up with running the lights and charging the battery at the same time However, I did not feel that this made me safe. In many it helped, but I recall one instance in which my back-up plan (assuming that no one saw me) is probably responsible for the fact that I still have a right leg. As a big car rushed up to the stop sign on my right, I was watching for the flicker of recognition in his eyes. Seeing none, I started to swerve left. Sure enough, after a rolling stop, he proceeded to pull across the street. The early beginning of my swerve and the act of raising my leg above the handlebars saved my leg. He didn't touch me, but I still remember my leg passing over his hood and the hair standing up on the back of my neck. So how does this relate? Why not use every aid available to enhance your safety and also stay alert and aware of your surroundings. The cockpit is no place for complacency and daydeaming, nor is the seat of a motorcycle. Vaughn Teegarden 66 years old and looking forward to many more years of safe flying and riding ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "C Smith" <pilot4profit(at)sbcglobal.net>
Subject: Daytime Anticollision Lights
Date: Feb 18, 2007
I have always wondered why my instructor always demanded that I turn off my strobes while on the ground. I thought the purpose of the strobes was to make my aircraft unmistakable. I have never been so disturbed by the flashing of strobes of other aircraft, that I could not fulfill my duties as pilot in command of my aircraft. Other than having read that this is somehow "airport etiquette" in a Cessna PPL course book, and parroted by many instructors, I simply don't understand it's real compliment to safety. I would rather be a standout on the taxi-way, than have my aircraft blend into the cacophony of lights on the field and have another aircraft or vehicle taxi into/land on top of me. If the lights bother someone, I suggest you not stare directly into the strobe. I'm sure that some will say that I should not worry about other aircraft, I should know if they are coming in to land, but more than once I've had aircraft swoop in to the runway without self announcement on the CTAF, or for that matter flying a proper pattern. When my aircraft is in motion or taxiing anywhere other than the hangar area, I'm going to use all of the lighting available, to ensure I'm seen. Sorry to have bothered you. I'm sure the flames will start, and the name calling will follow, but I'd rather be an a*****e than an accident statistic. Craig Smith ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: schematic revision
From: "Eric M. Jones" <emjones(at)charter.net>
Date: Feb 18, 2007
> ...Bench testing of the original design has exposed a flaw in the way the Perihelion OV module is wired in. The module cannot tolerate over 18 volts on any of its terminals for more than a few milliseconds. Not > very robust-sounding for a module designed to trip at 16.2 volts, and > an expensive lesson to learn the hard way, but in the end,... Bill, and all my fine customers, et al. To clarify--The Perihelion Design L-OVM is designed to shut down voltages over 16.2V that exist for 200 mS or more. This is usually used in combination with the WhackJack-18 that clamps load dump voltages over about 18V and will do it for over for more than 500 mS. Of course one might think, "Gee..it's made to shut off the power at 16.2V but BLOWS UP at 18V??" This is not quite what happens. The recent Maxwell Power OVM comparison (attached) also seems to have this point confused. (Although, thanks to their table I am considering raising my price substantially! BTW--The L-OVM also cuts the B leads with an external contactor.) The L-OVM is rated 18V because it has 20V Zener clamps. The module will pass DO-160 20/40/300V transients, automotive 60V transient requirements and will even help a bit in a lightning strike--but it is not made to withstand more than 18V continuously. This is not a design weakness, it is exactly what the device was designed to do. Generally, any device with transient voltage suppression will be very unhappy if these same transient voltages are applied continuously. I can design and build the L-OVM for any voltage, but it turns out that the Mosfets get bigger and more expensive in a hurry for the same performance, and the packaging issues abound. Description of Operation for the L-OVM is attached. Hope this clears up some things. -------- Eric M. Jones www.PerihelionDesign.com 113 Brentwood Drive Southbridge, MA 01550 (508) 764-2072 emjones(at)charter.net Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p-856#95856 Attachments: http://forums.matronics.com//files/lovm_description_of_operation_865.pdf http://forums.matronics.com//files/monitorandnbspoverview_782.pdf ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Feb 18, 2007
From: "Bill Boyd" <sportav8r(at)gmail.com>
Subject: Re: schematic revision
My OVM's destruction resulted form not applying it the way Eric said to (well, his schematic is not very similar to mine, but shows the way Bob used to recommend controlling an I-VR alternator with a B-lead contactor (but using MOSFET circuit interruption rather than crowbar breaker-popping approach.) I should have been able to read between the lines and deduce that, even in my different circuit topology, the connections of the OVM to the circuit should all have been made on the cold side of the OV event. It does say in the spec sheet that 18 volts is the maximum input voltage. Eric, despite my mea culpa above, I note the absence of any reference to WhackJacks or other suppression at the 18 volt level in the application notes included with the OV module I purchased from you. If it's that important, you might consider revising the documents. Thanks for your time on the phone the other evening. -Bill B On 2/18/07, Eric M. Jones wrote: > > > > ...Bench testing of the original design has exposed a flaw in the way the Perihelion OV module is wired in. The module cannot tolerate over 18 volts on any of its terminals for more than a few milliseconds. Not > > very robust-sounding for a module designed to trip at 16.2 volts, and > > an expensive lesson to learn the hard way, but in the end,... > > > Bill, and all my fine customers, et al. To clarify--The Perihelion Design L-OVM is designed to shut down voltages over 16.2V that exist for 200 mS or more. This is usually used in combination with the WhackJack-18 that clamps load dump voltages over about 18V and will do it for over for more than 500 mS. > > Of course one might think, "Gee..it's made to shut off the power at 16.2V but BLOWS UP at 18V??" This is not quite what happens. The recent Maxwell Power OVM comparison (attached) also seems to have this point confused. (Although, thanks to their table I am considering raising my price substantially! BTW--The L-OVM also cuts the B leads with an external contactor.) > > The L-OVM is rated 18V because it has 20V Zener clamps. The module will pass DO-160 20/40/300V transients, automotive 60V transient requirements and will even help a bit in a lightning strike--but it is not made to withstand more than 18V continuously. This is not a design weakness, it is exactly what the device was designed to do. Generally, any device with transient voltage suppression will be very unhappy if these same transient voltages are applied continuously. > > I can design and build the L-OVM for any voltage, but it turns out that the Mosfets get bigger and more expensive in a hurry for the same performance, and the packaging issues abound. > > Description of Operation for the L-OVM is attached. > > Hope this clears up some things. > > -------- > Eric M. Jones > www.PerihelionDesign.com > 113 Brentwood Drive > Southbridge, MA 01550 > (508) 764-2072 > emjones(at)charter.net > > > Read this topic online here: > > http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p-856#95856 > > > Attachments: > > http://forums.matronics.com//files/lovm_description_of_operation_865.pdf > http://forums.matronics.com//files/monitorandnbspoverview_782.pdf > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Feb 18, 2007
From: Ken <klehman(at)albedo.net>
Subject: Re: Battery Charging
http://www.shaka.com/~kalepa/desulf.htm CH701 wrote: > >Speaking of battery charging, a recent issue of Sport Aviation had an >article entitled "Pulse De-sulfator for Lead-acid Batteries." It described >the process of resurrecting weak or sulfated batteries, and included some >theory and a schematic of a circuit to address the process. I'm just >wondering what this community has to offer on the subject... > >Here's a link to the authors site: >http://www.geocities.com/powertugs/eaa79parts.html > >Todd Henning >Scratch CH701 Builder > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Charles Brame <chasb(at)satx.rr.com>
Subject: Battery Charging
Date: Feb 18, 2007
Bob, Assume you have two 17 AH batteries hooked in parallel, one is dead or very low, the other has a decent charge. If a "smart" charger will continue a high voltage until both batteries are charged before dropping to a sustaining level, can the charged battery in this case be damaged while bringing (or attempting to bring) the low or dead battery up to a fully charged state? Charlie Brame RV-6A N11CB San Antonio ------------------------------------------------------------------------ -------- > Bob Knuckles wrote: > > > You wait for a period of time -OR- until recharge current > drops below some nominally low value. I've heard Concord > folks cite "100 milliamps" as the indication that the battery > is no longer converting discharged chemistry into charged > chemistry. After this time, it's useful to drop the charger's > output voltage to a "sustaining" level that cannot charge but > only offset internal leakages (self discharge) currents that > exist in EVERY battery technology. > > To insure that all batteries in an array of two or more > see the same terminal voltage during the recharge-sustain > process, they must be in PARALLEL. > > -------------------snip--------- > > Absolutely. A 1.5A charger can deliver 1.5AH of charge > per hour. Hook dead 32, 18 and 10 AH batteries in > parallel and you've tasked the charger with delivering > enough energy to replenish all batteries in the array . . > or 60 AH. One should expect this process to take 40+ > hours to complete. All batteries are being recharged on > the same time curve with each getting a share of the > 1.5 AH/HR that's available from the charger. > > Bob . . . > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Feb 18, 2007
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net>
Subject: Re: Battery Charging
>Bob, > >Assume you have two 17 AH batteries hooked in parallel, one is dead or >very low, the other has a decent charge. If a "smart" charger will >continue a high voltage No, a CONSTANT CURRENT flows until BOTH batteries present a LOAD sufficiently low that (1) voltage rises to a level consistent with a high state of charger or (2) the charger goes into voltage limit where it now watches for recharge current to drop below some nominal but small value . . . 100 mA or less is typical. It doesn't matter that one (discharged) battery takes the lion's share of the current available. The chemistry in the charged battery simply relaxes until the discharged battery catches up to the partially/fully charged battery. >until both batteries are charged before dropping to a sustaining level, >can the charged battery in this case be damaged while bringing >(or attempting to bring) the low or dead battery up to a fully charged state? No, there are a number of myths circulated for decades and even posited here on the List that hooking a fully or highly charged battery to a discharged one would cause (a) damage to one or both batteries, (b) the dead battery would "suck down" the energy stored in the charged battery, (c) the charged battery to become over-charged if they were connected in parallel to a charging source, etc. etc. etc. Yes, if you hook a fully charged battery to a dead-dead battery, there is a momentary and relatively large current flow from the hot battery to the dead one. But if the connection is maintained and the energy transfer measured, one soon finds that a tiny (less than 1%) of the charged battery's energy is lost into the dead battery. After all, the charged battery delivers energy at something just over 12.5 volts and 12.5 volts cannot significantly charge a dead battery. Hooking two good batteries (one discharged and one charged) to the same charging source be it a Battery Tender, other smart charger or your aircraft's alternator presents no hazards nor special concerns for outcome of things once the charger's green "battery charged" light comes on. Bob . . . ---------------------------------------- ( IF one aspires to be "world class", ) ( what ever you do must be exercised ) ( EVERY day . . . ) ( R. L. Nuckolls III ) ---------------------------------------- ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Feb 18, 2007
From: "Bill Boyd" <sportav8r(at)gmail.com>
Subject: OV module wiring update/erratum
In the process of changing my panel wiring to reflect the drawings I recently posted here, I stumbled upon the need for one more change (hopefully the last one) - by leaving in place the damaged OV module that was fried during testing with a zero-to-18.3 volt power supply. It became immediately apparent that there was a short somewhere (well, duh!) and ended up blowing a 10 amp fuse in series with the avionics standby battery. Ohmmeter probing revealed a short-circuit hard fault existed from module pins 1 and 3 to pin 5 (ground). In my latest iteration, I had connected pins 2,3 and 4 to one 5-amp fuse on the avionics bus, and pin 1 plus one of the fast-on tabs to a second 5a fuse on the same bus. For whatever reason, the fault current was evenly-enough distributed between those two fuses that they both held, while the 10 amp fuse in the battery + lead blew. **The disturbing thing is that the entire 10 amp fault current was carried to ground by the 22 AWG wire on pin 5. Sustained testing could have gotten this wire really toasty** To protect this ground wire indirectly at the 5 amp level, I have moved all connections from the OV module to the avionics bus onto a single connection protected by a 5 amp fuse (about time, eh? ;-) This has an additional benefit of preventing a blown OV module fuse from taking out the trim system that formerly shared that fuse on the bus. (Standard good-engineering practice, I know). I realize that an _undamaged_ module won't be presenting any shorts to ground when wired in this way, but in the event the replacement module ever eats its lunch (I don't think it will, following the re-design of my schematic), I don't want a fault current of potentially 15 amps traveling down a 22 gauge ground wire. Eric, see any problems with the way I've done it now? -Bill ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Feb 18, 2007
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net>
Subject: Re: Battery Charging
> >http://www.shaka.com/~kalepa/desulf.htm > >CH701 wrote: > >> >>Speaking of battery charging, a recent issue of Sport Aviation had an >>article entitled "Pulse De-sulfator for Lead-acid Batteries." It described >>the process of resurrecting weak or sulfated batteries, and included some >>theory and a schematic of a circuit to address the process. I'm just >>wondering what this community has to offer on the subject... >> >>Here's a link to the authors site: >>http://www.geocities.com/powertugs/eaa79parts.html This article offers one of the more robust desulfation philosophies and probably the most popular version. I wish I had more hard data on this class of battery service aid. At the moment, I'm aware of no battery manufacturer that endorse this technology. Yeah, there are some who would suggest, "folks who build batteries are not interested in user applied technologies that prolong the life of their products. It cuts into battery sales." To which I confidently reply, "horse pucky". I've been to the R&D labs of several manufacturers and witnessed their efforts to fine tune chemistry, manufacturing processes and field service recommendations all of which go to improving on the manufacturer's competitive position in the marketplace. They also publish recommendations for how their batteries should be treated in the field to improve on customer satisfaction. When I asked these folks about desulfators, not a one said that they're detrimental to battery service life but to a man, they were unable to endorse them as having a quantifiable return on investment after having tested several products. Of course I don't know WHICH devices were tested . . . perhaps they missed putting their hands on Smiley Jack's One True Battery Desulfator. I can see no reason why one should NOT use any of these devices but I'm unaware of a single repeatable experiment that says they're a really good thing to do. If anyone runs across a report that proffers any hard data, I'd be pleased to know about it. My shop DAS computer went out the door yesterday 'cause it's also used to program the processors for and exercise the finished product for a programmable pressure controller I've been building for a client. I've off-loaded the manufacturing so that I can spend more time getting a new line of AEC products on line. I'll be acquiring another computer in the next few days so that I can resume the battery charger experiments we've been conducting over the past few days. Bob . . . ---------------------------------------- ( IF one aspires to be "world class", ) ( what ever you do must be exercised ) ( EVERY day . . . ) ( R. L. Nuckolls III ) ---------------------------------------- ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Feb 19, 2007
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net>
Subject: Pulse width modulation on linear actuators
> >Thanks Bob & sorry for the delay, the actuator takes 5 amps at rated load. >Tim That's a boss-hog trim motor. Do you know how much it draws as-installed? The pitch trim actuator on a Lear 35 draws 16A at rated load for the actuator (2500 pounds) but draws only 2A in worst case for normal flight (about 300 pounds). Bob . . . ---------------------------------------- ( IF one aspires to be "world class", ) ( what ever you do must be exercised ) ( EVERY day . . . ) ( R. L. Nuckolls III ) ---------------------------------------- ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "ddddsp1(at)juno.com" <ddddsp1(at)juno.com>
Date: Feb 19, 2007
Subject: remote battery terminals
Bob, I was considering running remote battery terminals to make it easier IF I ever need to jump start my plane. The wire run would be 12-16" from the battery. What size wire would be recommended to run to these remote terminals? The battery is a Odessey PC925. Would a fuse inline be nec essary? Dean ________________________________________________________________________ FREE Reminder Service - NEW from AmericanGreetings.com Click HERE and never forget a Birthday or Anniversary again! http://track.juno.com/s/lc?s=197335&u=http://www.americangreetings.c om/products/online_calendar.pd?c=uol5752

Bob,

 I was considering running remote battery terminals to make it e asier IF I ever need to jump start my plane.  The wire run would be 12-16" from the battery.  What size wire would be recommended to r un to these remote terminals?  The battery is a Odessey PC925.  ; Would a fuse inline be necessary?

Dean



______________________ __________________________________________________
FREE Remin der Service - NEW from AmericanGreetings.com
Click HERE and never forget a Birthday or Anniversary again!
< br>

      
      
      
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Hand soldering reliability
Date: Feb 19, 2007
From: "Chuck Jensen" <cjensen(at)dts9000.com>
On Behalf Of Todd Heffley Sent: Sunday, February 18, 2007 5:29 PM Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Hand soldering reliability --> Had to rant. For those of you who have not had the pleasure of working under these tyanical systems... When you hear the words Six Sigma, be prepared to stop what you are doing and build some spreadsheets, attend MANY meetings, and synergize team-to-team stratagies to maximize future deliverables. BUT MOST OF ALL, YOU WILL STOP PRODUCING USEFUL products/services/advancements.....PERIOD. **** Yes, but the one piece that you will finally be able to produce will be PERFECT...or at least, it will match the imperfect paperwork that weighs as much as the part. Six Sigma is an attempt to rely on a system instead of people, but then, since imperfect people are running the Six Sigma program, the results are often predictable, if unproductive. Nonetheless, a well controlled and documented process is invaluable and pays manifold dividends later. Chuck ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Trim Motor Rant
Date: Feb 19, 2007
From: "Valovich, Paul" <pvalovich(at)dcscorp.com>
I spent Sunday wiring the Ray Allen elevator trim motor on my -8A. Can anyone explain the logic of why this otherwise fine product has micro wires hanging off it instead of AWG 22's? What a PITA to work with. Paul Valovich ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Trim Motor Rant
Date: Feb 19, 2007
From: "Hinde, Frank George (Corvallis)" <frank.hinde(at)hp.com>
I agree, but its a right of passage. I soldered a 2 foot tail of AWG 22 on each micro wire and made the mechanical connection under the empanage fairing. It is a pain though 'cus you expect the wiring to take 5 minutes and it takes 1.5 hours...A bit like evry other job come to think of it! Frank 7a ________________________________ From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Valovich, Paul Sent: Monday, February 19, 2007 7:38 AM Subject: AeroElectric-List: Trim Motor Rant I spent Sunday wiring the Ray Allen elevator trim motor on my -8A. Can anyone explain the logic of why this otherwise fine product has micro wires hanging off it instead of AWG 22's? What a PITA to work with. Paul Valovich ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Tim Andres" <tim2542(at)sbcglobal.net>
Subject: Pulse width modulation on linear actuators
Date: Feb 19, 2007
I dont know yet Bob, the spec I gave is from the mfg and I'm sure is worst case, I imagine in this lightly load application, it will be >.5 amp. Thanks, Tim -----Original Message----- From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Robert L. Nuckolls, III Sent: Monday, February 19, 2007 3:21 AM Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Pulse width modulation on linear actuators > >Thanks Bob & sorry for the delay, the actuator takes 5 amps at rated load. >Tim That's a boss-hog trim motor. Do you know how much it draws as-installed? The pitch trim actuator on a Lear 35 draws 16A at rated load for the actuator (2500 pounds) but draws only 2A in worst case for normal flight (about 300 pounds). Bob . . . ---------------------------------------- ( IF one aspires to be "world class", ) ( what ever you do must be exercised ) ( EVERY day . . . ) ( R. L. Nuckolls III ) ---------------------------------------- -- -- ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Feb 19, 2007
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net>
Subject: Trim Motor Rant
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Valovich, Paul Sent: Monday, February 19, 2007 7:38 AM Subject: AeroElectric-List: Trim Motor Rant I spent Sunday wiring the Ray Allen elevator trim motor on my -8A. Can anyone explain the logic of why this otherwise fine product has micro wires hanging off it instead of AWG 22? What a PITA to work with. Paul ------------------------------ I agree, but its a right of passage. I soldered a 2 foot tail of AWG 22 on each micro wire and made the mechanical connection under the empanage fairing. It is a pain though 'cus you expect the wiring to take 5 minutes and it takes 1.5 hours...A bit like evry other job come to think of it! Frank 7a ----------------------------------------------------- Agreed. Back in '86 on my first pilgrimage to OSH, I stopped by the then Menzimer booth to suggest that 22AWG wires would be much more user friendly for the neophyte builder . . . I also suggested that two white wires on the motor leads gave a builder a 50/50 chance of hooking it up right the first time. How about making white a (+)extend and perhaps a black wire for (+)retract? "We're not hearing any complaints from customers", was the reply. For the next 12 years or so, I'd make the same visit and offer the same suggestions only to receive the same insipid response. I told them I was trying to produce wiring diagrams that featured their products and I'd really like to have the motor run the right direction the first time, every time. But alas . . . This is why it's important to be responsible consumers. Make the manufacturer aware of your displeasure irrespective of how willing you are to live with what's been supplied to you. I gave it my best shot for a dozen years, it's up to you folks now . . . Bob . . . ---------------------------------------- ( IF one aspires to be "world class", ) ( what ever you do must be exercised ) ( EVERY day . . . ) ( R. L. Nuckolls III ) ---------------------------------------- ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Feb 19, 2007
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net>
Subject: Re: remote battery terminals
>Bob, > > I was considering running remote battery terminals to make it easier IF > I ever need to jump start my plane. The wire run would be 12-16" from > the battery. What size wire would be recommended to run to these remote > terminals? The battery is a Odessey PC925. Would a fuse inline be necessary? > >Dean Depends on who's making the judgment. It's only 'necessary' if YOU think it's necessary. The remote terminals are now an extension of the battery's ability to dump energy externally in the event of a crash or perhaps even a maintenance accident. The best we know how to do is the pilot controlled, reverse polarity, over voltage protected ground power plug. Anything you choose to do short of those design goals is entirely up to you. Bob . . . ---------------------------------------- ( IF one aspires to be "world class", ) ( what ever you do must be exercised ) ( EVERY day . . . ) ( R. L. Nuckolls III ) ---------------------------------------- ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Fergus Kyle" <VE3LVO(at)rac.ca>
Subject: Strobes
Date: Feb 19, 2007
Craig, I read your latest paragraph regarding lighting and noted that's it's all "I" and no "we". Manoeuvring around an airfield, particularly a busy one, is very much a community thing, not a solitary event. While you are not bothered by another's strobes on the tarmac, many others are, me included. If you were to sit up at 20 feet in Chicago O'Hare and every aircraft had on strobes, you would appreciate the confusion and wariness that occurred. Strobes don't quickly indicate speed, turns or direction. That's why we copied ships and used coloured lamps - which do all three. Trying to guess the progress of conflicting traffic between flashes is a mug's game and unsafe. It is unnecessarily distracting and time-wasting when time's in short supply. Strobes are designed to be seen many miles away, not several feet. Turning strobes on at Take-off clearance tells everyone who's the primary traffic on the live runway, and the tower that the clearance has been received and acted on.... and it does so without bothering anyone. If the clearance wasn't issued, it draws attention to the tower that danger is building and the take-off stopped if possible. "I'm sure the flames will start, and the name calling will follow, but I'd rather be an a*****e than an accident statistic." Safe, co-ordinated airport traffic is not necessarily about what you'd rather be. It's more concerning about what you'd rather not cause. Turning landing lights on descent through 10.000 feet is not about aircraft collisions, it's training bird flocks to avoid aircraft. Ferg Kyle Europa A064 914 Classic PS: I think the argument for rotating beacons has more merit. ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Feb 19, 2007
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net>
Subject: Re: Battery chargers
>Bob, I am not a normal contributor to your list but read with interest, >when possible, and thought I would offer this for your thoughts. There >seems to be a lot of interest lately on battery chargers. > >I have used old small UPS systems for battery chargers and found them to >be pretty good at charging and keeping batteries charged. The type of UPS >systems that I am talking about is normally used for personal computers or >servers. I have done some measuring and they seem to vary a little in >how sophisticated they are. Some of the high end ones also seem to have a >DC pulse of some higher than 12v intensity. I don't have a scope >available so just observed a pulse reading on a meter that looks larger >than 30 volts. I assumed this was some form of attempt at preventing >sulfation. The resting or float voltage varies with units all the way >from 13.2 up to 13.8 using an uncalibrated meter. The nice part is that I >have found a lot of these around that people don't seem to want to bother >with replacing their old or bad batteries and will pass them on or junk >them. Since I am a classic cheap skate, it seemed a shame not to reclaim >them for a useful purpose. Several of these small ups systems originally >had Panasonic sealed lead acid batteries similar in size and shape to the >Odyssey 680 and since I have a 680 in the RV4, I thought this might make a >good battery charger/tender/minder for it. >My assumption is that UPS manufacturers probably built a pretty good >battery charger/tender in the unit so as not to over charge the internal >battery. I don't have a recording meter system so I am not aware of how >they charge; as in "equalize", versus "float", etc They also seem to >have built in several protection modes, such as turning off the 117 volt >inverters or the load when the battery reaches a certain voltage (not >important when using as a charger) and they also shut down the 12 volt >output when the battery is below a certain starting voltage. In other >words, a completely flat battery will have to be paralleled with another >good battery to use these power supplies as chargers. > >For my convenience, I mounted banana plug female jacks on the outside of >the units and made up jumpers with alligator jacks on them. They also >seem to work pretty good at charging up portable jumper batteries too. > >In your opinion, am I slowly cooking any battery that I hook up to these >"inexpensive" power supplies. What a novel discovery my friend, thank you for sharing this! Of course, uninterruptible are tasked with maintaining a battery (that almost never gets cycled) in a high state of readiness. Unlike vehicular systems that crank engines and supply fill-in power when engine RPMS are too low, the UPS battery may sit for years while the owner expects it to keep things running for a useful period of time during power failures. As others have observed on the List . . . batteries applied in this special service may benefit from special treatment by the charging/maintaining system powered from AC mains. Which reminds me, the UPS on my desk is about 6 years old and the last time I had a neighborhood power down, the battery lasted barely long enough for me to do an orderly save. I don't have a battery on hand that fits inside but I do have some instrumentation batteries as large as 32 AH. It occurred to me last week that I might bring the battery wires out and use one of these fat mamas to replace the internal battery. Your posting has prompted me to revisit that task with new purpose in mind. I'll take some measurements on how this particular device treats its battery. If anyone else has occasion to conduct some similar investigations into John's idea, please share it with us here on the List. Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Feb 19, 2007
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net>
Subject: Pulse width modulation on linear actuators
> >I don't know yet Bob, the spec I gave is from the mfg and I'm sure is worst >case, I imagine in this lightly load application, it will be > >.5 amp. >Thanks, Tim Hmmmm . . . okay, except that inrush currents will be rather spectacular compared to the load currents. When you craft a duty-cycle limited controller, I'd recommend that transistors in the 10A class be used to drive the motor. Bob . . . ---------------------------------------- ( IF one aspires to be "world class", ) ( what ever you do must be exercised ) ( EVERY day . . . ) ( R. L. Nuckolls III ) ---------------------------------------- ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Feb 20, 2007
From: Matt Jurotich <mjurotich(at)hst.nasa.gov>
Subject: battery bus
I have put a blade type fuse holder connected to the battery and 14 gauge wire from there to an always hot lighter socket and a short wire from there to the endurance bus switch. Is there a slow blow 20 amp fuse for automotive blade type fuses or a circuit breaker that would work. Is my endurance bus at significant risk and if so would a fusible link be better? I figure e bus loads at about 5 amps. Thanks in advance Matthew M. Jurotich e-mail mail to: phone : 301-286-5919 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Feb 20, 2007
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net>
Subject: Re: battery bus
> > >I have put a blade type fuse holder connected to the battery and 14 gauge >wire from there to an always hot lighter socket and a short wire from >there to the endurance bus switch. Is there a slow blow 20 amp fuse for >automotive blade type fuses or a circuit breaker that would work. Is my >endurance bus at significant risk and if so would a fusible link be >better? I figure e bus loads at about 5 amps. I presume the fuse holder is right next to the battery contactor. Suggest you use a separate fuse (5A) off the battery bus to drive the "lighter socket". Use another fuse to supply always hot wire to the alternate feed switch. 10A fuse is fine for a 5A bus. Bob . . . ---------------------------------------- ( IF one aspires to be "world class", ) ( what ever you do must be exercised ) ( EVERY day . . . ) ( R. L. Nuckolls III ) ---------------------------------------- ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Terry Watson" <terry(at)tcwatson.com>
Subject: P-mags
Date: Feb 20, 2007
This is an excerpt from a message to the Matronics Engines list this morning, posted by Mike Larkin: " As for the P-mag, I recovered an RV-7 from a highway two weekends ago when Both P-mags failed. Guess what, the electrical system worked perfectly......" Since E-mags and P-mags have been a subject on this list, I thought I would pass it on. Does anyone know the story? Terry ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Feb 20, 2007
From: Sam Marlow <sam(at)fr8dog.net>
Subject: Full Auto
I know I read it somewhere on the web, a fully auto Stby Alt system. All you have to do is reduce loads until the light goes out, and continue uninterrupted until your planned stop fuel stop. Anyone remember reading something like that? I'm ready for that step in my RV10, and don't want to continue with a overly complicated system. KISS is my aim! Sam Marlow Wiring RV10 ________________________________________________________________________________
From: BobsV35B(at)aol.com
Date: Feb 20, 2007
Subject: Re: Full Auto
Good Afternoon Sam, That is the way the certified B&C Standby Alternator in My V35B Bonanza works. I love it! Happy Skies, Old Bob AKA Bob Siegfried Ancient Aviator Stearman N3977A Brookeridge Air Park LL22 Downers Grove, IL 60516 630 985-8503 In a message dated 2/20/2007 1:10:34 P.M. Central Standard Time, sam(at)fr8dog.net writes: I know I read it somewhere on the web, a fully auto Stby Alt system. All you have to do is reduce loads until the light goes out, and continue uninterrupted until your planned stop fuel stop. Anyone remember reading something like that? I'm ready for that step in my RV10, and don't want to continue with a overly complicated system. KISS is my aim! Sam Marlow Wiring RV10


**************************************
Check out free AOL at http://free.aol.com/thenewaol/index.adp. Most comprehensive set of free safety and security tools, millions of free high-quality videos from across the web, free AOL Mail and much more. ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: P-mags
Date: Feb 20, 2007
From: "John W. Cox" <johnwcox(at)pacificnw.com>
I was not aware the four cylinder P mag was yet available for Prime Time. Could this have been dual E mags? John Cox -----Original Message----- From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Terry Watson Sent: Tuesday, February 20, 2007 10:47 AM Subject: AeroElectric-List: P-mags This is an excerpt from a message to the Matronics Engines list this morning, posted by Mike Larkin: " As for the P-mag, I recovered an RV-7 from a highway two weekends ago when Both P-mags failed. Guess what, the electrical system worked perfectly......" Since E-mags and P-mags have been a subject on this list, I thought I would pass it on. Does anyone know the story? Terry ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Feb 20, 2007
From: Harley <harley(at)AgelessWings.com>
Subject: Re: P-mags
John... The four cylinder P-Mag has been available right from the start...I've ordered one (now have two) in September of 2004. The six cylinder version is still waiting release. www.emagair.com/FAQ.htm Harley Dixon ------------------------------------------------------------------------ John W. Cox wrote: > > I was not aware the four cylinder P mag was yet available for Prime > Time. Could this have been dual E mags? > > John Cox > > > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com > [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Terry > Watson > Sent: Tuesday, February 20, 2007 10:47 AM > To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com > Subject: AeroElectric-List: P-mags > > > > > This is an excerpt from a message to the Matronics Engines list this > morning, posted by Mike Larkin: > > " As for the P-mag, I recovered an RV-7 from a highway two weekends ago > when Both P-mags failed. Guess what, the electrical system worked > perfectly......" > > Since E-mags and P-mags have been a subject on this list, I thought I > would > pass it on. Does anyone know the story? > > Terry > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: P-mags
Date: Feb 20, 2007
From: "Hinde, Frank George (Corvallis)" <frank.hinde(at)hp.com>
Nope Dual P mags. They did NOT fail. I believe ONE of them went to very advanced timing. It has the effect of fouling up the timing completely because once the charge has been lit the second spark doesn't do anything. There is a long discussion on the Vansairforce website about it. Frank RV-7a -----Original Message----- From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of John W. Cox Sent: Tuesday, February 20, 2007 11:54 AM Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: P-mags --> I was not aware the four cylinder P mag was yet available for Prime Time. Could this have been dual E mags? John Cox -----Original Message----- From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Terry Watson Sent: Tuesday, February 20, 2007 10:47 AM Subject: AeroElectric-List: P-mags This is an excerpt from a message to the Matronics Engines list this morning, posted by Mike Larkin: " As for the P-mag, I recovered an RV-7 from a highway two weekends ago when Both P-mags failed. Guess what, the electrical system worked perfectly......" Since E-mags and P-mags have been a subject on this list, I thought I would pass it on. Does anyone know the story? Terry ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Bill and Marsha" <docyukon(at)ptcnet.net>
Subject: Re: Pulse width modulation on linear actuators
Date: Feb 20, 2007
Bob I also am in need of a speed controller to slow down a linear actuator that I intend to use for my manually in-flight adjustable prop. I have a Werner Electric actuator rated at 1.3a no load and 5.9a full load (75 lbs) Full load speed .6 in. sec. no-load speed. 1 in sec.I should need only about 25 lbs force. My question is, If I use your Dimmer ckt, as shown in the earlier attached PDF link, What are the component values that should be used to build it. And can I expect app 1/3 force at 1/3 speed? Bill S. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net> Sent: Friday, February 16, 2007 1:38 AM Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Pulse width modulation on linear actuators > > > >> >> >>Can any one tell if the duty cycle on a PWM will equate at least roughly >>with motor speed? ie will a 20% duty cycle slow the motor down to >>approximately %20 or does it not work that way? I have a linear actuator >>for >>pitch trim that that travels 2"/sec, I need about .5"/sec. > > > Probably. PM motors have field fields which makes > RPM proportional to applied voltage. The RMS (power) > available from any source is also proportional > to duty cycle for a non-continuous flow. In any > case, I presume you're going to make the duty cycle > adjustable so whether it takes 25% duty cycle > or 27% duty cycle to achieve exactly the speed you > want is irrelevant. > > You can also use linear techniques. An adjustable > but regulated voltage source not unlike the dimmers > described in . . . > > http://www.aeroelectric.com/articles//DimmerFabrication.pdf > > . . . may be considered also. How much current does > your motor draw at full speed? > > Bob . . . > > ---------------------------------------- > ( IF one aspires to be "world class", ) > ( what ever you do must be exercised ) > ( EVERY day . . . ) > ( R. L. Nuckolls III ) > ---------------------------------------- > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Feb 20, 2007
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net>
Subject: Re: Full Auto
> >I know I read it somewhere on the web, a fully auto Stby Alt system. All >you have to do is reduce loads until the light goes out, and continue >uninterrupted until your planned stop fuel stop. Anyone remember reading >something like that? I'm ready for that step in my RV10, and don't want to >continue with a overly complicated system. KISS is my aim! It's the B&C SD-20 with details at http://bandc.biz and you can check out Figure Z-12 at http://aeroelectric.com/articles/Rev11/AppZ_R11J.pdf for a suggested architecture to go with it. Bob . . . ---------------------------------------- ( IF one aspires to be "world class", ) ( what ever you do must be exercised ) ( EVERY day . . . ) ( R. L. Nuckolls III ) ---------------------------------------- ________________________________________________________________________________
From: HCRV6(at)comcast.net
Subject: P-mags
Date: Feb 21, 2007
Frank, Help me out here, if that isn't a "failure", just what would you call it? In my book, any mechanical screw up that causes an unplanned landing sure fits the definition of a failure. -- Harry Crosby RV-6 N16CX, 312 hours -------------- Original message ---------------------- From: "Hinde, Frank George (Corvallis)" <frank.hinde(at)hp.com> > > > Nope Dual P mags. They did NOT fail. I believe ONE of them went to very > advanced timing. It has the effect of fouling up the timing completely > because once the charge has been lit the second spark doesn't do > anything. > > There is a long discussion on the Vansairforce website about it. > > Frank > RV-7a > > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com > [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of John > W. Cox > Sent: Tuesday, February 20, 2007 11:54 AM > To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com > Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: P-mags > > --> > > I was not aware the four cylinder P mag was yet available for Prime > Time. Could this have been dual E mags? > > John Cox > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com > [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Terry > Watson > Sent: Tuesday, February 20, 2007 10:47 AM > To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com > Subject: AeroElectric-List: P-mags > > > > > This is an excerpt from a message to the Matronics Engines list this > morning, posted by Mike Larkin: > > " As for the P-mag, I recovered an RV-7 from a highway two weekends ago > when Both P-mags failed. Guess what, the electrical system worked > perfectly......" > > Since E-mags and P-mags have been a subject on this list, I thought I > would pass it on. Does anyone know the story? > > Terry > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: P-mags
Date: Feb 20, 2007
From: "John W. Cox" <johnwcox(at)pacificnw.com>
I guess my attempt at tact by saying not yet available for Prime Time was misleading. So... the P mag is ready for Prime Time and does out perform an archaic magneto. John Cox #40600 -----Original Message----- From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of HCRV6(at)comcast.net Sent: Tuesday, February 20, 2007 5:43 PM Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: P-mags Frank,


February 10, 2007 - February 20, 2007

AeroElectric-Archive.digest.vol-gr