AeroElectric-Archive.digest.vol-gx
May 10, 2007 - May 23, 2007
Bob,
>
>Where can I get info on how to do a Cap-Check? What equipment is
>required?
>
>I realize this is pretty basic stuff, but I am clueless.
>
>Charlie Brame
>RV-6A N11CB
>San Antonio
The simplest way is to take the time on some long VFR
day flight to put your system into the endurance mode
(turn alternator off and load shed) and see how long
it takes for your battery to get down to 10.5 volts.
This measures the time your battery is capable of
supporting the ship's most useful endurance systems.
Turn the alternator back on and it should recharge the
battery to mostly full in the next 30 minutes or so.
The preferred way is to use test equipment like:
http://westmountainradio.com/CBA_ham.htm
or
http://www.aeroelectric.com/articles/battest.pdf
or install our soon to be released in-situ battery
cap checker.
The point is that while everyone would like to
BELIEVE that their battery is sitting there ready
willing and able to get them comfortably on the ground,
the vast majority of batteries flying as you read
these words would probably fall short of the pilot's
fondest wishes should the alternator crap.
Goto the archives search engine at:
http://www.matronics.com/archives/
Select AeroElectric and then search for
"duration of fuel"
There a rich history of discussion on the value in
KNOWING what your battery is capable of before
you launch.
Bob . . .
_________________________________________________________________
Catch suspicious messages before you open themwith Windows Live Hotmail.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: SPDT momentary push-button switch (comm flip-flop) |
>I plan to install a comm flip-flop pushbutton switch in a wood grip from
>Custom Aircraft Grips in Kelso, WA. I have a King KX 155 nav/comm which
>requires a SPDT momentary switch for this feature vs. the SPST switch that
>was supplied with the grip. The bore diameter in the grip for the switch
>is 11/32 . I appreciate any leads that are provided regarding a source for
>this switch. Thanks.
>
>
Are there actually three wires that are connected to
this switch? It's unusual to need more than a momentary
connection (usually ground) to a single flip-flop signal
lead. While there might be SPDT ON-(ON) switches described/
recommended for this application, I would be surprised that
a SPST OFF-(ON) switch would not be adequate to the task.
Bob . . .
----------------------------------------
( IF one aspires to be "world class", )
( what ever you do must be exercised )
( EVERY day . . . )
( R. L. Nuckolls III )
----------------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Jabiru EI pick up |
>"urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w =
>"urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word">
>Peter,
>
>It sounds like you made your pick up too sensitive. Maybe it fires because
>other parts of the flywheel are lightly magnetized and cause early peaks.
>When you induce current in a coil, the signal will always show some
>oscillations. This is the hard part, getting it 'just right'. you probably
>do want to get an oscilloscope to watch the signal shape, so you can see
>what unwanted peaks exist, and maybe engineer a dampening circuit that
>gets rid of them. Nobody said it would be easy...
>
>Rob
>----- Original Message -----
>From: <mailto:peterjfharris(at)bigpond.com>Peter Harris
>To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
>Sent: Thursday, May 10, 2007 8:06 AM
>Subject: AeroElectric-List: Jabiru EI pick up
>
>Hi again,
>I have been experimenting with an inductive pick up mounted in place of
>one of the magneto coils on the Jab 3300 and can produce a big fat spark
>at hand propping speed using a simple electronic ignition module and an
>automotive coil feeding the Jab distributor. (I suspect the original Jab
>magnetos were intended to drive just one plug not six through a
>distributor.) I have been able to increase plug gap to 1.0mm and cold
>starting is solved plus better spark through the power range. The signal
>from this sensor is about 4 VAC at idle.
The voltage from an inductor in the presence of a changing magnetic
field is a function of turns in the coil and rate of change of the magnetic
field impressed upon the coil. The phenomenon you describe is predictable.
For example, at low rpm let's say you get a peak voltage pulse of 4 volts.
The voltage begins to rise as the magnetic field fringes first intersect
the coil. As RPM increases, the size of the pulse peak will rise. Let's say
at cruise RPM you're getting 15 volts. Now, if your trigger level for
firing the ignition is something like 2 volts, then you get a spark at 50%
of peak at low rpm and 12% of peak at high rpm. The increase in peak
voltage has the effect of causing the system to trigger earlier at higher
rpm. Rotax touts this as a feature for automatic advancement of spark at
higher rpm. The effectiveness of this advance is debatable . . . advance is
useful but I doubt that the amount of advance achieved by exploiting this
phenomenon is optimal in terms of engine performance.
Without seeing your circuitry and possibly some 'scope pictures of the
trigger waveform, we'd be shooting in the dark if I were to attempt a
change to what you're doing. The problem you're experiencing is not
uncommon. There are signal conditioning chips specifically crafted for
filtering these signals. See: http://cache.national.com/ds/LM/LM1815.pdf
You need to acquire some tools and a 'scope is very high on the list.
I've bought dozens of perfectly useful 'scopes for $200 or less off
Ebay. Look for Tektronix 2200 series 'scopes. I picked up a really clean
2215 a few months ago for $90 plus $25 shipping. Don't worry about probes.
You get nice new ones for about $30 each from dozens of suppliers.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "William Gill" <wgill10(at)comcast.net> |
| Subject: | SPDT momentary push-button switch (comm flip-flop) |
Bob,
SPDT is correct per the installation manual (previously sent to you a
few months ago). If I had known earlier, I wouldn't have made this
provision when I ordered the grip.
I did touching the wire to ground and the frequency toggled ONCE. It was
necessary to then touch this wire to aircraft power to get it to toggle
a second time.
Bill
-----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, May 10, 2007 10:13 AM
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: SPDT momentary push-button switch (comm
flip-flop)
>I plan to install a comm flip-flop pushbutton switch in a wood grip
from
>Custom Aircraft Grips in Kelso, WA. I have a King KX 155 nav/comm which
>requires a SPDT momentary switch for this feature vs. the SPST switch
that
>was supplied with the grip. The bore diameter in the grip for the
switch
>is 11/32 . I appreciate any leads that are provided regarding a source
for
>this switch. Thanks.
>
>
Are there actually three wires that are connected to
this switch? It's unusual to need more than a momentary
connection (usually ground) to a single flip-flop signal
lead. While there might be SPDT ON-(ON) switches described/
recommended for this application, I would be surprised that
a SPST OFF-(ON) switch would not be adequate to the task.
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: | connector for sl-30 |
5/10/2007
Hello Ron, Try Delta RF. See the bottom center of this web page/
http://www.deltarf.com/prodspecial.html
I believe it is part number 4205018N995 copied off the connector on my
SL-30.
Good luck and please tell me why you want it - thanks.
OC -- The best investment we can make is the effort to gather and understand
knowledge.
------------------------------
From: "Ron Raby" <ronr(at)advanceddesign.com>
Subject: AeroElectric-List: connector for sl-30
To everyone:
I am looking to get a coax connector for an SL - 30. It is Garmin part #
162 -1008 right angle coax connector. Anyone know what connector this
is?
The dealer wanted to sell me a whole install kit.
Thanks
Ron Raby
Lancair ES
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | SPDT momentary push-button switch (comm flip-flop) |
| From: | Ron Quillin <rjquillin(at)gmail.com> |
At 07:50 5/10/2007, you wrote:
>I did touching the wire to ground and the frequency toggled ONCE. It was
>necessary to then touch this wire to aircraft power to get it to toggle
>a second time.
>
>Bill
I don't have the 155 service/installation manual, but looking at the
SM for the 155A there are some internal pull-up provisions for the
external switch.
A momentary to ground should be all that is required.
By means of whatever type switch you choose to use.
Perhaps there is some issue within your 155?
Ron Q.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "James Foerster" <jmfpublic(at)comcast.net> |
| Subject: | Re:Dual Voltage Operation of Ford-style Alternator |
Hello Paul,
Your idea sounds good, and something similar is being done by Lancair
(or the commercial variant, Columbia) with their electrically heated
de-ice system. They run an alternator at very high voltage. I forget
the exact number, but it may by 48 volts.
If you cooling unit will take 48 volts, why not use it? Hard to believe
that you will get too much cooling. Since you will not have a battery
on line for either 28 or higher voltage use, the choice of regulator
will need some care, but I suspect your cooling unit will be less
sensitive to over voltage than most avionics systems. Make sure that
your high voltage regulator can be fed by a diode from the 12v battery
just to get started, and the diode will prevent back feed into the
battery.
I recall in the 1960's when alternators came out, that the back of
Popular Mechanics would advertise plans for using your car alternator as
a welding supply, putting in a connection to the alternator that would
cut out the regulator and let the voltage soar. I never tried it...
Jim Foerster, J400, wiring....
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Zanon XRX antenna position |
| From: | "hansriet" <hansinla(at)mac.com> |
I own the MRX as well and agree that it's essential for safe flight in high traffic
areas.
I am building the MRX into the panel with the Zaon installation kit (couldn't be
bothered bending the aluminum myself for the $30 they're asking).
The external antenna can be any transponder antenna like the $12 TED antennas that
are for sale on eBay. Don't install the PCAS antenna too close to the transponder
antenna, otherwise you'll need an expensive attenuator.
I don't know if the XRX has the capabilities for external antennas, but that would
be the way to go.
Hans van Riet
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=112041#112041
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Ron Raby" <ronr(at)advanceddesign.com> |
| Subject: | Re: connector for sl-30 |
Bob
I am trying a new nav antenna and want to build the cable on the bench.
Thanks
Ron Raby
----- Original Message -----
From: <bakerocb(at)cox.net>
Sent: Thursday, May 10, 2007 10:13 AM
Subject: AeroElectric-List: connector for sl-30
>
> 5/10/2007
>
> Hello Ron, Try Delta RF. See the bottom center of this web page/
>
> http://www.deltarf.com/prodspecial.html
>
> I believe it is part number 4205018N995 copied off the connector on my
> SL-30.
>
> Good luck and please tell me why you want it - thanks.
>
> OC -- The best investment we can make is the effort to gather and
> understand knowledge.
>
> ------------------------------
>
> From: "Ron Raby" <ronr(at)advanceddesign.com>
> Subject: AeroElectric-List: connector for sl-30
>
> To everyone:
>
> I am looking to get a coax connector for an SL - 30. It is Garmin part #
> 162 -1008 right angle coax connector. Anyone know what connector this
> is?
> The dealer wanted to sell me a whole install kit.
>
> Thanks
>
> Ron Raby
>
> Lancair ES
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "rtitsworth" <rtitsworth(at)mindspring.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Zanon XRX antenna position |
The XRX antenna is much larger (diameter) as it is a special directional
antenna. A remote option is supposedly in the works from Vaon, but the
prototype @ SNF looked pretty ugly. There are no (visible) remote antenna
ports on a XRX.
Rick
Flying with an XRX interfaced to the 496.
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of hansriet
Sent: Thursday, May 10, 2007 12:28 PM
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Re: Zanon XRX antenna position
I own the MRX as well and agree that it's essential for safe flight in high
traffic areas.
I am building the MRX into the panel with the Zaon installation kit
(couldn't be bothered bending the aluminum myself for the $30 they're
asking).
The external antenna can be any transponder antenna like the $12 TED
antennas that are for sale on eBay. Don't install the PCAS antenna too close
to the transponder antenna, otherwise you'll need an expensive attenuator.
I don't know if the XRX has the capabilities for external antennas, but that
would be the way to go.
Hans van Riet
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=112041#112041
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "William Gill" <wgill10(at)comcast.net> |
| Subject: | SPDT momentary push-button switch (comm flip-flop) |
Ron,
The 155 is fine...the install manual calls for a SPDT switch with
connections to ground AND aircraft power.
Bill
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Ron
Quillin
Sent: Thursday, May 10, 2007 10:44 AM
Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: SPDT momentary push-button switch (comm
flip-flop)
At 07:50 5/10/2007, you wrote:
>I did touch the wire to ground and the frequency toggled ONCE. It was
>necessary to then touch this wire to aircraft power to get it to toggle
>a second time.
>
>Bill
I don't have the 155 service/installation manual, but looking at the
SM for the 155A there are some internal pull-up provisions for the
external switch.
A momentary to ground should be all that is required.
By means of whatever type switch you choose to use.
Perhaps there is some issue within your 155?
Ron Q.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Joe Dubner <jdubner(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | Hitachi Alternator |
My O235 Long-EZ has experienced some sort of charging system failure.
It was intermittent at first but now it does nothing -- I flew home
battery only. So I suspect it's time for brush replacement on my
automotive alternator and I'd like to buy some brushes at the local auto
parts store.
The alternator is an internally regulated Hitachi alternator with no
part number (and I didn't install it). The counter-person at the NAPA
and the AutoZone stores gave me that "deer in the headlight" look when I
asked for brushes for a Hitachi alternator. They only understand car
make, model, and year. So can someone help me with a cross-reference?
The alternator appears to be this one:
http://www.marineengine.com/parts/part_details.php?pnum=SIE18-6284&returntopage240069.htm
(or try this if that wraps around: http://tinyurl.com/2oaokc)
Thanks,
Joe
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Joe Dubner K7JD | 523 Cedar Avenue | http://www.mail2600.com
Long-EZ 821RP | Lewiston, ID 83501 | +1 208 816-6359
--------------------------------------------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Hitachi Alternator |
| From: | "Matt Prather" <mprather(at)spro.net> |
Hey Joe,
I'd pull the brush holder out and see if you can identify anything from
that. Maybe take some pics and post them. I found several outfits online
that show brushes for Hitachi alternators. You might also be able to
adapt brushes from a different alternator - they don't seem too tough to
work on.
I might also just call (or head down to) one of the alternator rebuilders
(there might be a local one) and see if they have the brushes.
Huskey Auto Electric in Boise might be able to help you:
(208) 345-2233 - 2301 W Overland RD - Boise, ID 83705
You might also check with Wizard Auto Electric...
(509) 758-6468 - 512 Sycamore St - Clarkston , WA 99403
Regards,
Matt-
>
> My O235 Long-EZ has experienced some sort of charging system failure.
> It was intermittent at first but now it does nothing -- I flew home
> battery only. So I suspect it's time for brush replacement on my
> automotive alternator and I'd like to buy some brushes at the local auto
> parts store.
>
> The alternator is an internally regulated Hitachi alternator with no
> part number (and I didn't install it). The counter-person at the NAPA
> and the AutoZone stores gave me that "deer in the headlight" look when I
> asked for brushes for a Hitachi alternator. They only understand car
> make, model, and year. So can someone help me with a cross-reference?
>
> The alternator appears to be this one:
> http://www.marineengine.com/parts/part_details.php?pnum=SIE18-6284&returntopage240069.htm
> (or try this if that wraps around: http://tinyurl.com/2oaokc)
>
> Thanks,
> Joe
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> Joe Dubner K7JD | 523 Cedar Avenue | http://www.mail2600.com
> Long-EZ 821RP | Lewiston, ID 83501 | +1 208 816-6359
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Peter Harris" <peterjfharris(at)bigpond.com> |
| Subject: | Jabiru EI pick up |
Thanks Bob, your explanation ties in exactly with what is happening and
thanks for the clues to solve it . I will list again when fixed.
Peter
-----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, 11 May 2007 1:37 AM
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Jabiru EI pick up
>"urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w =
>"urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word">
>Peter,
>
>It sounds like you made your pick up too sensitive. Maybe it fires because
>other parts of the flywheel are lightly magnetized and cause early peaks.
>When you induce current in a coil, the signal will always show some
>oscillations. This is the hard part, getting it 'just right'. you probably
>do want to get an oscilloscope to watch the signal shape, so you can see
>what unwanted peaks exist, and maybe engineer a dampening circuit that
>gets rid of them. Nobody said it would be easy...
>
>Rob
>----- Original Message -----
>From: <mailto:peterjfharris(at)bigpond.com>Peter Harris
>To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
>Sent: Thursday, May 10, 2007 8:06 AM
>Subject: AeroElectric-List: Jabiru EI pick up
>
>Hi again,
>I have been experimenting with an inductive pick up mounted in place of
>one of the magneto coils on the Jab 3300 and can produce a big fat spark
>at hand propping speed using a simple electronic ignition module and an
>automotive coil feeding the Jab distributor. (I suspect the original Jab
>magnetos were intended to drive just one plug not six through a
>distributor.) I have been able to increase plug gap to 1.0mm and cold
>starting is solved plus better spark through the power range. The signal
>from this sensor is about 4 VAC at idle.
The voltage from an inductor in the presence of a changing magnetic
field is a function of turns in the coil and rate of change of the magnetic
field impressed upon the coil. The phenomenon you describe is predictable.
For example, at low rpm let's say you get a peak voltage pulse of 4 volts.
The voltage begins to rise as the magnetic field fringes first intersect
the coil. As RPM increases, the size of the pulse peak will rise. Let's say
at cruise RPM you're getting 15 volts. Now, if your trigger level for
firing the ignition is something like 2 volts, then you get a spark at 50%
of peak at low rpm and 12% of peak at high rpm. The increase in peak
voltage has the effect of causing the system to trigger earlier at higher
rpm. Rotax touts this as a feature for automatic advancement of spark at
higher rpm. The effectiveness of this advance is debatable . . . advance is
useful but I doubt that the amount of advance achieved by exploiting this
phenomenon is optimal in terms of engine performance.
Without seeing your circuitry and possibly some 'scope pictures of the
trigger waveform, we'd be shooting in the dark if I were to attempt a
change to what you're doing. The problem you're experiencing is not
uncommon. There are signal conditioning chips specifically crafted for
filtering these signals. See: http://cache.national.com/ds/LM/LM1815.pdf
You need to acquire some tools and a 'scope is very high on the list.
I've bought dozens of perfectly useful 'scopes for $200 or less off
Ebay. Look for Tektronix 2200 series 'scopes. I picked up a really clean
2215 a few months ago for $90 plus $25 shipping. Don't worry about probes.
You get nice new ones for about $30 each from dozens of suppliers.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "r falstad" <bobair8(at)msn.com> |
| Subject: | Connectors Website |
For what it's worth, while searching the web for pin out diagrams for
D-Sub connectors, I found the following site that has drawings and
pinouts for virtually every connector you (at least I) can think of.
http://pinouts.ru/>
Note it is based in Russia but on my limited viewing, seems to be
accurate.
Best regards,
Bob
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Ken <klehman(at)albedo.net> |
| Subject: | Zaon MRX antenna position |
Hans
Are you saying that satisfactory operation has been obtained with an
external antenna but without the $150. coax cable and "gain adapter" ?
I'm surprised that the installation manual insists that a single
external MRX antenna must be on the bottom of the aircraft. Before
seeing that manual I was thinking of trying an external antenna on the
roof. With a high wing VFR airplane I figure my blind spot and most of
my traffic is above me most of the time. I don't think I'm willing to
spend $280. for dual antenna cabling plus the antenna cost since the
unit works fairly well just sitting on my glareshield.
Ken
hansriet wrote:
>
>I own the MRX as well and agree that it's essential for safe flight in high traffic
areas.
>I am building the MRX into the panel with the Zaon installation kit (couldn't
be bothered bending the aluminum myself for the $30 they're asking).
>The external antenna can be any transponder antenna like the $12 TED antennas
that are for sale on eBay. Don't install the PCAS antenna too close to the transponder
antenna, otherwise you'll need an expensive attenuator.
>
>I don't know if the XRX has the capabilities for external antennas, but that would
be the way to go.
>
>Hans van Riet
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net> |
>
>Bob,
>
> It is my understanding that it takes relatively few (not
> quantified because
>I don't have a quantity) full discharges to diminish the capacity of some
>types of batteries. Is this correct? Do you have any info you can add to
>firm up or discredit this idea.
A battery's service life is dependent on a host of variables
but with all things but deep-discharge cycles held constant,
the number of cycles until useful capacity drops to 80% of
nameplate value is a useful way to compare batteries.
It's also true that a battery's design can be optimized for
repeated deep-cycle service as opposed to say purely "cranking"
service. Take a peek at the Enersys Genesis application manual
at:
http://www.batterystore.com/Yuasa/YuasaPDF/GenesisApManual.pdf
and particular Figure 2.3.1 at:
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Curves/Genesis_Cycle_Life.jpg
Here's a battery that under laboratory conditions is rated
for deep cycles (down to 10% or less of capacity) in excess
of 300 cycles.
At the same time, I've seen some claims by various authors
that some models of "deep cycle" battery can be depended upon for
perhaps 18-20 deep discharges while "cranking" versions tossed
in the towel at 3-4.
> Does doing cap checks present any risk to the battery?
Sure, a true capacity test requires that the battery be
deep cycled in so that one can count all the electrons it
contains. Obviously, one doesn't want to do a cap check at
the end of every flight, no matter how convenient. In practical
terms, one could wait a year for the first cap check assuming
the battery had not be discharged and allowed to sit for
a long time. In this case, I'd do a cap check right after
the first charge to recover it. It it looks okay, run it
a month or so before doing another cap check. If still
okay, revert to original schedule of 1 year and every
6 months thereafter. But if the capacity is marginal after
the first recover charge and doesn't go up a bit in capacity
for the second test, then this battery is probably "damaged
goods" and is worthy of peeking at it more often.
I've oft likened batteries to persnickety house plants.
If treated to optimize its life (assuming one knows exactly
what that means) then you can expect performance equal to
the designers goals. But most of us do not wish to become
Master Gardeners any more than we want to become Master
Battery Tenders. It's that old cost-of-ownership thing.
My own philosophy would be to buy inexpensively, and if
convenient, test occasionally but be ready to throw a new
puppy into the harness at the slightest question that my
endurance goals would not be met if I ran it another
test cycle (6 months or what ever you're using).
If your head is getting tight over optimizing your
battery purchase and maintenance decisions, then I'll
suggest that it's not your goal to become a Master Battery
Tender either. This is what prompts us to consider the
companion accessory to the IR Alternator Controller . . .
the In-Situ Battery Capacity Tester. This device will
offer an exceedingly convenient means by which one may
accomplish a meaningful test of the battery without
removing it from the airplane. At the same time, it
relieves us from resorting to purchases of premium
batteries with the mistaken notion that just because
it costs a lot more, we don't have to "worry" about it
so much.
A bit of battery maintenance knowledge and low cost
tools go a long way toward replacing worries with a
confident expectation supported by repeatable
experiment.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net> |
>
> The simplest way is to take the time on some long VFR
> day flight to put your system into the endurance mode
> (turn alternator off and load shed) and see how long
> it takes for your battery to get down to 10.5 volts.
> This measures the time your battery is capable of
> supporting the ship's most useful endurance systems.
>
>
>Bob,
>
>If one is going to do what you say above, I would make sure that the
>avionics switch is off and the engine is at low rpms when you turn the
>alternator back on. I forgot to turn the alternator on one time, and
>suddenly my radios went silent. I noticed that the alternator switch was
>off, so I turned it back on. I zapped a Garmin 430 that way. Fortunately,
>it was still in warranty, and they fixed it, but it surely was embarrassing
>as well as potentially dangerous. I hope it never happens again, but if it
>does, I will think twice about turning on the alternator while the prop is
>swinging cruise rpms and the avionics switch is turned on.
>
>Simon Ramirez, passing through Odessa, TX
Point well taken. If the ship's battery is poorly and/or
the alternator-regulator is prone to severe overshoot during
a turn-on event, the situation you describe is a risk.
However, it would have been really interesting to
repeat your experiment (radios off of course) and get data
on the magnitude and duration of the overshoot. Recall that
DO-160 calls for a 20V, 1-second withstand. See:
http://www.aeroelectric.com/articles/Whats_all_this_DO160_Stuff_Anyhow.pdf
I would be exceedingly surprised if your system pushed outside
this boundary. This suggests that while you probably DID
experience an overshoot event, it may have been the overshoot
combined with a edge of tolerance for the radio. Do you
have the manual for the 430? What does it say about DO-160
power input qualification?
But to be really gentle on things, the in-flight capacity
test should be terminated by first reducing the engine to flight-
idle before turning the alternator back on. If your battery just
passed the cap check, then it's also well capable of doing
it's job as the great mitigator of transient events. If the
thing died way earlier than you expected, then not only do you
want to consider a new battery at your earliest convenience,
exercising caution for bringing the system back up is certainly
warranted. Thanks for reminding me!
Bob . . .
----------------------------------------
( IF one aspires to be "world class", )
( what ever you do must be exercised )
( EVERY day . . . )
( R. L. Nuckolls III )
----------------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Dual Voltage Operation of Ford-style Alternator |
>
>
>Hi Bob,
>
>I'm considering a slightly unusual configuration on a Lycoming IO360A
>installation... 12 volt alternator on a vacuum pad on the back of the
>engine... powers the "essential" bus (there's a word you prefer to
>essential, but it's late and I can't recall... well, I'm in Holland, too,
>standing up in an internet cafe, and the wind is howling... enough excuses)
>
>The "standard" Ford-style alternator on the front will attach to the
>airconditioning (HVAC) bus... in the back of the plane, a variable voltage
>air conditioining unit (Kelly Aerospace Thermawing or similar) will be
>powered by the HVAC bus.
>
>Under normal, non-cooling operation, the HVAC bus will be connected to
>the main bus. The regulator will recognize this fact and regulate for
>nominal 14 VDC. Both alternators will power the 14 volt systems.
>
>When cooling is wanted (and of course loads allow for the rear mounted
>alternator to carry the requirements), the breaker or contactor will be
>opened between the HVAC bus and the main bus. This will also enable the
>regulabor to assume 28 VDC mode.
>
>The air conditioning unit will put out some cool air at 14 volts, but
>twice as much cool air at 28 volts. The unit draws 50 amps over a voltage
>range of 12 volts to 48 volts, and cooling output varies proportionately.
>
>Any fatal flaw to this plan?
>
>Assuming I use a 28 volt alternator (assume for the moment the
>Cessna-style Ford Aeromotive once), should it regulate "happily" at 14
>volts? I can think of schemes to "fool" the regulator with a voltage
>divider connected to the A lead... switched as required to make a 14 volt
>regulator think that 28 volts meets its needs, I'm sure you have the picture.
>
>Thoughts? I've already tried to talk the better half out of retiring to a
>hot place... and am now preparing contingency plans to deal with the
>eventuality! :-)
>
>Paul, Berkeley CA (soon to be Palm Springs CA)
Is this the same Paul Millner with whom I shared many an
intriguing conversation back in the Compuserve AVSIG days?
What you propose has merit. I think I'd go for a more
controlled approach. Wire per Z-14 but with the main bus
split into a 14v ops and 28V HVAC busses. When in 14V ops
mode, both busses are tied together and the alternator
is controlled by a 14V regulator. When the higher performance
HVAC ops are desired, split the busses and control the
alternator with a B&C SR-1 regulator which is specifically
designed to operate a 14V alternator in 28V system. Under
this mode, goodies on the 14v portion of the main bus would
be allowed to go dark but could be brought up quickly by
closing the crossfeed contactor to the opposite side which
is always up and running at 14v.
Maybe we need an new Z-figure . . . perhaps a Z-14PM?
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | SPDT momentary push-button switch (comm flip-flop) |
>
>Bob,
>
>SPDT is correct per the installation manual (previously sent to you a
>few months ago). If I had known earlier, I wouldn't have made this
>provision when I ordered the grip.
Oh yeah, thanks for reminding me.
>I did touching the wire to ground and the frequency toggled ONCE. It was
>necessary to then touch this wire to aircraft power to get it to toggle
>a second time.
Okay, take a peek at:
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Schematics/KX-155_Flip-Flop_Alternative.jpg
I think you can fool the radio into believing that there's a
SPDT on-(on) switch in your stick grip. Wire the SPST n.o. push
button as shown in the lower half of the drawing. This switch will
apply the expected 14v when the button is pushed just as required
in the upper half of the drawing. When the switch is open, the
resistor pulls the line to ground with probably enough Umph to
make the radio believe that its a real, double-throw switch.
See if this works and get back to us.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | SPDT momentary push-button switch (comm flip-flop) |
>
>At 07:50 5/10/2007, you wrote:
>>I did touching the wire to ground and the frequency toggled ONCE. It was
>>necessary to then touch this wire to aircraft power to get it to toggle
>>a second time.
>>
>>Bill
>
>I don't have the 155 service/installation manual, but looking at the SM
>for the 155A there are some internal pull-up provisions for the external
>switch.
>A momentary to ground should be all that is required.
>By means of whatever type switch you choose to use.
>
>Perhaps there is some issue within your 155?
Aha! good data sir. How big are the resistors and to
what voltage do they pull up? The snipit from the
install manual suggests that pulling to ground is
the expected resting condition with the lead being
pulled up to +14 to effect a "flip".
If the radio has internal pull-ups, then a NORMALLY
CLOSED push button would be expected to provide the
necessary function but without a need for external
resistor. A Grayhill 30-6 illustrated at:
http://embrace.grayhill.com/embrace/IMAGES/PDF/E-17-20.pdf
and available from digikey at:
http://tinyurl.com/2nqymz
for about $2.65 should do the job.
Looks like you have a little bit of homework to do
Bill but I'm 90% certain that you can make a single-throw,
two-wire push button do this job.
I'm going to take the sketch referenced in the
earlier post down from the website. Given Ron's
new information, I'm not sure we want the signal
lead to "rest" in the low state.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Battery Capacity Check |
>
>Bob et al,
>
>I have about 50 hours now on my Lyc O-235 powered ship with Z-11
>Architecture (were it not for your help, the airplane would not be flying!)
>As my electrical needs are very light, my only alternator is a vacuum pump
>pad driven 20 amp.
>Recently, while on an extended day VFR trip, I did a load shed/capacity
>check as suggested below. Felt good to know real condition results.
>However, when I turned the alternator back on for re-charge, the CHT went
>way into the red and, after about 20 minutes of charging, the 30 amp fuse
>protecting the AWG 10 'B' lead blew, incapacitating the alternator. The
>rest of the flight was uneventful, and, after replacing the fuse,
>everything functions normally.
>One source suggested I replace the 30 amp fuse with a 40 amp one & only
>due capacity checks on the ground. Do you have any suggestions, comments
>or recommendations?
Without a doubt, recharging the battery with a cruise
RPM alternator produces a max-effort recharge event . . .
which shouldn't be a big deal but the practice will
produce a short term (15 minutes or so) exercise of
the alternator. What size alternator do you have? Recall
that the b-lead fuse needs to be 20% or so LARGER than
the alternator's rated output to accommodate exactly
this same scenario . . . Had a Cherokee 140 nuisance
trip the 60A b-lead breaker at the outset of a trip
some years ago after we jump started the airplane
due to master switch being left on.
Obviously, the least stressful way to do it is
on the ground with test equipment. But at the same
time, the in-flight test is a proving ground for
whether or not all the design goals have been met.
You've discovered that your b-lead fuse is too small.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Joe Dubner <jdubner(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Hitachi Alternator |
Thanks, Matt. Heading down to Wizard Electric in Clarkston is "plan B"
but I'm hoping someone on the list who works in the automotive
electrical business can tell me the make and model of the car my
alternator comes from.
This points out a real problem with a homebuilt that uses automotive
parts. When it changes hands somewhere down the line, the new owner may
be in for a tough time when the starter/alternator/whatever goes out
unless it's well documented.
Best Regards,
Joe
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Joe Dubner K7JD | 523 Cedar Avenue | http://www.mail2600.com
Long-EZ 821RP | Lewiston, ID 83501 | +1 208 816-6359
--------------------------------------------------------------------
On 10-May-07 13:31 Matt Prather wrote:
>
> Hey Joe,
>
> I'd pull the brush holder out and see if you can identify anything from
> that. Maybe take some pics and post them. I found several outfits online
> that show brushes for Hitachi alternators. You might also be able to
> adapt brushes from a different alternator - they don't seem too tough to
> work on.
>
> I might also just call (or head down to) one of the alternator rebuilders
> (there might be a local one) and see if they have the brushes.
>
> Huskey Auto Electric in Boise might be able to help you:
>
> (208) 345-2233 - 2301 W Overland RD - Boise, ID 83705
>
> You might also check with Wizard Auto Electric...
>
> (509) 758-6468 - 512 Sycamore St - Clarkston , WA 99403
>
>
>
> Regards,
>
> Matt-
>
>>
>> My O235 Long-EZ has experienced some sort of charging system failure.
>> It was intermittent at first but now it does nothing -- I flew home
>> battery only. So I suspect it's time for brush replacement on my
>> automotive alternator and I'd like to buy some brushes at the local auto
>> parts store.
>>
>> The alternator is an internally regulated Hitachi alternator with no
>> part number (and I didn't install it). The counter-person at the NAPA
>> and the AutoZone stores gave me that "deer in the headlight" look when I
>> asked for brushes for a Hitachi alternator. They only understand car
>> make, model, and year. So can someone help me with a cross-reference?
>>
>> The alternator appears to be this one:
>> http://www.marineengine.com/parts/part_details.php?pnum=SIE18-6284&returntopage240069.htm
>> (or try this if that wraps around: http://tinyurl.com/2oaokc)
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Joe
>>
>> --------------------------------------------------------------------
>> Joe Dubner K7JD | 523 Cedar Avenue | http://www.mail2600.com
>> Long-EZ 821RP | Lewiston, ID 83501 | +1 208 816-6359
>> --------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "DEAN PSIROPOULOS" <dean.psiropoulos(at)verizon.net> |
| Subject: | Connector for sl-30 |
You're in luck Ron, I started installing my radio stack wiring harness this
evening and happen to have the package handy. Keep in mind that I bought my
radios a few years ago before Garmin took over but it should still work for
you if they haven't made any physical changes to the chassis.
The package the connector came in says:
Delta Electronics MFG Corp.
Boston, MA 01915
Part number: 4205 018 N995 01 30
Quality RF Connectors
Telephone 978-927-1060
Both the NAV and COMM connectors are the same for my unit and are the right
angle type you describe with an ear on either side that studs go thru to
hold it to the tray. Hope that helps.
Dean Psiropoulos
RV-6A N197DM
Radio install
__________________________ Original Message _____________________________
From: "Ron Raby" <ronr(at)advanceddesign.com>
Subject: AeroElectric-List: connector for sl-30
I am looking to get a coax connector for an SL - 30. It is Garmin part #
162 -1008 right angle coax connector. Anyone know what connector this
is?
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Dual Voltage Operation of Ford-style Alternator |
| From: | "paulmillner" <paulmillner(at)compuserve.com> |
Hi Bob!
Indeed, it's the same me. :-) I wasn't aware of that functionality of the SR-1
regulator... do folks operate 14 V alternators in 28 volt systems simply because
14 V alternators are less expensive?
Any other ampacity limits to a 14 volt alternator in that service?
I was curious how far one could push a 14 volt alternator before reliability becomes
an issue... making 48 volts at 50 amps seems like a stretch for a 14 volt
/ 60 amp device... I'm thinking of brush current/arcing, and I squared R heating
of both the rotor and the stator.
The good news is that *usually* the HVAC usage should be transient... but there
are times, especially with an inversion and ATC weirdness, when one would bump
along in warm conditions quite some time... though the output could likely be
reduced, say, to 28 volts.
How do 14 volt alternators hold up in 28 volt systems at, say, 80% rated load?
Paul, remote from Amsterdam
--------
Paul Millner, Berkeley CA [OAK]
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=112189#112189
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Dual Voltage Operation of Ford-style Alternator |
| From: | "paulmillner" <paulmillner(at)compuserve.com> |
Hi Jim, thanks for your comments.
>> something similar is being done by Lancair (or the commercial variant, Columbia)
with their electrically heated de-ice system. They run an alternator at very
high voltage. I forget the exact number, but it may by 48 volts.
That's the same group of folks, Kelly Aerospace Thermowing, that make this HVAC
unit. It's a 135 amp, 70 volt alternator... but of course it's designed for
that service, and costs just under $3,000.
>> If your cooling unit will take 48 volts, why not use it?
I'm concerned about i-squared-r heating of the rotor and stator windings, leading
to insulation breakdown, as well as significant reduction of brush life due
to arcing at the signficantly higher field current/voltage. Don't want to smoke
the alternator regularly!
>> Hard to believe that you will get too much cooling.
That's likely not a concern, true!
>> Since you will not have a battery on line for either 28 or higher voltage use,
the choice of regulator will need some care, but I suspect your cooling unit
will be less sensitive to over voltage than most avionics systems. Make sure
that your high voltage regulator can be fed by a diode from the 12v battery just
to get started, and the diode will prevent back feed into the battery.
Good thought.
>> I recall in the 1960's when alternators came out, that the back of Popular Mechanics
would advertise plans for using your car alternator as a welding supply,
putting in a connection to the alternator that would cut out the regulator
and let the voltage soar. I never tried it...
Well, I don't know about welding, but of course, that would be transient loading,
not hours of operation in that mode... typically. In fact, I installed one
of those adapters on my '72 Ford Galaxie, and operated AC/DC power tools at my
tiedown quite well.
Paul, remote from Amsterdam
--------
Paul Millner, Berkeley CA [OAK]
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=112190#112190
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | SMITHBKN(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Energizing The System |
Group,
I'm at the point where I am going to energize my electrical system for the
first time. Any advice concerning proper way to do this?
Thanks,
Jeff
************************************** See what's free at http://www.aol.com.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Kevin Horton <khorton01(at)rogers.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Energizing The System |
On 11 May 2007, at 05:13, SMITHBKN(at)aol.com wrote:
> Group,
>
> I'm at the point where I am going to energize my electrical system
> for the first time. Any advice concerning proper way to do this?
>
If you have not confirmed correct wiring by fully testing each
circuit when you installed it, then caution is in order. I would
remove all fuses and pull all CBs, except for the one for the battery
contactor. Power up the system and confirm you have voltage in all
the right places, and none of the wrong places. Then power it down,
and install the fuse or push in the CB for one system. Fully test
that system, then repeat for all additional systems. Doing it one
system at a time minimizes the chance of damage if there is a major
wiring foul up.
Kevin Horton RV-8 (finishing kit)
Ottawa, Canada
http://www.kilohotel.com/rv8
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "William Gill" <wgill10(at)comcast.net> |
| Subject: | SPDT momentary push-button switch (comm flip-flop) |
Hello Bob,
Thank you for the reply. I understand connecting a normally closed SPST
switch to 14V, but how does opening that circuit cause a toggle when the
radio is expecting a ground once the 14V is removed?
Bill
-----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, May 11, 2007 12:10 AM
Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: SPDT momentary push-button switch (comm
flip-flop)
>
>At 07:50 5/10/2007, you wrote:
>>I did touching the wire to ground and the frequency toggled ONCE. It
was
>>necessary to then touch this wire to aircraft power to get it to
toggle
>>a second time.
>>
>>Bill
>
>I don't have the 155 service/installation manual, but looking at the SM
>for the 155A there are some internal pull-up provisions for the
external
>switch.
>A momentary to ground should be all that is required.
>By means of whatever type switch you choose to use.
>
>Perhaps there is some issue within your 155?
Aha! good data sir. How big are the resistors and to
what voltage do they pull up? The snipit from the
install manual suggests that pulling to ground is
the expected resting condition with the lead being
pulled up to +14 to effect a "flip".
If the radio has internal pull-ups, then a NORMALLY
CLOSED push button would be expected to provide the
necessary function but without a need for external
resistor. A Grayhill 30-6 illustrated at:
http://embrace.grayhill.com/embrace/IMAGES/PDF/E-17-20.pdf
and available from digikey at:
http://tinyurl.com/2nqymz
for about $2.65 should do the job.
Looks like you have a little bit of homework to do
Bill but I'm 90% certain that you can make a single-throw,
two-wire push button do this job.
I'm going to take the sketch referenced in the
earlier post down from the website. Given Ron's
new information, I'm not sure we want the signal
lead to "rest" in the low state.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | David Abrahamson <dave(at)abrahamson.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Battery Capacity Check |
How about the CHT going in the red? Would the alternator in its "max
effort recharge event" make the engine work that much harder, or was
there some sort of momentary sensor problem? Grant, did
power/mixture settings, environmental conditions, flight attitude
change during the recharging cycle?
David
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Rob Turk" <matronics(at)rtist.nl> |
| Subject: | Re: Energizing The System |
If you have access to a decent regulated bench power supply then you may
want to hook that up instead of the battery. Those power supplies usually
come with short circuit protection or even a current limit setting. That
way, if something is wrong, only minimal damage will occur.
Rob
----- Original Message -----
From: SMITHBKN(at)aol.com
Sent: Friday, May 11, 2007 11:13 AM
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Energizing The System
Group,
I'm at the point where I am going to energize my electrical system for the
first time. Any advice concerning proper way to do this?
Thanks,
Jeff
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Terry Miles" <terrence_miles(at)hotmail.com> |
| Subject: | 14awg into a 18 pin |
Hi Bob,
Got a question. I'm wiring a GS Air Nav/Strobe system. I need to size the
wire run up to 14AWG on the power and ground run for the strobe, but the pig
tail wire out of the molex like plug that goes into their power/control box
is just regular auto wire and 18 at best. They want it fused at 15a.
Sorry I cannot say what the amp draw will be.
Is it OK to run a few inches of that original wire in and out of their
connector and upsize the balance of both wire runs? We are talking a few
inches in a 18 foot run. I'm in a pusher. What's normally done in a case
like this?
Thanks
Terry Miles
Velocity
Wiring
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | <bakerocb(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | connector for sl-30 |
5/11/2007
Hello Ron, Again with the "Bob" -- I just don't understand why people
persist in calling me Bob. Can you please explain it?
I am not a Bob, have never been a Bob, and never intend to be a Bob.
OC -- The best investment we can make is the effort to gather and understand
knowledge.
PS: So you really want just the 90 degree part of the connector that gets
installed on the cable, not the other straight piece that is installed on
the back of the installation frame. I tried to get a straight version of the
cable end part of this connection and failed. Have you contacted Delta yet?
From: "Ron Raby" <ronr(at)advanceddesign.com>
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: connector for sl-30
Bob
I am trying a new nav antenna and want to build the cable on the bench.
Thanks
Ron Raby
----- Original Message -----
From: <bakerocb(at)cox.net>
Sent: Thursday, May 10, 2007 10:13 AM
Subject: AeroElectric-List: connector for sl-30
>
> 5/10/2007
>
> Hello Ron, Try Delta RF. See the bottom center of this web page/
>
> http://www.deltarf.com/prodspecial.html
>
> I believe it is part number 4205018N995 copied off the connector on my
> SL-30.
>
> Good luck and please tell me why you want it - thanks.
>
> OC -- The best investment we can make is the effort to gather and
> understand knowledge.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Ken <klehman(at)albedo.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Hitachi Alternator |
Alternator rebuilders usually only need the part number on the
alternator. Many cars will have several different alternators installed
even in the same model year. Of course simply replacing the brushes may
be a short term repair.
Ken
Joe Dubner wrote:
>
>Thanks, Matt. Heading down to Wizard Electric in Clarkston is "plan B"
>but I'm hoping someone on the list who works in the automotive
>electrical business can tell me the make and model of the car my
>alternator comes from.
>
>This points out a real problem with a homebuilt that uses automotive
>parts. When it changes hands somewhere down the line, the new owner may
>be in for a tough time when the starter/alternator/whatever goes out
>unless it's well documented.
>
>Best Regards,
>Joe
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Ken <klehman(at)albedo.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Broken Battery |
I would be reluctant to do this test in flight manually despite its
simplicity and relevance. In theory all is fine but if one drains the
battery too much (probably a lot lower than 10 volts?) AGM batteries can
be reluctant to absorb current when the alternator is brought on line.
It will also stress test the alternator if the battery does take the
charge and it charges the battery at a much higher rate than any battery
manufacturer seems to recommend. The fast recharge might damage an AGM
battery more than the deep discharge. And I'd be the guy that forgot and
left the radios on...
Admitedly my battery was stone dead when I brought the alternator on
line but I did it on the ground at slow idle and it still cost me a
regulator. Fortunately the OVM prevented other damage.
Ken
Robert L. Nuckolls, III wrote:
>
>
>
>>
>> The simplest way is to take the time on some long VFR
>> day flight to put your system into the endurance mode
>> (turn alternator off and load shed) and see how long
>> it takes for your battery to get down to 10.5 volts.
>> This measures the time your battery is capable of
>> supporting the ship's most useful endurance systems.
>>
>>
>> Bob,
>>
>> If one is going to do what you say above, I would make sure that the
>> avionics switch is off and the engine is at low rpms when you turn the
>> alternator back on. I forgot to turn the alternator on one time, and
>> suddenly my radios went silent. I noticed that the alternator switch
>> was
>> off, so I turned it back on. I zapped a Garmin 430 that way.
>> Fortunately,
>> it was still in warranty, and they fixed it, but it surely was
>> embarrassing
>> as well as potentially dangerous. I hope it never happens again, but
>> if it
>> does, I will think twice about turning on the alternator while the
>> prop is
>> swinging cruise rpms and the avionics switch is turned on.
>>
>> Simon Ramirez, passing through Odessa, TX
>
>
> Point well taken. If the ship's battery is poorly and/or
> the alternator-regulator is prone to severe overshoot during
> a turn-on event, the situation you describe is a risk.
> However, it would have been really interesting to
> repeat your experiment (radios off of course) and get data
> on the magnitude and duration of the overshoot. Recall that
> DO-160 calls for a 20V, 1-second withstand. See:
>
> http://www.aeroelectric.com/articles/Whats_all_this_DO160_Stuff_Anyhow.pdf
>
>
> I would be exceedingly surprised if your system pushed outside
> this boundary. This suggests that while you probably DID
> experience an overshoot event, it may have been the overshoot
> combined with a edge of tolerance for the radio. Do you
> have the manual for the 430? What does it say about DO-160
> power input qualification?
>
> But to be really gentle on things, the in-flight capacity
> test should be terminated by first reducing the engine to flight-
> idle before turning the alternator back on. If your battery just
> passed the cap check, then it's also well capable of doing
> it's job as the great mitigator of transient events. If the
> thing died way earlier than you expected, then not only do you
> want to consider a new battery at your earliest convenience,
> exercising caution for bringing the system back up is certainly
> warranted. Thanks for reminding me!
>
> Bob . . .
>
> ----------------------------------------
> ( IF one aspires to be "world class", )
> ( what ever you do must be exercised )
> ( EVERY day . . . )
> ( R. L. Nuckolls III )
> ----------------------------------------
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Ernest Christley <echristley(at)nc.rr.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Energizing The System |
Kevin Horton wrote:
>
>
> On 11 May 2007, at 05:13, SMITHBKN(at)aol.com wrote:
>
>> Group,
>>
>> I'm at the point where I am going to energize my electrical system
>> for the first time. Any advice concerning proper way to do this?
>>
>
> If you have not confirmed correct wiring by fully testing each circuit
> when you installed it, then caution is in order. I would remove all
> fuses and pull all CBs, except for the one for the battery contactor.
> Power up the system and confirm you have voltage in all the right
> places, and none of the wrong places. Then power it down, and install
> the fuse or push in the CB for one system. Fully test that system,
> then repeat for all additional systems. Doing it one system at a time
> minimizes the chance of damage if there is a major wiring foul up.
At first, this seems like a long and tedious process. I'm always one to
just want to plug everything in and see if there are any problems
first. Usually, there are and I regret my haste. What Kevin suggests
is actually much faster. Once you go through the individual circuit
verification process a couple of times, you fall into a pattern and the
work goes much faster. When you're done you will have identified any
possible gremlin, have high confidence in the individual circuits, and
you will not have gone through the process of troubleshooting
multi-system interactions to find which one caused the problem. That
last step is real dragon that eats all of your time.
The only point I'd like to clarify with what Kevin said is that once you
verify a system is working properly, pull its fuse before verifying the
next. I'd also use the smallest fuse that can possibly operate the
circuit. You'll blow a few that way, but they're cheap. Once all the
individual circuits are verified, power the fuse block, and add proper
fuses one at a time to bring each system up. Then run in the house to
drag the wife out and say, "Look at what I did!!" (She hates it when I
do that 8*)
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Joe Dubner <jdubner(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Hitachi Alternator |
Ken,
That's the problem: there is _NO_ part number whatsoever on the
alternator. Just a manufacturer (Hitachi) and a label that says it's
internally regulated and made in Japan.
I'm headed to the alternator shop today but I'd like to solve this for
once and for all. So, again, I'm hoping someone in the business will
see this and recognize what it's used in.
My original message:
My O235 Long-EZ has experienced some sort of charging system failure.
It was intermittent at first but now it does nothing -- I flew home
battery only. So I suspect it's time for brush replacement on my
automotive alternator and I'd like to buy some brushes at the local auto
parts store.
The alternator is an internally regulated Hitachi alternator with no
part number (and I didn't install it). The counter-person at the NAPA
and the AutoZone stores gave me that "deer in the headlight" look when I
asked for brushes for a Hitachi alternator. They only understand car
make, model, and year. So can someone help me with a cross-reference?
The alternator appears to be this one:
http://www.marineengine.com/parts/part_details.php?pnum=SIE18-6284&returntopage240069.htm
(or try this if that wraps around: http://tinyurl.com/2oaokc)
Thanks,
Joe
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Joe Dubner K7JD | 523 Cedar Avenue | http://www.mail2600.com
Long-EZ 821RP | Lewiston, ID 83501 | +1 208 816-6359
--------------------------------------------------------------------
On 11-May-07 05:48 Ken wrote:
>
> Alternator rebuilders usually only need the part number on the
> alternator. Many cars will have several different alternators installed
> even in the same model year. Of course simply replacing the brushes may
> be a short term repair.
> Ken
>
> Joe Dubner wrote:
>
>>
>>Thanks, Matt. Heading down to Wizard Electric in Clarkston is "plan B"
>>but I'm hoping someone on the list who works in the automotive
>>electrical business can tell me the make and model of the car my
>>alternator comes from.
>>
>>This points out a real problem with a homebuilt that uses automotive
>>parts. When it changes hands somewhere down the line, the new owner may
>>be in for a tough time when the starter/alternator/whatever goes out
>>unless it's well documented.
>>
>>Best Regards,
>>Joe
>>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | <gmcjetpilot(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Hitachi Alternator |
This is the most likely one (you can get easily):
Alternator - Hitachi, Mitsubishi IR/EF
35 Amp, 12 Volt, CW, 1-Groove Pulley
Used On:
(1980-78) Nissan 620
720 Pickup 2.0L
Nissan Lift Trucks
TCM Lift Trucks
Replaces: Hitachi LR138-01 Mitsubishi A1T22971
Lester Nos: 14231
Key number is Lester # 14231.
If the brush repair does not work.
Get rid of the Hatachi; They are one of the worst
brands of alternators made. Get a:
Alternator - Nippondenso IR/IF Replacement
55 Amp, 12 Volt, CW, 1-Groove Pulley
Used On:
(1988-87) Chevrolet Sprint 1.0L
(1995-86) Suzuki Samurai 1.3L
(1989) Suzuki Sidekick 1.3L
Replaces: Nippondenso 100211-141, 100211-155,
100211-407
Lester Nos: 14684
Smaller, lighter, more reliable. May take new brackets.
If you really want to do it right.
http://www.plane-power.com/
Cheers George
>From: Joe Dubner <jdubner(at)yahoo.com>
>Subject: AeroElectric-List: Hitachi Alternator
>
>My O235 Long-EZ has experienced some sort of charging
>system failure.
---------------------------------
Building a website is a piece of cake.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Tinne maha" <tinnemaha(at)hotmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Battery Capacity Check |
>
>Bob et al,
>
>I have about 50 hours now on my Lyc O-235 powered ship with Z-11
>Architecture (were it not for your help, the airplane would not be flying!)
>As my electrical needs are very light, my only alternator is a vacuum pump
>pad driven 20 amp.
>Recently, while on an extended day VFR trip, I did a load shed/capacity
>check as suggested below. Felt good to know real condition results.
>However, when I turned the alternator back on for re-charge, the CHT went
>way into the red and, after about 20 minutes of charging, the 30 amp fuse
>protecting the AWG 10 'B' lead blew, incapacitating the alternator. The
>rest of the flight was uneventful, and, after replacing the fuse,
>everything functions normally.
>One source suggested I replace the 30 amp fuse with a 40 amp one & only due
>capacity checks on the ground. Do you have any suggestions, comments or
>recommendations?
Without a doubt, recharging the battery with a cruise
RPM alternator produces a max-effort recharge event . . .
which shouldn't be a big deal but the practice will
produce a short term (15 minutes or so) exercise of
the alternator. What size alternator do you have? Recall
that the b-lead fuse needs to be 20% or so LARGER than
the alternator's rated output to accommodate exactly
this same scenario . . . Had a Cherokee 140 nuisance
trip the 60A b-lead breaker at the outset of a trip
some years ago after we jump started the airplane
due to master switch being left on.
Obviously, the least stressful way to do it is
on the ground with test equipment. But at the same
time, the in-flight test is a proving ground for
whether or not all the design goals have been met.
You've discovered that your b-lead fuse is too small.
Bob . . .
The alternator is an SD-20 (i.e. 20 amp), so I guess it is a little
under-rated if it blew a 30 amp fuse, eh(?)........I guess that's really a
good thing though.
I feel dumb asking, but when I upgrade the b-lead fuse (presumably to 40
amps) will I also need to install a larger b-lead (existing is AWG 10)?
Another way of phrasing this question, would be: 'Is it inadvisable to
exceed the rated current capacity of AWG 10 wire (30 amps) if that will only
be for a short time (i.e. 15 minutes or so)?'
Thanks again,
Grant
_________________________________________________________________
Now you can see troublebefore he arrives
http://newlivehotmail.com/?ocid=TXT_TAGHM_migration_HM_viral_protection_0507
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: 14awg into a 18 pin |
>
>
>Hi Bob,
>
>Got a question. I'm wiring a GS Air Nav/Strobe system. I need to size the
>wire run up to 14AWG on the power and ground run for the strobe, but the pig
>tail wire out of the molex like plug that goes into their power/control box
>is just regular auto wire and 18 at best. They want it fused at 15a.
>Sorry I cannot say what the amp draw will be.
>
>Is it OK to run a few inches of that original wire in and out of their
>connector and upsize the balance of both wire runs? We are talking a few
>inches in a 18 foot run. I'm in a pusher. What's normally done in a case
>like this?
A 15A branch is properly wired with 14AWG. It' perfectly
within the bounds of good practice to drop to a smaller
wire for a short distance to accommodate a smaller pin
in a connector. It would be really useful to do a current
measurement on the system once you have it installed.
Most suppliers of such products do not have strong
systems design and integration background . . . and
classically, almost never touch airplanes from the
airframe designer's perspective. I'm betting that the
'real' requirements are lower than what they recommend
but installing as you've proposed with 15A/14AWG spliced
into the connector's pigtail is perfectly okay thing to
do.
Bob . . .
----------------------------------------
( "Physics is like sex: sure, it may )
( give some practical results, but )
( that's not why we do it." )
( )
( Richard P. Feynman )
----------------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Hitachi Alternator |
| From: | "Hinde, Frank George (Corvallis)" <frank.hinde(at)hp.com> |
George is right,
That baby Nippondenso is a wonderful little machine, I ran one for 400
hours on my old Zodiac, only reason it hiccupped was because the brushes
got soaked in oil from the leaking filler cap right in front of it. half
an hour hour new brushes installed and it was perfect.
For the RV I went the plane power route after the Toyota camry unit I
bought from Autozone confused my avionics...Nice but spendy! But it is a
brand new alternator and I was in a hurry and Vans stock them and they
are a 15min flight from my home base.
The Plane power unit fitted perfectly, all the brackets are included. If
I add up the time I spent making brackets for the Toyota Camry unit I
replaced then it was a good deal...In other words it wasn't worth making
my own.
Cheers
Frank
________________________________
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of
gmcjetpilot(at)yahoo.com
Sent: Friday, May 11, 2007 6:54 AM
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Re: Hitachi Alternator
This is the most likely one (you can get easily):
Alternator - Hitachi, Mitsubishi IR/EF
35 Amp, 12 Volt, CW, 1-Groove Pulley
Used On:
(1980-78) Nissan 620
720 Pickup 2.0L
Nissan Lift Trucks
TCM Lift Trucks
Replaces: Hitachi LR138-01 Mitsubishi A1T22971
Lester Nos: 14231
Key number is Lester # 14231.
If the brush repair does not work.
Get rid of the Hatachi; They are one of the worst
brands of alternators made. Get a:
Alternator - Nippondenso IR/IF Replacement
55 Amp, 12 Volt, CW, 1-Groove Pulley
Used On:
(1988-87) Chevrolet Sprint 1.0L
(1995-86) Suzuki Samurai 1.3L
(1989) Suzuki Sidekick 1.3L
Replaces: Nippondenso 100211-141, 100211-155,
100211-407
Lester Nos: 14684
Smaller, lighter, more reliable. May take new brackets.
If you really want to do it right.
http://www.plane-power.com/
Cheers George
>From: Joe Dubner <jdubner(at)yahoo.com>
>Subject: AeroElectric-List: Hitachi Alternator
>
>My O235 Long-EZ has experienced some sort of charging
>system failure.
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | SPDT momentary push-button switch (comm flip-flop) |
| From: | Ron Quillin <rjquillin(at)gmail.com> |
At 22:09 5/10/2007, you wrote:
>Aha! good data sir. How big are the resistors and to
> what voltage do they pull up? The snipit from the
> install manual suggests that pulling to ground is
> the expected resting condition with the lead being
> pulled up to +14 to effect a "flip".
I need to point out, my manual is for the 155A, not a 155 as Bill has.
My post was 'in case' the "A" had been inadvertently omitted from the model.
Bill also clearly states, if I read correctly, his IM details
connections to both +14 and ground; presumably in addition to the
input pin on the radio.
I'd like to see the IM page if possible...
For the 155A from the SM;
External input pin through 221 ohm resistor and diode in series to
the base of a PNP (with internal series base and emitter-base
resistors shown). Emitter hard +5, Collector pulled to ground via
47.5k and output to guts via 4.75k.
The input is protected by a 40V zener and debounce by a 330pF to
ground between the resistor and diode.
The 155A IM clearly shows N.O. momentary to ground to effect transfer.
Base pulled low, xstr turns on and supplies +5 via 4.75 to guts.
Bob, pdf to you directly to save BW.
Bill, let me know if you are interested too...
Ron Q.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Joe Dubner <jdubner(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Hitachi Alternator |
George,
Thank you! That's what I was looking for (the year/make/model and the
bonus of a Lester number). I don't know how you did it! Anyway, with
that info I'm off to the alternator shop and/or the parts house. And if
neither of those options give satisfaction, I see that Rockauto.com
sells one for under $50 (plus core and shipping). I'm a happy camper!
But I'm keeping my Hitachi (at least for now) in favor of the N-D you
mentioned because I'd rather not do a bracket (and baffling) change,
plus whatever wiring/terminal changes are needed to connect to the "S"
and "L" terminals. My Hitachi is a known quantity: internally regulated
and proven ability to switch off and on in flight. To misparaphrase a
frequently tossed-out saying at (former) work: "Change is bad!"
Thanks again,
Joe
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Joe Dubner K7JD | 523 Cedar Avenue | http://www.mail2600.com
Long-EZ 821RP | Lewiston, ID 83501 | +1 208 816-6359
--------------------------------------------------------------------
On 11-May-07 06:54 gmcjetpilot(at)yahoo.com wrote:
> This is the most likely one (you can get easily):
>
> Alternator - Hitachi, Mitsubishi IR/EF
> 35 Amp, 12 Volt, CW, 1-Groove Pulley
> Used On:
> (1980-78) Nissan 620
> 720 Pickup 2.0L
> Nissan Lift Trucks
> TCM Lift Trucks
> Replaces: Hitachi LR138-01 Mitsubishi A1T22971
> Lester Nos: 14231
>
> Key number is Lester # 14231.
>
> If the brush repair does not work.
>
> Get rid of the Hatachi; They are one of the worst
> brands of alternators made. Get a:
>
> Alternator - Nippondenso IR/IF Replacement
> 55 Amp, 12 Volt, CW, 1-Groove Pulley
> Used On:
> (1988-87) Chevrolet Sprint 1.0L
> (1995-86) Suzuki Samurai 1.3L
> (1989) Suzuki Sidekick 1.3L
> Replaces: Nippondenso 100211-141, 100211-155,
> 100211-407
> Lester Nos: 14684
>
> Smaller, lighter, more reliable. May take new brackets.
>
> If you really want to do it right.
>
> http://www.plane-power.com/
>
> Cheers George
>
>
> >From: Joe Dubner <jdubner(at)yahoo.com>
>>Subject: AeroElectric-List: Hitachi Alternator
>>
>>My O235 Long-EZ has experienced some sort of charging
>>system failure.
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Hitachi Alternator |
| From: | "Hinde, Frank George (Corvallis)" <frank.hinde(at)hp.com> |
Just a note of caution Joe,
I suspect that the Rockauto would be a rebuilt unit. There are many
rebuilt alternators which are very poor quality and for $50 I would be
very surprised if that was a good one.
Knowing what I know now (tempered with the fact I fly in IMC so I can't
afford an alt that will confuse my avionics) I would either strip and
rebuild the unit you have now, therby controlling the quality, buy a new
Lester unit (which I believe have a good reputation, or go for a plane
power unit.
Cheers
Frank
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Joe
Dubner
Sent: Friday, May 11, 2007 8:35 AM
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Re: Hitachi Alternator
George,
Thank you! That's what I was looking for (the year/make/model and the
bonus of a Lester number). I don't know how you did it! Anyway, with
that info I'm off to the alternator shop and/or the parts house. And if
neither of those options give satisfaction, I see that Rockauto.com
sells one for under $50 (plus core and shipping). I'm a happy camper!
But I'm keeping my Hitachi (at least for now) in favor of the N-D you
mentioned because I'd rather not do a bracket (and baffling) change,
plus whatever wiring/terminal changes are needed to connect to the "S"
and "L" terminals. My Hitachi is a known quantity: internally regulated
and proven ability to switch off and on in flight. To misparaphrase a
frequently tossed-out saying at (former) work: "Change is bad!"
Thanks again,
Joe
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Dr. Andrew Elliott" <a.s.elliott(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Narco connectors |
Anyone know the standard part number or other source for the 18-pin
Molex edge connector that goes on a NARCO AT155 or AT165 transponder?
It uses the standard King-type pins.
Thanks,
Andy Elliott, Mesa, AZ
N601GE (reserved)
601XL/TD/QB, Corvair, building...
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Terry Miles" <terrence_miles(at)hotmail.com> |
| Subject: | 14awg into a 18 pin |
Thanks for being out here for us.
Warm regards,
Terry
-----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, May 11, 2007 11:27 AM
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: 14awg into a 18 pin
>
>
>Hi Bob,
>
>Got a question. I'm wiring a GS Air Nav/Strobe system. I need to size the
>wire run up to 14AWG on the power and ground run for the strobe, but the
pig
>tail wire out of the molex like plug that goes into their power/control box
>is just regular auto wire and 18 at best. They want it fused at 15a.
>Sorry I cannot say what the amp draw will be.
>
>Is it OK to run a few inches of that original wire in and out of their
>connector and upsize the balance of both wire runs? We are talking a few
>inches in a 18 foot run. I'm in a pusher. What's normally done in a case
>like this?
A 15A branch is properly wired with 14AWG. It' perfectly
within the bounds of good practice to drop to a smaller
wire for a short distance to accommodate a smaller pin
in a connector. It would be really useful to do a current
measurement on the system once you have it installed.
Most suppliers of such products do not have strong
systems design and integration background . . . and
classically, almost never touch airplanes from the
airframe designer's perspective. I'm betting that the
'real' requirements are lower than what they recommend
but installing as you've proposed with 15A/14AWG spliced
into the connector's pigtail is perfectly okay thing to
do.
Bob . . .
----------------------------------------
( "Physics is like sex: sure, it may )
( give some practical results, but )
( that's not why we do it." )
( )
( Richard P. Feynman )
----------------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Alan K. Adamson" <aadamson(at)highrf.com> |
| Subject: | One to Many - Serial connections |
Someone must have come up with an elegant way to do this.
I've got some serial devices that I'd like to use to feed other devices. In
a couple of case, if the sending device will allow, I'd like to feed it to 3
downstream devices. These are single conductor with shield connections and
I've been racking my brain on how to take one to 3 (or 4, or N) and do them
the *correct* way, and via an eye pleasing way.
Anyone care to share how they'd do it?
Alan
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Alan Adamson" <aadamson(at)highrf.com> |
| Subject: | One to Many - Serial connections |
I guess I should have said.... "Without using terminal blocks"... I'd prefer
to do it just with single conductor, shielded wire...
Alan
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Alan K.
Adamson
Sent: Friday, May 11, 2007 8:27 PM
Subject: AeroElectric-List: One to Many - Serial connections
-->
Someone must have come up with an elegant way to do this.
I've got some serial devices that I'd like to use to feed other devices. In
a couple of case, if the sending device will allow, I'd like to feed it to 3
downstream devices. These are single conductor with shield connections and
I've been racking my brain on how to take one to 3 (or 4, or N) and do them
the *correct* way, and via an eye pleasing way.
Anyone care to share how they'd do it?
Alan
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | John Coloccia <john(at)ballofshame.com> |
| Subject: | Re: One to Many - Serial connections |
You can terminate the source into a DB9. Use the one with solder cups
and solder all the pins together. The mating connector then has a wire
for each device you wish to hookup.
If it's a foil shield, 1/2 the DB9 can be signal pins, the other 1/2 can
be the shield from the source. If it's a braided shield with no wire
for the shield, you'll have to maintain the shielding through the
connector/backshell or something like that.
Just some random thoughts. There's probably a better way to do it,
-John
www.ballofshame.com
Alan K. Adamson wrote:
>
> Someone must have come up with an elegant way to do this.
>
> I've got some serial devices that I'd like to use to feed other devices. In
> a couple of case, if the sending device will allow, I'd like to feed it to 3
> downstream devices. These are single conductor with shield connections and
> I've been racking my brain on how to take one to 3 (or 4, or N) and do them
> the *correct* way, and via an eye pleasing way.
>
> Anyone care to share how they'd do it?
>
> Alan
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Carl Morgan" <zk-vii(at)rvproject.gen.nz> |
| Subject: | One to Many - Serial connections |
Hi Alan,
Not sure if this is a 'correct' way, but we have taken multiple feeds and
solder spliced multiple lines and then used D pins for the connection. This
means easy to change / add other lines later if needed, where this gets too
bulky a DB9 has been used.
A second component that has worked well is we have a single DB25 (should
have been DB33) location which is like a mini approach hub for data lines.
All the avionics RS232 (plus a few others like PTT) lines come in and out of
this single DB male/female set. This includes unused GPS output feeds etc.
Any mods to what feeds what is normally just a pin change and doesn't
require burying into the avionics stack harnesses. Eg. I changed the
transponder FADC feed from the GNS to the GRT change rather than cutting
open the main harness.
Regards,
Carl
--
ZK-VII - RV 7A QB - tying up bundles of wires.... - New Zealand
http://www.rvproject.gen.nz/
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Alan K. Adamson [mailto:aadamson(at)highrf.com]
> Sent: Saturday, 12 May 2007 12:27 p.m.
> To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
> Subject: AeroElectric-List: One to Many - Serial connections
>
>
>
>
> Someone must have come up with an elegant way to do this.
>
> I've got some serial devices that I'd like to use to feed other
> devices. In
> a couple of case, if the sending device will allow, I'd like to
> feed it to 3
> downstream devices. These are single conductor with shield
> connections and
> I've been racking my brain on how to take one to 3 (or 4, or N)
> and do them
> the *correct* way, and via an eye pleasing way.
>
> Anyone care to share how they'd do it?
>
> Alan
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Alan Adamson" <aadamson(at)highrf.com> |
| Subject: | One to Many - Serial connections |
Holy smoke, you guys are brilliant... While not the perfect solutions, these
are some excellent ideas. What's even more ironic is that I was going to
use the DBX idea for grounds but hadn't even thought about the spoke/hub
idea for serial data.
Now I've got some thinking to do... I really like the "reuse or change idea"
and the idea of using DB connectors.... Hmmm, now to think thru how to make
a serial bus that doesn't take a bunch of space, and where a single
connector could be used for multiple buss paths...
Great ideas, please keep them coming....
Obviously there is a limit to this. If the RS232 chip that is/was used in
the Transmitting device can't "source" enough voltage, it may not be able to
drive unlimited numbers of downstream devices, but I can probably limit what
needs to be done to provide for my needs.
Thanks all!
Alan
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Carl
Morgan
Sent: Friday, May 11, 2007 9:55 PM
Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: One to Many - Serial connections
-->
Hi Alan,
Not sure if this is a 'correct' way, but we have taken multiple feeds and
solder spliced multiple lines and then used D pins for the connection. This
means easy to change / add other lines later if needed, where this gets too
bulky a DB9 has been used.
A second component that has worked well is we have a single DB25 (should
have been DB33) location which is like a mini approach hub for data lines.
All the avionics RS232 (plus a few others like PTT) lines come in and out of
this single DB male/female set. This includes unused GPS output feeds etc.
Any mods to what feeds what is normally just a pin change and doesn't
require burying into the avionics stack harnesses. Eg. I changed the
transponder FADC feed from the GNS to the GRT change rather than cutting
open the main harness.
Regards,
Carl
--
ZK-VII - RV 7A QB - tying up bundles of wires.... - New Zealand
http://www.rvproject.gen.nz/
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Alan K. Adamson [mailto:aadamson(at)highrf.com]
> Sent: Saturday, 12 May 2007 12:27 p.m.
> To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
> Subject: AeroElectric-List: One to Many - Serial connections
>
>
>
>
> Someone must have come up with an elegant way to do this.
>
> I've got some serial devices that I'd like to use to feed other
> devices. In a couple of case, if the sending device will allow, I'd
> like to feed it to 3 downstream devices. These are single conductor
> with shield connections and I've been racking my brain on how to take
> one to 3 (or 4, or N) and do them the *correct* way, and via an eye
> pleasing way.
>
> Anyone care to share how they'd do it?
>
> Alan
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Dennis Johnson" <pinetownd(at)volcano.net> |
Hi Terry,
I also have the GS Air strobe light and LED position light combos.
After 50 hours of flying, they're working great. I wired them using a
10 amp fuse off the main bus and 16 AWG wire for the power and grounds
(composite airplane). I think the 15 amp fuse specified in the
instructions is way overkill. The 16 AWG wires fit in the connectors
fine.
Good luck,
Dennis Johnson
Lancair Legacy, now flying and Phase 1 flight test completed
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: GS Air Strobes |
>Hi Terry,
>
>I also have the GS Air strobe light and LED position light combos. After
>50 hours of flying, they're working great. I wired them using a 10 amp
>fuse off the main bus and 16 AWG wire for the power and grounds (composite
>airplane). I think the 15 amp fuse specified in the instructions is way
>overkill. The 16 AWG wires fit in the connectors fine.
Any chance you could get us a current measurement on this
system? Preferably with an analog ammeter. The current is
going to be jumping around each time it flashes. It would
be useful to have a max and min reading as best as you
can visually capture it.
Bob . . .
----------------------------------------
( "Physics is like sex: sure, it may )
( give some practical results, but )
( that's not why we do it." )
( )
( Richard P. Feynman )
----------------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Narco connectors |
>Anyone know the standard part number or other source for the 18-pin Molex
>edge connector that goes on a NARCO AT155 or AT165 transponder? It uses
>the standard King-type pins.
>
>Thanks,
>Andy Elliott, Mesa, AZ
>N601GE (reserved)
>601XL/TD/QB, Corvair, building...
There's a stash of Waldom-Molex catalog data on my website.
See:
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Mfgr_Data/Connectors/Molex_Waldom/
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "RV_10" <john_rv10(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | ectric-List:Wiring integrity!!! |
Bob,
I have now spoken directly to the chap who brought the offending trike home
and parked it on the evening before the fire. He lost a lot of equipment in
the fire and has been personally involved in the investigation.
Following is my interpretation of his comments:-
1. The fuel tank is plastic with a cavity formed in it to hold the battery.
2. The wiring runs in a 1 inch bundle including the main positive and
negative leads. The loom passes across and sits on a plastic saddle in the
fuel tank, level with the top of the battery, and about 2/3rds the way down
from the top of the fuel tank. The loom is wrapped in black spiral wrap
3. The main wires from the battery are reported to be 8mm red pvc coated 80
amp leads.
4. There are 2 parallel fusible link wires swaged to the battery connector
and to the main positive lead designed to withstand 1 minute of engine
cranking. The cranking amps was unknown by this guy.
5. The distance from the battery to the starter solenoid was approx 2 feet
6. On one other factory trike inspected, the wire bundle was plastic cable
tied to an elbow on the water pump. The trike was 18 months old and had done
about 250 hours
7. The distance from the battery to the elbow is about 12 inches
8. There was about 12 inches of the loom recognizable after a fire intense
enough to turn Al tubing to white powder.
9. There were the 2 stubs from the fusible link at one end, and a glob of
fused copper at the other end.
10. The battery was a 12v 18AH Gel Cel. It was recognizable, but had the
top, terminals and start of leads burnt away and was badly distorted
The earlier story about the wires passing over an Al angle was a case of
Chinese whispers.
I trust this is of some use,
John
-----Original Message-----
From: RV_10 [mailto:john_rv10(at)yahoo.com]
Sent: Thursday, 10 May 2007 6:42 AM
Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List:Wiring integrity!!!
Bob,
The trike was parked. It had been on a long trip on a trailer the day
before, which may, or may not be relevant.
Investigation at the factory has shown that there is variability in the way
the wiring runs are done, with only some ships wired the way this one was.
If I can learn anymore on the forensics I will let the group know.
John
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Robert L.
Nuckolls, III
Sent: Thursday, 10 May 2007 12:40 AM
Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List:Wiring integrity!!!
>
>Hi Frank,
>
>For what it is worth, we recently had a hangar fire at our airport. The
fire
>started in a trike, which was wasted, and several other aircraft have been
>written off or seriously damaged.
>
>At this stage they believe the fire was started by the battery cable which
>was positioned across and sitting on an aluminum angle with no stand off
and
>no added protection.
>
>Regards,
>John
Have you seen any of the forensics on this? When
we conducted some tests on battery feeders against
aluminum some years ago, it was difficult to get
the odd insulation failure event to precipitate
much of an energy release. The high currents
available from a battery would burn the fault open
quickly. High currents flowed for short periods
of time but cleared without much fanfare.
I'm presuming that this airplane was parked and
we're considering a piece of cable that runs between
battery(+) and the contactor. If you have a chance to
learn more about the details and any analysis that
grew out of the facts, I'd be interested in
knowing about them. Thanks for sharing this with
the List.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | CardinalNSB(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | 14awg into a 18 pin |
If I have determined that it is "safe" to splice in a short run of 18 awg
into a run of 14 awg in order to fit the 18 awg into a defined pin that won't
accomodate the 14awg;
Then why not cut off a few strands of the 14awg until it fits into the pin?
That would avoid a splice.
The distance of the "small" wire would be small, a few hundredths of an inch
perhaps between the "orphaned cut off strands" and the pin, versus a longer
length to accomodate the splice.
Would soldering the "orphaned" strand to the end of the pin help or hurt
(assuming proper strain relief)?
I envision 2 scenarios:
1. The individual strand size of the 14awg is not larger than the
individual strand size for the 18awg.
2. If the individual strand size of the 14awg is larger than the individual
strand size for the 18awg.
I thank you for any insight into this, or reference. Skip Simpson
************************************** See what's free at http://www.aol.com.
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: GS Air Strobes |
| From: | "Dennis Johnson" <pinetownd(at)volcano.net> |
> Any chance you could get us a current measurement on this
> system?
I'll take the measurements and post the results next time I'm at the hangar, which
will probably be Tuesday.
I'm pretty sure I can get a peak current measurement using my digital VOM. I bought
a cheap analog meter based on the recommendation in the Connection, so I
should be able to eyeball and average using that.
Best,
Dennis Johnson
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=112497#112497
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Terry Miles" <terrence_miles(at)hotmail.com> |
| Subject: | 14awg into a 18 pin |
Hi Skip,
The problem was I didn't have a new pin to use. And the pin that came was
some non-standard thing. Otherwise the idea you had to trim off strands
would have worked fine. As it is I did w/ Bob suggested and just accepted
the pin and short run of smaller gauge wire as a given. Thanks for your
thoughts. The individual strand diameter was never in play.
Terry
_____
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of
CardinalNSB(at)aol.com
Sent: Saturday, May 12, 2007 5:23 PM
Subject: AeroElectric-List: 14awg into a 18 pin
If I have determined that it is "safe" to splice in a short run of 18 awg
into a run of 14 awg in order to fit the 18 awg into a defined pin that
won't accomodate the 14awg;
Then why not cut off a few strands of the 14awg until it fits into the pin?
That would avoid a splice.
The distance of the "small" wire would be small, a few hundredths of an inch
perhaps between the "orphaned cut off strands" and the pin, versus a longer
length to accomodate the splice.
Would soldering the "orphaned" strand to the end of the pin help or hurt
(assuming proper strain relief)?
I envision 2 scenarios:
1. The individual strand size of the 14awg is not larger than the
individual strand size for the 18awg.
2. If the individual strand size of the 14awg is larger than the individual
strand size for the 18awg.
I thank you for any insight into this, or reference. Skip Simpson
_____
See what's free at AOL.com <http://www.aol.com?ncid=AOLAOF00020000000503> .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Terry Miles" <terrence_miles(at)hotmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: GS Air Strobes |
Hey thanks. That would color in the picture some. The literature that came
with the nav and strobe combo was clearly from two different sources. I
think that the draw is really only about 6amps but he wants it fused at 15
amps. The overkill on the fuse rating is common as Bob mentioned in his
reply to me. I have seen that too.
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Dennis
Johnson
Sent: Saturday, May 12, 2007 8:12 PM
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Re: GS Air Strobes
> Any chance you could get us a current measurement on this
> system?
I'll take the measurements and post the results next time I'm at the hangar,
which will probably be Tuesday.
I'm pretty sure I can get a peak current measurement using my digital VOM.
I bought a cheap analog meter based on the recommendation in the Connection,
so I should be able to eyeball and average using that.
Best,
Dennis Johnson
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=112497#112497
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Tinne maha" <tinnemaha(at)hotmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Battery Capacity Check/CHT |
How about the CHT going in the red? Would the alternator in its "max
effort recharge event" make the engine work that much harder, or was
there some sort of momentary sensor problem? Grant, did
power/mixture settings, environmental conditions, flight attitude
change during the recharging cycle?
David
Hi David,
Good question. I've wondered too if the readings were an anomoly or if the
alternator made the engine work that much harder. Although I was in a slow
descent (~100-200 fpm), the conditions of the flight remained the same. I
only had two CHT probes on (Cyls #2 & #4) & only #4 read abnormally high.
On the other hand, however, on an earlier flight I accidently knocked the
master to 'Batt Only' for a while & got also got very high CHT readings on
Cyl #4. So, although I cannot imagine or think of a reason why, I've
noticed the same condition twice now.
I've moved my other CHT probe to Cyl #3 & plan to test the waters again
after I upgrade my b-lead fuse.
The older get, the less I know.
Grant
_________________________________________________________________
Make every IM count. Download Messenger and join the im Initiative now.
Its free. http://im.live.com/messenger/im/home/?source=TAGHM_MAY07
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "DEAN PSIROPOULOS" <dean.psiropoulos(at)verizon.net> |
When I was at Gulf Coast Avionics getting a bunch of stuff a couple years
ago I ended up with a roll of RG-58 coax and a small amount of RG-142 coax.
I don't remember whether the RG-142 was for my GPS antenna or the
transponder. RG-142 looks very much like RG-400 and if you didn't look at
the markings you would easily mistake it for RG-400. Anyone using RG-142
for your antenna runs? Is it for transponder or GPS? Or both? Thanks.
Dean Psiropoulos
RV-6A N197DM
Final wiring tasks.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | David Abrahamson <dave(at)abrahamson.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Battery Capacity Check/CHT |
Well, I hope others and Bob chime in on this issue. In the car world
it is said you'll get better gas mileage if you have less electrical
doodads on, and I accept that the alternator puts some drag on the
engine. However, that it puts so much strain on the engine as to
redline the CHT is bizarre. Yours being a pump-pad alternator (I
have one too, in addition to a belt-driven B&C 60A) begs the question
about how much "drag" it -- and a constantly working vacuum pump --
puts on the engine. Perhaps there is data on this issue in the
engineering world?
David
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Battery Capacity Check/CHT |
| From: | "Chuck Jensen" <cjensen(at)dts9000.com> |
A 60amp alternator, operating full out, will draw the equivalent of
something like 1-2 hp, so the redline CHT is unrelated to the engine
load. It's probably unrelated to CH temps also. Given your cited
experience, there seems to be a connection between your electrical
system and the #4 CHT. If you hadn't guessed---not normal.
Chuck Jensen
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Tinne
maha
Sent: Saturday, May 12, 2007 9:11 PM
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Re: Battery Capacity Check/CHT
-->
How about the CHT going in the red? Would the alternator in its "max
effort recharge event" make the engine work that much harder, or was
there some sort of momentary sensor problem? Grant, did power/mixture
settings, environmental conditions, flight attitude change during the
recharging cycle? David
Hi David,
Good question. I've wondered too if the readings were an anomoly or if
the
alternator made the engine work that much harder. Although I was in a
slow
descent (~100-200 fpm), the conditions of the flight remained the same.
I
only had two CHT probes on (Cyls #2 & #4) & only #4 read abnormally
high.
On the other hand, however, on an earlier flight I accidently knocked
the
master to 'Batt Only' for a while & got also got very high CHT readings
on
Cyl #4. So, although I cannot imagine or think of a reason why, I've
noticed the same condition twice now.
I've moved my other CHT probe to Cyl #3 & plan to test the waters again
after I upgrade my b-lead fuse.
The older get, the less I know.
Grant
_________________________________________________________________
Make every IM count. Download Messenger and join the i'm Initiative now.
It's free. http://im.live.com/messenger/im/home/?source=TAGHM_MAY07
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Ken <klehman(at)albedo.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Battery Capacity Check/CHT |
Even allowing for conversion losses it only takes about 1 hp to generate
about 35 amps at 14 volts. That can make a difference on a race with
millisecond timing but you aren't going to notice it on CHT.
Something else is going on. Is your instrument powered by the battery
and sensitive to voltage? Do you have a bad ground in the alternator
circuit such that one of the CHT wires is carrying a smidgeon of
alternator current? Magnetic coupling between the B+ line and the CHT wires?
Ken
David Abrahamson wrote:
>
>
> Well, I hope others and Bob chime in on this issue. In the car world
> it is said you'll get better gas mileage if you have less electrical
> doodads on, and I accept that the alternator puts some drag on the
> engine. However, that it puts so much strain on the engine as to
> redline the CHT is bizarre. Yours being a pump-pad alternator (I have
> one too, in addition to a belt-driven B&C 60A) begs the question about
> how much "drag" it -- and a constantly working vacuum pump -- puts on
> the engine. Perhaps there is data on this issue in the engineering
> world?
> David
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Rob Turk" <matronics(at)rtist.nl> |
| Subject: | Re: Battery Capacity Check/CHT |
Your B&C alternator delivers 12V x 60A = 720W of electricity at maximum
rating. Assuming (big assumption) that the alternator is about 75%
efficient, that would be about 1KW or 1.3 HP of energy taken from the
engines output. You can apply the same formula to the pump-pad driven
version.
Rob
----- Original Message -----
From: "David Abrahamson" <dave(at)abrahamson.net>
Sent: Sunday, May 13, 2007 1:39 PM
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Battery Capacity Check/CHT
>
>
> Well, I hope others and Bob chime in on this issue. In the car world it
> is said you'll get better gas mileage if you have less electrical doodads
> on, and I accept that the alternator puts some drag on the engine.
> However, that it puts so much strain on the engine as to redline the CHT
> is bizarre. Yours being a pump-pad alternator (I have one too, in
> addition to a belt-driven B&C 60A) begs the question about how much "drag"
> it -- and a constantly working vacuum pump --
> puts on the engine. Perhaps there is data on this issue in the
> engineering world?
> David
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "JOHN TIPTON" <jmtipton(at)btinternet.com> |
Hi Bob
I've heard that to buy you're strobe kit too far in advance of fitting (and
running) could be a bad idea: it has been said that the strobes should be
'run up' every so often !!!
Please advise
John
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | <bakerocb(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | RG 400 vs RG 142 vs Rg 58 |
5/13/2007
Hello Dean,
You wrote: "Anyone using RG-142 for your antenna runs? Is it for
transponder or GPS? Or both?"
I used either RG 400 or RG 142 for all of my coax installations.
RG 400 and RG 142 are both superior to RG 58 in performance and material. RG
400 has a multistranded core and RG 142 has a solid core. Some people favor
RG 400 over RG 142 because of the greater flexibility and resistance to
flexing fatigue failure.
RG 142 is a bit easier to work with when installing connections such as BNC.
There are avionics shops that will refuse to install RG 58 in your
airplane -- with good reason I think.
Look at RG 58 here:
http://www.belden.com/pdfs/MasterCatalogPDF/PDFS_links%20to%20docs/06_Coax/6.72_6.77.pdf
RG 400 here:
http://wireandcable.thermaxcdt.com/item/aerospace-wire-and-cable/mil-c-17-coaxial-and-twinaxial-cables/m17-128-rg400-id-74-?&plpver=10&origin=keyword&by=prod&filter=0
And Rg 142 here:
http://wireandcable.thermaxcdt.com/item/aerospace-wire-and-cable/mil-c-17-coaxial-and-twinaxial-cables/m17-060-rg142-id-64-?&plpver=10&origin=keyword&by=prod&filter=0
OC -- The best investment we can make is the effort to gather and understand
knowledge.
-----------------------------------------------
From: "DEAN PSIROPOULOS" <dean.psiropoulos(at)verizon.net>
Subject: AeroElectric-List: RG-142 Coax
When I was at Gulf Coast Avionics getting a bunch of stuff a couple years
ago I ended up with a roll of RG-58 coax and a small amount of RG-142 coax.
I don't remember whether the RG-142 was for my GPS antenna or the
transponder. RG-142 looks very much like RG-400 and if you didn't look at
the markings you would easily mistake it for RG-400. Anyone using RG-142
for your antenna runs? Is it for transponder or GPS? Or both? Thanks.
Dean Psiropoulos
RV-6A N197DM
Final wiring tasks.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net> |
>
>
>Hi Bob
>
>I've heard that to buy you're strobe kit too far in advance of fitting (and
>running) could be a bad idea: it has been said that the strobes should be
>'run up' every so often !!!
>
>Please advise
>
>John
This is a hangar myth that has roots going waaaayyy back into
the history of the electrolytic capacitors for strobe lamps.
Yess . . . electrolytics stored for VERY long periods of time
do lose their "form" . . . and it's prudent to "reform" them
with specific techniques that involve charging the capacitor
through a current limited source and perhaps even stepping the
voltage up over time starting at 50% of rated and 10% steps
thereafter.
The quality and capability of capacitors has grown since
this idea was first cultivated. I've got 400v electrolytics
on the shelf right now with date codes back in the early 90s
and I'll bet if I juiced them right now with 400v they would
be just fine . . . and certainly there are no concerns with
storing a new system for a mere couple of years.
My 500v adjustable power supply is loaned out right now
but when it gets back, I'll drag out some old caps and see
what their pre and post forming capacity is and how they
behave during application of normal operating voltages.
Bob . . .
----------------------------------------
( "Physics is like sex: sure, it may )
( give some practical results, but )
( that's not why we do it." )
( )
( Richard P. Feynman )
----------------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Battery Capacity Check |
| From: | Ron Quillin <rjquillin(at)gmail.com> |
At 05:11 5/13/2007, you wrote:
>
>Your B&C alternator delivers 12V x 60A = 720W of electricity at
>maximum rating. Assuming (big assumption) that the alternator is
>about 75% efficient, that would be about 1KW or 1.3 HP of energy
>taken from the engines output. You can apply the same formula to the
>pump-pad driven version.
>
>Rob
Good stuff Rob, you beat me to it.
For those not wanting to do the math, 746 watts equals 1 HP.
I might quibble that the B&C, or any other charging device, actually
delivers closer to 14 volts and for a 60A output is closer to 840W
output, but that's a minor nit.
What all this talk did was finally prod me into doing a load and
endurance test of a Concorde RG-35AXC, new in October 2006. From
calculations and actual measurements we've determined our "normal"
load is about 37 amps, and after load shedding to "essential"
equipment it drops to ~11 or 12 amps. All the essential equipment
installed is rated to 10.0 volts minimum.
The first test was per the ICAW, as nearly as I could replicate
without a constant current load.
The second test assumed an alternator failure at time zero with a
fully charged battery. We have a JPI EDM-800 installed with the bus
voltage alarm set point at 12.0 volts and tested it will annunciate
at that voltage. At 20 minutes (+/- one minute) into the test we
reached 12.0 volts and shed to essential at ~12.5 amps. Again, not
having a constant current load, adjustments were necessiated during
the test. However this time they were to maintain constant load
power, as newer avionics will increase their current draw with
decreasing supply voltage. Here I've tried to maintain ~140 to 150
watts. Note the adjustments at 1:00, 2:00, 2:30 and 2:45 into the test.
It was a pleasant surprise to find we have better than two hours endurance!
That battery delivered over 2.5kW/Hr of power.
Pics of the test setup and raw data upon request.
Ron Q.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Wayne Sweet" <w_sweet(at)comcast.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Avionics-List: RG 400 vs RG 142 vs Rg 58 |
FWIW (a lot if a 430W is involved), Garmin requires RG400 coax when
upgrading to a GNS430/530W along with a new (different) antenna. And, a
gotcha, the connectors for the RG400 are NOT the same as those for the RG58.
Also if one is contemplating upgrading their 430/530, the antenna's come
with a TNC connector vice a BNC, another gotcha.
Wayne
----- Original Message -----
From: <bakerocb(at)cox.net>
Sent: Sunday, May 13, 2007 4:57 PM
Subject: Avionics-List: RG 400 vs RG 142 vs Rg 58
> --> Avionics-List message posted by:
>
> 5/13/2007
>
> Hello Dean,
>
> You wrote: "Anyone using RG-142 for your antenna runs? Is it for
> transponder or GPS? Or both?"
>
> I used either RG 400 or RG 142 for all of my coax installations.
>
> RG 400 and RG 142 are both superior to RG 58 in performance and material.
> RG 400 has a multistranded core and RG 142 has a solid core. Some people
> favor RG 400 over RG 142 because of the greater flexibility and resistance
> to flexing fatigue failure.
>
> RG 142 is a bit easier to work with when installing connections such as
> BNC. There are avionics shops that will refuse to install RG 58 in your
> airplane -- with good reason I think.
>
> Look at RG 58 here:
>
> http://www.belden.com/pdfs/MasterCatalogPDF/PDFS_links%20to%20docs/06_Coax/6.72_6.77.pdf
>
> RG 400 here:
>
> http://wireandcable.thermaxcdt.com/item/aerospace-wire-and-cable/mil-c-17-coaxial-and-twinaxial-cables/m17-128-rg400-id-74-?&plpver=10&origin=keyword&by=prod&filter=0
>
> And Rg 142 here:
>
> http://wireandcable.thermaxcdt.com/item/aerospace-wire-and-cable/mil-c-17-coaxial-and-twinaxial-cables/m17-060-rg142-id-64-?&plpver=10&origin=keyword&by=prod&filter=0
>
>
> OC -- The best investment we can make is the effort to gather and
> understand knowledge.
>
> -----------------------------------------------
>
> From: "DEAN PSIROPOULOS" <dean.psiropoulos(at)verizon.net>
> Subject: AeroElectric-List: RG-142 Coax
>
>
> When I was at Gulf Coast Avionics getting a bunch of stuff a couple years
> ago I ended up with a roll of RG-58 coax and a small amount of RG-142
> coax.
> I don't remember whether the RG-142 was for my GPS antenna or the
> transponder. RG-142 looks very much like RG-400 and if you didn't look at
> the markings you would easily mistake it for RG-400. Anyone using RG-142
> for your antenna runs? Is it for transponder or GPS? Or both? Thanks.
>
> Dean Psiropoulos
> RV-6A N197DM
> Final wiring tasks.
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Don Vs" <dsvs(at)ca.rr.com> |
| Subject: | Dimmer for 5 volt lights |
-----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, April 09, 2007 10:40 PM
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Dimmer for 5 volt lights
>
>I am looking gor a recopmendation on purchase of a dimmer system for 5 volt
>panel lights. My AC has a 14 volt system and the people who are building
an
>ecgraved panel for me recomended 5 volt lights vs 14 volt because they last
>considerably longer.So, does anyone know of a good dimmer with a masx
output
>of 5 volts with 14 volts in? Thanks. Don
It just so happens that I'm building one for a customer. Details
are not finalized yet but it looks like the critter will be rated
at 0.7 to 5.0 volts output at up to 4A. It will be packaged in
the same enclosure as shown on page 2 of
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Catalog/AEC/9011/9011-700-1C.pdf
I'll know more in about a week. Prototyping parts are expected
here later this week but I won't be able to play with them
until next week.
I think the price will be something on the order of $55
and will include the externally mounted dimmer control
pot.
The part number will be AEC9033-1.
Bob . . .
Bob,
any progress on the dimmer?
----------------------------------------
( IF one aspires to be "world class", )
( what ever you do must be exercised )
( EVERY day . . . )
( R. L. Nuckolls III )
----------------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Nuckolls is bailing out of the OEM airframe business |
I just e-mailed the necessary folks at Hawker-Beechcraft that I'm
retiring from that activity after 13 years and 10 days. They're
just not doing any real EE design work any more.
I'll be joining forces with a gray-matter consortium here in
Wichita. We've already got a firm request and a couple of tentative
inquiries about developing the best we know how to do in flap and
pitch trim actuation systems. This is going to be fun!
Bob . . .
----------------------------------------
( "Physics is like sex: sure, it may )
( give some practical results, but )
( that's not why we do it." )
( )
( Richard P. Feynman )
----------------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Nuckolls is bailing out of the OEM airframe business |
| From: | Ron Quillin <rjquillin(at)gmail.com> |
As a start-up?
They can be great fun.
Best wishes, and hope you won't need any luck!
Ron Q.
At 22:32 5/13/2007, you wrote:
>I just e-mailed the necessary folks at Hawker-Beechcraft that I'm
>retiring from that activity after 13 years and 10 days. They're
>just not doing any real EE design work any more.
>
>I'll be joining forces with a gray-matter consortium here in
>Wichita. We've already got a firm request and a couple of tentative
>inquiries about developing the best we know how to do in flap and
>pitch trim actuation systems. This is going to be fun!
>
>
> Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "S. Ramirez" <simon(at)synchronousdesign.com> |
| Subject: | Nuckolls is bailing out of the OEM airframe business |
-----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, May 14, 2007 1:32 AM
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Nuckolls is bailing out of the OEM airframe
business
-->
I just e-mailed the necessary folks at Hawker-Beechcraft that I'm retiring
from that activity after 13 years and 10 days. They're just not doing any
real EE design work any more.
I'll be joining forces with a gray-matter consortium here in Wichita. We've
already got a firm request and a couple of tentative inquiries about
developing the best we know how to do in flap and pitch trim actuation
systems. This is going to be fun!
Bob . . .
----------------------------------------
( "Physics is like sex: sure, it may )
( give some practical results, but )
( that's not why we do it." )
( )
( Richard P. Feynman )
----------------------------------------
Bob,
Who is doing the real EE work for Hawker-Beechcraft?
Congrats on your new job. I'm sure you will love it.
Simon Ramirez, Aerocanard Builder
LEZ N-44LZ
Oviedo, FL 32765 USA
Copyright C 2007
--------------------------------
( "Is Max Planck's Constant?" )
( )
( -Unknown )
--------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Peter Harris" <peterjfharris(at)bigpond.com> |
| Subject: | Nuckolls is bailing out of the OEM airframe business |
Congratulations Bob and good success with the new enterprise.!
Peter H
-----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, 14 May 2007 3:32 PM
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Nuckolls is bailing out of the OEM airframe
business
I just e-mailed the necessary folks at Hawker-Beechcraft that I'm
retiring from that activity after 13 years and 10 days. They're
just not doing any real EE design work any more.
I'll be joining forces with a gray-matter consortium here in
Wichita. We've already got a firm request and a couple of tentative
inquiries about developing the best we know how to do in flap and
pitch trim actuation systems. This is going to be fun!
Bob . . .
----------------------------------------
( "Physics is like sex: sure, it may )
( give some practical results, but )
( that's not why we do it." )
( )
( Richard P. Feynman )
----------------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Avionics-List: RG 400 vs RG 142 vs Rg 58 |
> the connectors for the RG400 are NOT the same as those for the RG58.
Wayne,
I installed a Garmin 400 series in our project with RG400 and regular
"RG58" connectors. Works great.
And yes, the connector at the unit end is a TNC, but the installation
technique is the same as a BNC.
Best regards,
Gilles
http://contrails.free.fr
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Steve Thomas <lists(at)stevet.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Nuckolls is bailing out of the OEM airframe business |
Congratulations Bob! There is nothing like stimulating the creative
mind by doing something new. Best of luck in your new adventure.
Best Regards,
Steve
____________________________________________________________________
On May 13, 2007, at 10:32 PM, Robert L. Nuckolls, III wrote:
> I just e-mailed the necessary folks at Hawker-Beechcraft that I'm
> retiring from that activity after 13 years and 10 days. They're
> just not doing any real EE design work any more.
>
> I'll be joining forces with a gray-matter consortium here in
> Wichita. We've already got a firm request and a couple of tentative
> inquiries about developing the best we know how to do in flap and
> pitch trim actuation systems. This is going to be fun!
>
>
> Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Nuckolls is bailing out of the OEM airframe business |
>
>
>Bob,
>
>Who is doing the real EE work for Hawker-Beechcraft?
Essentially nobody. The "new order" is to farm out
as much new development as possible. This makes sense
to individuals who's business model is to fabricate
from existing technologies . . . the Legos-TinkerToy
approach. Problem is, that folks expected to understand
what goes out in our airplanes are isolated from
the innards so completely that trying to be a Subject
Matter Expert on any one system is exceedingly difficult
if not impossible to do.
>Congrats on your new job. I'm sure you will love it.
It's an extension of work I've been doing as a
hobby that makes a little money for over 40 years.
It's always been fun . . . when it stops being fun,
I'll go find something else to do.
Bob . . .
----------------------------------------
( "Physics is like sex: sure, it may )
( give some practical results, but )
( that's not why we do it." )
( )
( Richard P. Feynman )
----------------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Nuckolls is bailing out of the OEM airframe |
business
>
>As a start-up?
Not really . . . it's an extension of an activty
that's been going on for about 30 years. We're
just formalizing it and hanging out the shingle.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Michael Hinchcliff" <cfi(at)conwaycorp.net> |
| Subject: | Instrument Cluster Ground Wires |
Perhaps I'm over-thinking a very simple problem. I have a modular
instrument cluster from Mitchell Aircraft products. Each modular
instrument has its own ground and return line, as well as wires for the
lighting circuits. The wires for each instrument are 20 AWG and about a
foot long, however, I need them to be longer to reach the B&C tabbed
ground block that will be mounted on the inside of the firewall. I see
two options for resolving this problem:
Option 1: Solder or crimp all of the ground wires together as they are
and then use a larger wire to complete the necessary distance to the
ground tab. -Would it be advisable to even attempt to bring as many as
10 wires together at one point?
Option 2: Extend the length of each 20 AWG wire so that each one can
reach the ground tab individually. Again, the question stands: Is it
unreasonable to solder or crimp up to 10 ground wires together at the
end or should I plan to crimp a fast-on connector to each individual
wire? If the latter, than I will need to upgrade my 24 tab block to the
48 tab. (Would seem like a lot of tabs for one device, however.)
Let me know if you have another idea I should consider.
Thanks in advance for the input.
Michael H.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Bill Steer <steerr(at)bellsouth.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Instrument Cluster Ground Wires |
If you have a metal airframe, why couldn't you ground them locally?
Bill
Michael Hinchcliff wrote:
>
> Perhaps Im over-thinking a very simple problem. I have a modular
> instrument cluster from Mitchell Aircraft products. Each modular
> instrument has its own ground and return line, as well as wires for
> the lighting circuits. The wires for each instrument are 20 AWG and
> about a foot long, however, I need them to be longer to reach the B&C
> tabbed ground block that will be mounted on the inside of the
> firewall. I see two options for resolving this problem:
>
> Option 1: Solder or crimp all of the ground wires together as they are
> and then use a larger wire to complete the necessary distance to the
> ground tab. Would it be advisable to even attempt to bring as many as
> 10 wires together at one point?
>
> Option 2: Extend the length of each 20 AWG wire so that each one can
> reach the ground tab individually. Again, the question stands: Is it
> unreasonable to solder or crimp up to 10 ground wires together at the
> end or should I plan to crimp a fast-on connector to each individual
> wire? If the latter, than I will need to upgrade my 24 tab block to
> the 48 tab. (Would seem like a lot of tabs for one device, however.)
>
> Let me know if you have another idea I should consider.
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Instrument Cluster Ground Wires |
| From: | "Hinde, Frank George (Corvallis)" <frank.hinde(at)hp.com> |
I would extend them and ground them to the block...Its only 10 wires or
so its not like its that many extra crimps... I would avoid joining to a
thick wire as it maybe difficult to get a good joint unless you solder
them all together.
Frank
________________________________
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of
Michael Hinchcliff
Sent: Monday, May 14, 2007 10:40 AM
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Instrument Cluster Ground Wires
Perhaps I'm over-thinking a very simple problem. I have a modular
instrument cluster from Mitchell Aircraft products. Each modular
instrument has its own ground and return line, as well as wires for the
lighting circuits. The wires for each instrument are 20 AWG and about a
foot long, however, I need them to be longer to reach the B&C tabbed
ground block that will be mounted on the inside of the firewall. I see
two options for resolving this problem:
Option 1: Solder or crimp all of the ground wires together as they are
and then use a larger wire to complete the necessary distance to the
ground tab. -Would it be advisable to even attempt to bring as many as
10 wires together at one point?
Option 2: Extend the length of each 20 AWG wire so that each one can
reach the ground tab individually. Again, the question stands: Is it
unreasonable to solder or crimp up to 10 ground wires together at the
end or should I plan to crimp a fast-on connector to each individual
wire? If the latter, than I will need to upgrade my 24 tab block to the
48 tab. (Would seem like a lot of tabs for one device, however.)
Let me know if you have another idea I should consider.
Thanks in advance for the input.
Michael H.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Peter Harris" <peterjfharris(at)bigpond.com> |
| Subject: | Instrument Cluster Ground Wires |
I made two ground collectors from alum angle then ran a single ground from
each to the block.
Peter H
_____
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Hinde,
Frank George (Corvallis)
Sent: Tuesday, 15 May 2007 4:39 AM
Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Instrument Cluster Ground Wires
I would extend them and ground them to the block...Its only 10 wires or so
its not like its that many extra crimps... I would avoid joining to a thick
wire as it maybe difficult to get a good joint unless you solder them all
together.
Frank
_____
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Michael
Hinchcliff
Sent: Monday, May 14, 2007 10:40 AM
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Instrument Cluster Ground Wires
Perhaps I'm over-thinking a very simple problem. I have a modular
instrument cluster from Mitchell Aircraft products. Each modular instrument
has its own ground and return line, as well as wires for the lighting
circuits. The wires for each instrument are 20 AWG and about a foot long,
however, I need them to be longer to reach the B&C tabbed ground block that
will be mounted on the inside of the firewall. I see two options for
resolving this problem:
Option 1: Solder or crimp all of the ground wires together as they are and
then use a larger wire to complete the necessary distance to the ground tab.
-Would it be advisable to even attempt to bring as many as 10 wires together
at one point?
Option 2: Extend the length of each 20 AWG wire so that each one can reach
the ground tab individually. Again, the question stands: Is it unreasonable
to solder or crimp up to 10 ground wires together at the end or should I
plan to crimp a fast-on connector to each individual wire? If the latter,
than I will need to upgrade my 24 tab block to the 48 tab. (Would seem like
a lot of tabs for one device, however.)
Let me know if you have another idea I should consider.
Thanks in advance for the input.
Michael H.
href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List">http://www.matro
nics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List
href="http://forums.matronics.com">http://forums.matronics.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Instrument Cluster Ground Wires |
>Perhaps Im over-thinking a very simple problem. I have a modular
>instrument cluster from Mitchell Aircraft products. Each modular
>instrument has its own ground and return line, as well as wires for the
>lighting circuits. The wires for each instrument are 20 AWG and about a
>foot long, however, I need them to be longer to reach the B&C tabbed
>ground block that will be mounted on the inside of the firewall. I see
>two options for resolving this problem:
>
>
>
>Option 1: Solder or crimp all of the ground wires together as they are and
>then use a larger wire to complete the necessary distance to the ground
>tab. Would it be advisable to even attempt to bring as many as 10 wires
>together at one point?
>
>
>Option 2: Extend the length of each 20 AWG wire so that each one can reach
>the ground tab individually. Again, the question stands: Is it
>unreasonable to solder or crimp up to 10 ground wires together at the end
>or should I plan to crimp a fast-on connector to each individual wire? If
>the latter, than I will need to upgrade my 24 tab block to the 48
>tab. (Would seem like a lot of tabs for one device, however.)
>
>
>Let me know if you have another idea I should consider.
See
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Grounding/Minibus1.jpg
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Grounding/Minibus2.jpg
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Grounding/AVG_RA.jpg
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Grounding/AGB_V.jpg
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Grounding/Avionics_Bus_3.jpg
Bob . . .
----------------------------------------
( "Physics is like sex: sure, it may )
( give some practical results, but )
( that's not why we do it." )
( )
( Richard P. Feynman )
----------------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Todd Heffley <list(at)toddheffley.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Nuckolls is bailing out of the OEM airframe businessNuckolls |
is bailing out of the OEM airframe
Congratulations,
I could tell from you posts you were an eagle waddling in a prairie dog town.
Todd
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Greg Vouga" <gmvouga(at)hotmail.com> |
All,
I'm working on my panel and I'm trying to decide if I should put an Avionics
Master switch. In my experience with rental planes this was nice to have
since there was one switch to turn everything on or off during engine start
or shutdown.
Is there any reason not to add this feature? I'm planning an E-Bus and Main
Bus configuration similar to the Z-13/8 design.
Thanks
_________________________________________________________________
Make every IM count. Download Messenger and join the im Initiative now.
Its free. http://im.live.com/messenger/im/home/?source=TAGHM_MAY07
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "DEAN PSIROPOULOS" <dean.psiropoulos(at)verizon.net> |
| Subject: | Connetor Shells-Loctite |
Question on keeping the screws and nuts from coming apart on the DB-25 and
computer style connector shells and wire clamps. I tried some blue locktite
and it seemed to work fine but I was wondering if Locktite is needed or if
just installing the screws and nuts dry (but tight) is sufficient? Seems
trivial but I don't want the hardware coming apart and falling into my lap
while I'm flying (and I don't want to have to crawl up behind the panel to
put things back together once the airplane is finished).
Also, following Bob's tenet of not using wire smaller than AWG-22 has left
me with some large bundles coming out of the DB-25 connectors, especially on
the back of the VOR/ILS indicator and the Dynon EFIS. I couldn't use the
supplied bundle clamp/strain reliever because the bundle was too large so I
ended up using half the clamp and a tie wrap through the two screw holes for
strain relief. I wrapped some vinyl tape around the bundle at that point to
stave off chaffing the Tefzel insulation of the bundle. Seems kind of
kludgey to me though, any words of wisdom on good ways to protect the
bundles inside the connectors while providing decent strain relief? Thanks.
Dean Psiropoulos
RV-6A N197DM
Installing radio harnesses
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Avionics Master |
>
>All,
>
>I'm working on my panel and I'm trying to decide if I should put an
>Avionics Master switch. In my experience with rental planes this was nice
>to have since there was one switch to turn everything on or off during
>engine start or shutdown.
>
>Is there any reason not to add this feature? I'm planning an E-Bus and
>Main Bus configuration similar to the Z-13/8 design.
Why "similar to"? What feature do you find missing
or performance goal that has gone lacking. Goto
http://aeroelectric.com
. . . and put 'avionics master' in the search box.
After reviewing the discussions, help us out by
citing where you perceive a return on investment for
having the feature.
Bob . . .
----------------------------------------
( "Physics is like sex: sure, it may )
( give some practical results, but )
( that's not why we do it." )
( )
( Richard P. Feynman )
----------------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Connetor Shells-Loctite |
Hi Dean,
I've never used anything on the threads and I've never seen one come
apart. What I've found to work really well for the strain relief is to
wrap the cable where it exits the backshell with silicone fusion tape
until it's slightly larger than the hole. Then tighten the backshell
over it. It make a snug fit and protects the wires at the same time.
The tape turns into a solid plug but it's easily cut away if you need
to work on it later.
Bob W.
"DEAN PSIROPOULOS" wrote:
>
> Question on keeping the screws and nuts from coming apart on the DB-25 and
> computer style connector shells and wire clamps. I tried some blue locktite
> and it seemed to work fine but I was wondering if Locktite is needed or if
> just installing the screws and nuts dry (but tight) is sufficient? Seems
> trivial but I don't want the hardware coming apart and falling into my lap
> while I'm flying (and I don't want to have to crawl up behind the panel to
> put things back together once the airplane is finished).
>
> Also, following Bob's tenet of not using wire smaller than AWG-22 has left
> me with some large bundles coming out of the DB-25 connectors, especially on
> the back of the VOR/ILS indicator and the Dynon EFIS. I couldn't use the
> supplied bundle clamp/strain reliever because the bundle was too large so I
> ended up using half the clamp and a tie wrap through the two screw holes for
> strain relief. I wrapped some vinyl tape around the bundle at that point to
> stave off chaffing the Tefzel insulation of the bundle. Seems kind of
> kludgey to me though, any words of wisdom on good ways to protect the
> bundles inside the connectors while providing decent strain relief? Thanks.
>
> Dean Psiropoulos
> RV-6A N197DM
> Installing radio harnesses
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
--
N93BD - Rotary Powered BD-4 - http://www.bob-white.com
3.8 Hours Total Time and holding
Cables for your rotary installation - http://www.roblinphoto.com/shop/
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Battery Capacity Check |
>At 05:11 5/13/2007, you wrote:
>>
>>Your B&C alternator delivers 12V x 60A = 720W of electricity at maximum
>>rating. Assuming (big assumption) that the alternator is about 75%
>>efficient, that would be about 1KW or 1.3 HP of energy taken from the
>>engines output. You can apply the same formula to the pump-pad driven version.
>>
>>Rob
>
>Good stuff Rob, you beat me to it.
>For those not wanting to do the math, 746 watts equals 1 HP.
>I might quibble that the B&C, or any other charging device, actually
>delivers closer to 14 volts and for a 60A output is closer to 840W output,
>but that's a minor nit.
>
>What all this talk did was finally prod me into doing a load and endurance
>test of a Concorde RG-35AXC, new in October 2006. From calculations and
>actual measurements we've determined our "normal" load is about 37 amps,
>and after load shedding to "essential" equipment it drops to ~11 or 12
>amps. All the essential equipment installed is rated to 10.0 volts minimum.
>
>The first test was per the ICAW, as nearly as I could replicate without a
>constant current load.
>The second test assumed an alternator failure at time zero with a fully
>charged battery. We have a JPI EDM-800 installed with the bus voltage
>alarm set point at 12.0 volts and tested it will annunciate at that
>voltage. At 20 minutes (+/- one minute) into the test we reached 12.0
>volts and shed to essential at ~12.5 amps. Again, not having a constant
>current load, adjustments were necessiated during the test. However this
>time they were to maintain constant load power, as newer avionics will
>increase their current draw with decreasing supply voltage. Here I've
>tried to maintain ~140 to 150 watts. Note the adjustments at 1:00, 2:00,
>2:30 and 2:45 into the test.
>
>It was a pleasant surprise to find we have better than two hours endurance!
>That battery delivered over 2.5kW/Hr of power.
>
>Pics of the test setup and raw data upon request.
>
>Ron Q.
GOOD WORK! A very learned gentleman once noted . . .
"When you can measure what you are speaking about
and express it in numbers, you know something
about it." Lord William Thomson Kelvin (1824-1907)
See:
http://sse.jpl.nasa.gov/scitech/display.cfm?ST_ID=330
You now have a benchmark by which you can craft
your Plan-B ritual for dealing with an alternator-out
situation . . . assuming of course that you've also
initated a plan for tracking the battery's abilty
to support Plan-B.
Thanks for sharing this with us . . .
Bob . . .
----------------------------------------
( "Physics is like sex: sure, it may )
( give some practical results, but )
( that's not why we do it." )
( )
( Richard P. Feynman )
----------------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "B Tomm" <fvalarm(at)rapidnet.net> |
Greg,
It's been discussed several times and as I recall, the reason to not do it
is a) theoretical single point of failure, and b) no real good reason to do
it.
Bevan
RV7A
Wiring and misc panel work
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Greg
Vouga
Sent: Monday, May 14, 2007 7:28 PM
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Avionics Master
-->
All,
I'm working on my panel and I'm trying to decide if I should put an Avionics
Master switch. In my experience with rental planes this was nice to have
since there was one switch to turn everything on or off during engine start
or shutdown.
Is there any reason not to add this feature? I'm planning an E-Bus and Main
Bus configuration similar to the Z-13/8 design.
Thanks
_________________________________________________________________
Make every IM count. Download Messenger and join the i'm Initiative now.
It's free. http://im.live.com/messenger/im/home/?source=TAGHM_MAY07
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Jim Jewell" <jjewell(at)telus.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Connetor Shells-Loctite |
Hi Dean,
As for securing DB connectors:
Due to vibration the engine DB 9 connector for the Lightspeed EI hall effect
unit was one place that I felt needed to be secured beyond just dry
tightening the screws.
I thought Locktite might make removal for servicing a headache.
After tightening the screws I used .016 safety wire laid over the screw
slots and then twisted tight.
This aproach of course would only be useful in areas where there is room for
relatively easy physical access.
Build on,
Jim Jewell in Kelowna - RV6A 10 plus hr. into the flight testing
----- Original Message -----
From: "DEAN PSIROPOULOS" <dean.psiropoulos(at)verizon.net>
Sent: Monday, May 14, 2007 8:40 PM
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Connetor Shells-Loctite
>
>
> Question on keeping the screws and nuts from coming apart on the DB-25 and
> computer style connector shells and wire clamps. I tried some blue
> locktite
> and it seemed to work fine but I was wondering if Locktite is needed or if
> just installing the screws and nuts dry (but tight) is sufficient? Seems
> trivial but I don't want the hardware coming apart and falling into my lap
> while I'm flying (and I don't want to have to crawl up behind the panel to
> put things back together once the airplane is finished).
>
> Also, following Bob's tenet of not using wire smaller than AWG-22 has left
> me with some large bundles coming out of the DB-25 connectors, especially
> on
> the back of the VOR/ILS indicator and the Dynon EFIS. I couldn't use the
> supplied bundle clamp/strain reliever because the bundle was too large so
> I
> ended up using half the clamp and a tie wrap through the two screw holes
> for
> strain relief. I wrapped some vinyl tape around the bundle at that point
> to
> stave off chaffing the Tefzel insulation of the bundle. Seems kind of
> kludgey to me though, any words of wisdom on good ways to protect the
> bundles inside the connectors while providing decent strain relief?
> Thanks.
>
> Dean Psiropoulos
> RV-6A N197DM
> Installing radio harnesses
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Michel Creek" <mwcreek(at)frontiernet.net> |
This is an excerpt from the GRT install manual referring to the use of an
avionics master (at least that is what I read into it). Perhaps Bob can
clear this up as it is somewhat ambiguous.
Power Connections
The display units each include 2 isolated power input connections. This
allows redundant power sources, such as a main and secondary bus. The
display units consume approximately 1 amp, making even a small 3 Amp-Hour
gel cell a suitable emergency source.
The configuration of the power supplied to the display unit(s) is left to
the installer. Considerations such as the number of power buses, the desire
or not to supply one pieceof equipment with power from redundant buses
(which in theory allows the possibility of one device affecting both buses),
the configuration of the electrical system with respect to backup equipment,
and so on, may dictate the best configuration for a particular airplane.
No provision is included within the display units for a power switch. If a
power switch is desired for the EFIS, the +12V power should be controlled
with the switch (not ground). The display units include internal
thermally-activated fuses. This protects the equipment from internal
electrical faults. Power supplied to the EFIS must pass through a fuse or 4
circuit breaker or fuse. It should be sized to allow at least 1.5 amps per
display unit, with a maximum rating of 5 amps.
The AHRS and display units monitor all of their power inputs, and alarms are
available to annunciate the loss of any power source that was provided and
is expected to be working according to the "General Setup" menu.
The majority of the current flow into the display unit will occur on the bus
with thehighest voltage.
It is desirable to have the display units and AHRS off during the engine
start if all of the buses which power them are used for supplying power to
the engine starter. This maximizes the current available for the starter,
and may extend the life of the CCFL backlight in the display unit.
-----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, May 14, 2007 9:56 PM
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Avionics Master
>
>All,
>
>I'm working on my panel and I'm trying to decide if I should put an
>Avionics Master switch. In my experience with rental planes this was nice
>to have since there was one switch to turn everything on or off during
>engine start or shutdown.
>
>Is there any reason not to add this feature? I'm planning an E-Bus and
>Main Bus configuration similar to the Z-13/8 design.
Why "similar to"? What feature do you find missing
or performance goal that has gone lacking. Goto
http://aeroelectric.com
. . . and put 'avionics master' in the search box.
After reviewing the discussions, help us out by
citing where you perceive a return on investment for
having the feature.
Bob . . .
----------------------------------------
( "Physics is like sex: sure, it may )
( give some practical results, but )
( that's not why we do it." )
( )
( Richard P. Feynman )
----------------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | John Coloccia <john(at)ballofshame.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Connetor Shells-Loctite |
I wouldn't loctite them. The screws they come with are quite crappy and
you run the real risk of stripping the heads just trying to get them out
again. The screws are light so I'd be surprised if they'd loosen on
their own, even under heavy vibration. So maybe I'm missing something
here but my gut would say just cinch them down and call it a day.
I wonder what A&P's are trained to do? I wonder what Bob and Stein do?
hmmmmmm.
-John
www.ballofshame.com
DEAN PSIROPOULOS wrote:
>
> Question on keeping the screws and nuts from coming apart on the DB-25 and
> computer style connector shells and wire clamps. I tried some blue locktite
> and it seemed to work fine but I was wondering if Locktite is needed or if
> just installing the screws and nuts dry (but tight) is sufficient? Seems
> trivial but I don't want the hardware coming apart and falling into my lap
> while I'm flying (and I don't want to have to crawl up behind the panel to
> put things back together once the airplane is finished).
>
> Also, following Bob's tenet of not using wire smaller than AWG-22 has left
> me with some large bundles coming out of the DB-25 connectors, especially on
> the back of the VOR/ILS indicator and the Dynon EFIS. I couldn't use the
> supplied bundle clamp/strain reliever because the bundle was too large so I
> ended up using half the clamp and a tie wrap through the two screw holes for
> strain relief. I wrapped some vinyl tape around the bundle at that point to
> stave off chaffing the Tefzel insulation of the bundle. Seems kind of
> kludgey to me though, any words of wisdom on good ways to protect the
> bundles inside the connectors while providing decent strain relief? Thanks.
>
> Dean Psiropoulos
> RV-6A N197DM
> Installing radio harnesses
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Connetor Shells-Loctite |
>
>
>Question on keeping the screws and nuts from coming apart on the DB-25 and
>computer style connector shells and wire clamps. I tried some blue locktite
>and it seemed to work fine but I was wondering if Locktite is needed or if
>just installing the screws and nuts dry (but tight) is sufficient? Seems
>trivial but I don't want the hardware coming apart and falling into my lap
>while I'm flying (and I don't want to have to crawl up behind the panel to
>put things back together once the airplane is finished).
We've used D-Subs on the airplanes and our targets for
as long as anyone can remember and we've never "secured"
the mating screws beyond snugging them up dry.
The screw mass is exceedingly small and the thread pitch
very flat (40 tpi) so any tendency to loosen under vibration
is simply too small to overcome friction.
>Also, following Bob's tenet of not using wire smaller than AWG-22 has left
>me with some large bundles coming out of the DB-25 connectors, especially on
>the back of the VOR/ILS indicator and the Dynon EFIS. I couldn't use the
>supplied bundle clamp/strain reliever because the bundle was too large so I
>ended up using half the clamp and a tie wrap through the two screw holes for
>strain relief. I wrapped some vinyl tape around the bundle at that point to
>stave off chaffing the Tefzel insulation of the bundle. Seems kind of
>kludgey to me though, any words of wisdom on good ways to protect the
>bundles inside the connectors while providing decent strain relief? Thanks.
Leave the clamp hardware off. Wrap the bundle with silicone rubber
tape like:
http://tinyurl.com/32uywo
Put enough tape around the wires that the backshell halves
put a grip on the bundle when assembled to the connector.
Finally, the notion of avoiding 24AWG wire is strongest
for airframe systems were individual small wires are routed
around the airplane for various tasks. If you're building
short bundles of multiple wires for avionics, 24AWG
is fine if you're comfortable with it. It's generally to
flexible to allow seating a d-sub pin in the housing by
pushing on the wire. You'll probably have to use the insertion
tool to seat pins.
Bob . . .
----------------------------------------
( "Physics is like sex: sure, it may )
( give some practical results, but )
( that's not why we do it." )
( )
( Richard P. Feynman )
----------------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Connetor Shells-Loctite |
>
> Leave the clamp hardware off. Wrap the bundle with silicone rubber
> tape like:
>
>http://tinyurl.com/32uywo
>
> Put enough tape around the wires that the backshell halves
> put a grip on the bundle when assembled to the connector.
See also:
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Connectors/D-Subminature/
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Ernest Christley <echristley(at)nc.rr.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Connetor Shells-Loctite |
DEAN PSIROPOULOS wrote:
>
> Question on keeping the screws and nuts from coming apart on the DB-25 and
> computer style connector shells and wire clamps. I tried some blue locktite
> and it seemed to work fine but I was wondering if Locktite is needed or if
> just installing the screws and nuts dry (but tight) is sufficient? Seems
> trivial but I don't want the hardware coming apart and falling into my lap
> while I'm flying (and I don't want to have to crawl up behind the panel to
> put things back together once the airplane is finished).
>
>
I bought clips that you screw onto the dSub connectors. Then a springs
holds them together. It is like the clips that used to be on the
Centronics end of your printer cable. With these, you could epoxy the
screws into place.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Greg Vouga" <gmvouga(at)hotmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Avionics Master |
Bob,
I wanted to use the LR-3 controller and the SD-8, but I didn't find a design
that incorporated both. So, my electrical system is kind of a combination
of Z-12 and Z-13/8. I started with the Z-12 and then removed the circuit
with the SB-1/20A alternator. Then I added the SD-8/regulator circuit from
Z-13/8.
You are right about the search engine. I actually hit send on my email and
then instantly remembered that I should have checked the archives first. Of
course, I found that this subject has been discussed several times before.
My initial reasoning was to protect my "sensitive" avionics during power
fluxuations during startup and shutdown. It seams that modern avionics
should not have this problem according to your comments in the past.
However, I am using some experimental electronics that may or may not have
gone through extensive testing for power fluxuations. I agree that the
manufacturers should have made their products robust enough, but did they?
I'm not sure we can know for sure unless someone tests the units thoroughly
either in the lab or just through normal use.
Greg
>From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net>
>Reply-To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
>To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
>Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Avionics Master
>Date: Mon, 14 May 2007 22:56:09 -0600
>
>
>
>
>>
>>
>>All,
>>
>>I'm working on my panel and I'm trying to decide if I should put an
>>Avionics Master switch. In my experience with rental planes this was nice
>>to have since there was one switch to turn everything on or off during
>>engine start or shutdown.
>>
>>Is there any reason not to add this feature? I'm planning an E-Bus and
>>Main Bus configuration similar to the Z-13/8 design.
>
> Why "similar to"? What feature do you find missing
> or performance goal that has gone lacking. Goto
>
>http://aeroelectric.com
>
> . . . and put 'avionics master' in the search box.
> After reviewing the discussions, help us out by
> citing where you perceive a return on investment for
> having the feature.
>
>
> Bob . . .
>
> ----------------------------------------
> ( "Physics is like sex: sure, it may )
> ( give some practical results, but )
> ( that's not why we do it." )
> ( )
> ( Richard P. Feynman )
> ----------------------------------------
>
>
_________________________________________________________________
Catch suspicious messages before you open themwith Windows Live Hotmail.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Reggie DeLoach <redeloach(at)fedex.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Avionics Master |
Why can one not just use the "off/on" switch on each device ?
:}
----- Original Message -----
From: "Greg Vouga" <gmvouga(at)hotmail.com>
Sent: Tuesday, May 15, 2007 8:30 AM
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Avionics Master
>
> Bob,
>
> I wanted to use the LR-3 controller and the SD-8, but I didn't find a
design
> that incorporated both. So, my electrical system is kind of a combination
> of Z-12 and Z-13/8. I started with the Z-12 and then removed the circuit
> with the SB-1/20A alternator. Then I added the SD-8/regulator circuit
from
> Z-13/8.
>
> You are right about the search engine. I actually hit send on my email
and
> then instantly remembered that I should have checked the archives first.
Of
> course, I found that this subject has been discussed several times before.
>
> My initial reasoning was to protect my "sensitive" avionics during power
> fluxuations during startup and shutdown. It seams that modern avionics
> should not have this problem according to your comments in the past.
> However, I am using some experimental electronics that may or may not have
> gone through extensive testing for power fluxuations. I agree that the
> manufacturers should have made their products robust enough, but did they?
> I'm not sure we can know for sure unless someone tests the units
thoroughly
> either in the lab or just through normal use.
>
> Greg
>
> >From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net>
> >Reply-To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
> >To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
> >Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Avionics Master
> >Date: Mon, 14 May 2007 22:56:09 -0600
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >>
> >>
> >>All,
> >>
> >>I'm working on my panel and I'm trying to decide if I should put an
> >>Avionics Master switch. In my experience with rental planes this was
nice
> >>to have since there was one switch to turn everything on or off during
> >>engine start or shutdown.
> >>
> >>Is there any reason not to add this feature? I'm planning an E-Bus and
> >>Main Bus configuration similar to the Z-13/8 design.
> >
> > Why "similar to"? What feature do you find missing
> > or performance goal that has gone lacking. Goto
> >
> >http://aeroelectric.com
> >
> > . . . and put 'avionics master' in the search box.
> > After reviewing the discussions, help us out by
> > citing where you perceive a return on investment for
> > having the feature.
> >
> >
> > Bob . . .
> >
> > ----------------------------------------
> > ( "Physics is like sex: sure, it may )
> > ( give some practical results, but )
> > ( that's not why we do it." )
> > ( )
> > ( Richard P. Feynman )
> > ----------------------------------------
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> Catch suspicious messages before you open them-with Windows Live Hotmail.
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Mike" <mlas(at)cox.net> |
Check the $price$ of that on/off switch in the radio and how much it
cost to have it changed. Then you will know why you don't want to use
them all the time. The on/off switches on the radio seems to fail more
often then a standard toggle switch, especially on the Narco and king
radios.
Mike Larkin
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of
Reggie DeLoach
Sent: Tuesday, May 15, 2007 6:49 AM
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Avionics Master
Why can one not just use the "off/on" switch on each device ?
:}
--
11:52 AM
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Matt Prather" <mprather(at)spro.net> |
Do they fail from operations or age?
Matt-
>
> Check the $price$ of that on/off switch in the radio and how much it
> cost to have it changed. Then you will know why you don't want to use
> them all the time. The on/off switches on the radio seems to fail more
> often then a standard toggle switch, especially on the Narco and king
> radios.
>
> Mike Larkin
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of
> Reggie DeLoach
> Sent: Tuesday, May 15, 2007 6:49 AM
> To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
> Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Avionics Master
>
>
>
> Why can one not just use the "off/on" switch on each device ?
> :}
>
>
> --
> 11:52 AM
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Avionics Master |
| From: | Ron Quillin <rjquillin(at)gmail.com> |
At 06:48 5/15/2007, you wrote:
>Why can one not just use the "off/on" switch on each device ?
>:}
There some are IM's that specify the piece of equipment is not to be
energized during engine start, and is to be powered from the
"avionics" bus and turned on post start.
Lack of a power switch is also common with remotely installed boxes,
some with similar power source restrictions.
One panel mounted instrument that immediately comes to mind is the
JPI EDM series engine monitors.
There is no "off/on" switch on this device.
Ron Q.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | john(at)ballofshame.com |
I'm guessing they mostly fail from lack of use. I often wonder if ANY
switch installed in the real world has ever made it to the rated # of
cycles achieved in the manufacturer'ss accelerated life testing.
-John
www.ballofshame.com
>
>
> Do they fail from operations or age?
>
>
> Matt-
>
>>
>> Check the $price$ of that on/off switch in the radio and how much it
>> cost to have it changed. Then you will know why you don't want to use
>> them all the time. The on/off switches on the radio seems to fail more
>> often then a standard toggle switch, especially on the Narco and king
>> radios.
>>
>> Mike Larkin
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
>> [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of
>> Reggie DeLoach
>> Sent: Tuesday, May 15, 2007 6:49 AM
>> To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
>> Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Avionics Master
>>
>>
>>
>> Why can one not just use the "off/on" switch on each device ?
>> :}
>>
>>
>> --
>> 11:52 AM
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Reggie DeLoach <redeloach(at)fedex.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Avionics Master |
Thanks to all who responded!
red :} (My initials but in this case, Rookie in Early Development)
----- Original Message -----
From: <john(at)ballofshame.com>
Sent: Tuesday, May 15, 2007 10:32 AM
Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Avionics Master
>
> I'm guessing they mostly fail from lack of use. I often wonder if ANY
> switch installed in the real world has ever made it to the rated # of
> cycles achieved in the manufacturer'ss accelerated life testing.
>
> -John
> www.ballofshame.com
>
> >
> >
> > Do they fail from operations or age?
> >
> >
> > Matt-
> >
> >>
> >> Check the $price$ of that on/off switch in the radio and how much it
> >> cost to have it changed. Then you will know why you don't want to use
> >> them all the time. The on/off switches on the radio seems to fail more
> >> often then a standard toggle switch, especially on the Narco and king
> >> radios.
> >>
> >> Mike Larkin
> >>
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
> >> [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of
> >> Reggie DeLoach
> >> Sent: Tuesday, May 15, 2007 6:49 AM
> >> To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
> >> Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Avionics Master
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Why can one not just use the "off/on" switch on each device ?
> >> :}
> >>
> >>
> >> --
> >> 11:52 AM
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net> |
>
>I'm guessing they mostly fail from lack of use. I often wonder if ANY
>switch installed in the real world has ever made it to the rated # of
>cycles achieved in the manufacturer's accelerated life testing.
Probably not. Lab tests never duplicate the combination of
stresses that over time (not operating cycles) will bring the
switch to it's knees.
Switches regularly used are happier/healthier and longer
lived than switches that sit for long periods of time unused.
I've replaced more switches that succumbed to under-use
than from wear-out.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Avionics Master |
>
>Bob,
>
>I wanted to use the LR-3 controller and the SD-8, but I didn't find a
>design that incorporated both. So, my electrical system is kind of a
>combination of Z-12 and Z-13/8. I started with the Z-12 and then removed
>the circuit with the SB-1/20A alternator. Then I added the SD-8/regulator
>circuit from Z-13/8.
>You are right about the search engine. I actually hit send on my email
>and then instantly remembered that I should have checked the archives
>first. Of course, I found that this subject has been discussed several
>times before.
>
>My initial reasoning was to protect my "sensitive" avionics during power
>fluxuations during startup and shutdown. It seams that modern avionics
>should not have this problem according to your comments in the past.
>However, I am using some experimental electronics that may or may not have
>gone through extensive testing for power fluxuations. I agree that the
>manufacturers should have made their products robust enough, but did they?
Call them up and ask them. The aura that surrounds the
avionics master switch and the mythology that birthed the
thing will never go away unless responsibly skeptic
consumers drive it away.
The "spikes" from starter motors don't exist. Spikes from
starter contactors do exist but they eat up starter push buttons
and do not propagate out onto the system.
>I'm not sure we can know for sure unless someone tests the units
>thoroughly either in the lab or just through normal use.
The guy who designed the thing should KNOW what stresses
his product will stand. Further, if there are stresses that
his product will not stand, he should know how big they are
and exactly where they come from. There's no excuse for
levying a requirement on the installation of a product without
being able to support that requirement with the "numbers" and
simple ideas that support them.
Call them up. Point them to articles on the website and ask
them where they're wrong. If you don't get good (understandable)
answers, get the folks names and phone numbers and let me call
them.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Avionics Master |
>
>Bob,
>
>I wanted to use the LR-3 controller and the SD-8, but I didn't find a
>design that incorporated both. So, my electrical system is kind of a
>combination of Z-12 and Z-13/8. I started with the Z-12 and then removed
>the circuit with the SB-1/20A alternator. Then I added the SD-8/regulator
>circuit from Z-13/8.
Keep in mind that the z-figures are for ARCHITECTURE and
do not necessarily drive combinations of hardware. For example,
A figure Z-13 could use an internally regulated main alternator,
an externally regulated with any regulator.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net> |
>
>
>
>This is an excerpt from the GRT install manual referring to the use of an
>avionics master (at least that is what I read into it). Perhaps Bob can
>clear this up as it is somewhat ambiguous.
>
>Power Connections
>The display units each include 2 isolated power input connections. This
>allows redundant power sources, such as a main and secondary bus. The
>display units consume approximately 1 amp, making even a small 3 Amp-Hour
>gel cell a suitable emergency source.
>
>The configuration of the power supplied to the display unit(s) is left to
>the installer. Considerations such as the number of power buses, the desire
>or not to supply one pieceof equipment with power from redundant buses
>(which in theory allows the possibility of one device affecting both buses),
>the configuration of the electrical system with respect to backup equipment,
>and so on, may dictate the best configuration for a particular airplane.
>
>No provision is included within the display units for a power switch. If a
>power switch is desired for the EFIS, the +12V power should be controlled
>with the switch (not ground). The display units include internal
>thermally-activated fuses. This protects the equipment from internal
>electrical faults. Power supplied to the EFIS must pass through a fuse or 4
>circuit breaker or fuse. It should be sized to allow at least 1.5 amps per
>display unit, with a maximum rating of 5 amps.
>
>The AHRS and display units monitor all of their power inputs, and alarms are
>available to annunciate the loss of any power source that was provided and
>is expected to be working according to the "General Setup" menu.
>The majority of the current flow into the display unit will occur on the bus
>with thehighest voltage.
>
>It is desirable to have the display units and AHRS off during the engine
>start if all of the buses which power them are used for supplying power to
>the engine starter. This maximizes the current available for the starter,
>and may extend the life of the CCFL backlight in the display unit.
I'm skeptical of the "extended life" claim. However, any of the
z-figures offers dual feed busses. The e-bus is a dual feed bus
and addresses the reliability idea that might have driven any
form of "dual power input" scheme built into the equipment. If
the need to have the stuff powered off during cranking is real,
then one could install a normal feed switch in series with the
normal feedpath isolation diode.
Call them up and ask them which DO-160 power input protocols
are beyond their ability to tolerate. As with other cases,
if you don't get understandable answers, find out who I need
to talk to and I'll go find out what's really going on.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Glaeser, Dennis A" <dennis.glaeser(at)eds.com> |
Bob, et. al.,
I have a Z-19 architecture (modified a bit for a Subaru engine) with
rear mounted Odyssey batteries. I have 2 lighter receptacles on the
panel, each wired to a battery hot bus through a 10a fuse.
I put a couple of lighter plugs on my Battery Tender Jr. as a convenient
way to charge the batteries. I don't have my engine yet, to charge them
the 'proper' way.
The other night I decided to charge the batteries, because I've been
playing with my radios a bit. I inserted the charger plugs one at a
time to verify that the green light on the charger came on. When I
removed the plugs, the fuses blew! Same thing on both of them, done one
at a time. I've done this before with no problem. I double checked the
wiring, and everything is connected as desired.
I replaced the fuses, re-inserted the charger plugs, and let the
batteries charge overnight. By morning the green light on the charger
was blinking (indicating maintenance mode). I pulled the lighter plugs
out, and this time one fuse blew. I replaced the fuse and plugged
everything in again. The charger cord has a plug to allow use of
multiple ends, so this time I disconnected the lighter plugs from the
charger before removing the lighter plugs - no problem, Did that
multiple times, no problems. I haven't tried pulling the energized
lighter plugs out again (running low on fuses!).
So, obviously, my question is: why would pulling out the energized
lighter plugs cause the fuses to blow?
Dennis Glaeser
RV-7A
Rochester Hills, MI
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | <gmcjetpilot(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Avionics Master (to be or not to be) |
Greg if you want a avionic master switch
by golly PUT ONE IN, and be proud and
happy, because it will work just like you
think it will and know you like.
After you plow thru all the required reading
and "data" which is really an elaborate opinion
dressed up with a bunch of gobbly-gook,
bottom line its your choice and yours alone.
Bob has good points, but there not all
quintessential or relevant. For examples
some modern avionics, like the very popular
excellent Icom A200 com radio needs to be
OFF during start! So does my old Collins
transponder. You can use the little volume/off
switch or mode switch and turn them on and
off individually, but it's a pain. Bob may call
for Icom's head and berate them for their
design, but he is not going to buy you a new
Icom when it fries. If you insist on leaving
avionics on during start it could happen. By
the way the ICOM A200 is an awesome
radio and a super value, recommend.
One big fat beautiful avionics master
switch is nice. You can of course avoid
single point failure several ways. I
think the e-bus will do it, or two
switches in parallel, even a single
throw, double pole switch would do it.
Chance is the master switch will never
fail, and once you throw that switch on
its not going to fail, my opinion. Are
you flying IFR at 18,000 ft or day/night
vfr. Just use good old common sense.
I sometimes disagree with Bob and this is
one of them. This is one of those topics
Bob has a very strong opinion on, emphasis
on opinion, but don't let any one tell you what
to do when it comes down to preference,
which this is.
All you have to know is there is NOT a good
reason for leaving an avionics master switch
out of your panel. If that is what you want, it's
very simple, you want it, put it in. It's common
and useful even today.
Is opinion & preference not safety, end of story.
Here is another professional opinion:
http://avionicswest.com/articles.htm
Scroll to the bottom, "Avionics Master
Switch" article
Good Luck, and don't over think it and
use the KISS principle.
George ATP/CFI-II-ME/MSME
>From: "Greg Vouga" <gmvouga(at)hotmail.com>
>Subject: AeroElectric-List: Avionics Master
>
>All,
>
>I'm working on my panel and I'm trying
>to decide if I should put an Avionics
>Master switch. In my experience with
>rental planes this was nice to have
>since there was one switch to turn
>everything on or off during engine start
>or shutdown.
>
>Is there any reason not to add this
>feature? I'm planning an E-Bus and
>Main Bus configuration similar to the Z-
>13/8 design.
---------------------------------
Food fight? Enjoy some healthy debate
in the Yahoo! Answers Food & Drink Q&A.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Circuit Protection upstream of crowbar module |
>I have been comparing the opening times between ANL (Bussman) limiters and
>electromagnetic CBs from Carling.
Crowbar OV protection is always used downstream of a circuit
breaker. A quality miniature is fine.
> If they are being popped by an OV crowbar, the time delay seems to be
> related to the %overcurrent. This current will depend on the
> on-resistance of the SCR when triggered, as well as other resistanc in
> the circuit. Can you tell me what the actual overcurrent will be? From
> the delay curves for these devices it looks like 300% will give a trip
> delay of less than 100 ms.
The ship's battery will hold an alternator at bay for
seconds . . . OV trips are generally all over in 50 mS.
>Will this protect avionics, or should transorbs be used as well?
Transorbs are for transient (spike) protection. These are
short duration, very low energy events quite apart from
an OV condition caused by a runaway alternator. When used
as described in the Z-figures, crowbar ov protection will
generally produce a 100+ amp opening event on a 5A breaker
and get it open in 15-30 mS . . . plenty fast. Transorbs are
not helpful in an OV situation.
Fuses should not be used upstream of a crowbar OV system.
Use a miniature thermal breaker like:
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Breakers/circuitbreakers.jpg
available at:
http://www.bandc.biz/cgi-bin/ez-catalog/cat_display.cgi?7X358218#CB1
and elsewhere.
Bob . . .
----------------------------------------
( IF one wishes to be "world class" at )
( anything, what ever you do must be )
( exercised EVERY day . . . )
( R. L. Nuckolls III )
----------------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Blowing fuses |
| From: | john(at)ballofshame.com |
How do you know when the fuse is blowing? For example, if you plug both
in and there's a short somewhere, one fuse may blow and the other one will
look OK. The charger still sees a battery so it'll still turn green. You
unplug one (the blown one) and notice the fuse is blown. You unplug the
other one, jostle something that shorts out again, and it blows the 2nd
fuse.
I'm not suggesting this happened. I'm just curious how you determined the
timing of when the fuse actually blew. Do you see any marking on the
connectors or recepticle that would indicate an arc? Are you using a fast
or slow fuse?
Maybe there's just a small arc when you disconnect it and you have to use
a slow blow fuse? That would seem strange to me.
The most obvious answer would be that there's a short in one of the
recepticles or the plugs. That's so simple to check that it should be the
first step, I guess. Maybe I'm missing something even more obvious.
-John
> Bob, et. al.,
>
> I have a Z-19 architecture (modified a bit for a Subaru engine) with
> rear mounted Odyssey batteries. I have 2 lighter receptacles on the
> panel, each wired to a battery hot bus through a 10a fuse.
> I put a couple of lighter plugs on my Battery Tender Jr. as a convenient
> way to charge the batteries. I don't have my engine yet, to charge them
> the 'proper' way.
>
> The other night I decided to charge the batteries, because I've been
> playing with my radios a bit. I inserted the charger plugs one at a
> time to verify that the green light on the charger came on. When I
> removed the plugs, the fuses blew! Same thing on both of them, done one
> at a time. I've done this before with no problem. I double checked the
> wiring, and everything is connected as desired.
> I replaced the fuses, re-inserted the charger plugs, and let the
> batteries charge overnight. By morning the green light on the charger
> was blinking (indicating maintenance mode). I pulled the lighter plugs
> out, and this time one fuse blew. I replaced the fuse and plugged
> everything in again. The charger cord has a plug to allow use of
> multiple ends, so this time I disconnected the lighter plugs from the
> charger before removing the lighter plugs - no problem, Did that
> multiple times, no problems. I haven't tried pulling the energized
> lighter plugs out again (running low on fuses!).
> So, obviously, my question is: why would pulling out the energized
> lighter plugs cause the fuses to blow?
>
> Dennis Glaeser
> RV-7A
> Rochester Hills, MI
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Avionics Master (to be or not to be) |
| From: | "Chuck Jensen" <cjensen(at)dts9000.com> |
George,
Very interesting take on things. Quoting from the source you quoted
(Air West Avionics):
"Try starting the engine with the avionics on today and there's a good
chance you will damage your avionics. The damage may not show up
immediately, but nevertheless, the damage has been done."
Ah yes, the ole "insidious damage problem". Very convenient. You
probably suffered damage, even though you can't see it and, of course,
you can prove you didn't suffer damage because you can't see it. There
must be a double negative or Gordian knot in there somewhere!
The most valuable quote from the article comes in light of your
castigating Bob for espousing "opinions", and I quote from your
definitive reference:
In summary, if you have modern avionics such as KX-155s, Loran, DMEs,
GPS, fuel flows and sorts, then in my opinion an avionics master is a
must. (emphasis and underline, mine).
If I understand correctly, you are casting aspersions on Bob's
opinion....with another opinion; from someone who we don't know and have
no understanding of their CV, if any. Very interesting.
Chuck Jensen
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of
gmcjetpilot(at)yahoo.com
Sent: Tuesday, May 15, 2007 2:55 PM
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Re: Avionics Master (to be or not to be)
Greg if you want a avionic master switch
by golly PUT ONE IN, and be proud and
happy, because it will work just like you
think it will and know you like.
After you plow thru all the required reading
and "data" which is really an elaborate opinion
dressed up with a bunch of gobbly-gook,
bottom line its your choice and yours alone.
Bob has good points, but there not all
quintessential or relevant. For examples
some modern avionics, like the very popular
excellent Icom A200 com radio needs to be
OFF during start! So does my old Collins
transponder. You can use the little volume/off
switch or mode switch and turn them on and
off individually, but it's a pain. Bob may call
for Icom's head and berate them for their
design, but he is not going to buy you a new
Icom when it fries. If you insist on leaving
avionics on during start it could happen. By
the way the ICOM A200 is an awesome
radio and a super value, recommend.
One big fat beautiful avionics master
switch is nice. You can of course avoid
single point failure several ways. I
think the e-bus will do it, or two
switches in parallel, even a single
throw, double pole switch would do it.
Chance is the master switch will never
fail, and once you throw that switch on
its not going to fail, my opinion. Are
you flying IFR at 18,000 ft or day/night
vfr. Just use good old common sense.
I sometimes disagree with Bob and this is
one of them. This is one of those topics
Bob has a very strong opinion on, emphasis
on opinion, but don't let any one tell you what
to do when it comes down to preference,
which this is.
All you have to know is there is NOT a good
reason for leaving an avionics master switch
out of your panel. If that is what you want, it's
very simple, you want it, put it in. It's common
and useful even today.
Is opinion & preference not safety, end of story.
Here is another professional opinion:
http://avionicswest.com/articles.htm
Scroll to the bottom, "Avionics Master
Switch" article
Good Luck, and don't over think it and
use the KISS principle.
George ATP/CFI-II-ME/MSME
>From: "Greg Vouga" <gmvouga(at)hotmail.com>
>Subject: AeroElectric-List: Avionics Master
>
>All,
>
>I'm working on my panel and I'm trying
>to decide if I should put an Avionics
>Master switch. In my experience with
>rental planes this was nice to have
>since there was one switch to turn
>everything on or off during engine start
>or shutdown.
>
>Is there any reason not to add this
>feature? I'm planning an E-Bus and
>Main Bus configuration similar to the Z-
>13/8 design.
________________________________
Food fight?
<http://answers.yahoo.com/dir/index;_ylc=X3oDMTFvbGNhMGE3BF9TAzM5NjU0NT
E
wOARfcwMzOTY1NDUxMDMEc2VjA21haWxfdGFnbGluZQRzbGsDbWFpbF90YWcx?link=ask&
s
id=396545367> Enjoy some healthy debate
in the Yahoo! Answers Food & Drink Q&A.
<http://answers.yahoo.com/dir/index;_ylc=X3oDMTFvbGNhMGE3BF9TAzM5NjU0NT
E
wOARfcwMzOTY1NDUxMDMEc2VjA21haWxfdGFnbGluZQRzbGsDbWFpbF90YWcx?link=ask&
s
id=396545367>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "David & Elaine Lamphere" <lamphere(at)vabb.com> |
| Subject: | AeroFlash Service |
Bought a two strobe set from AeroFlash for the Wittman Tailwind I am
building.
I noticed that the leads were too long going to the bulbs because I had
mounted the power supply units fairly close to the bulbs. Since I didn't
want to have a bunch of coiled wire there, I decided to shorten them. First,
I found out that the male crimp on pins were NOT Molex .06 or .09 as I
thought, then wondered if the length of the wires was critical.. Sent off an
email to Customer service at AeroFlash using the web-site form and asked
about wire length and what the connectors were.
They told me that the length was not critical, the contacts were made by
Tyco and are sending me the necessary pins for shortening the wires! Since I
am a "small-potatoes" customer - this is pretty nice! Thought you guys
should know.
Dave
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Dale Ensing" <densing(at)carolina.rr.com> |
| Subject: | Re: AeroFlash Service |
Ditto your comments on AeroFlesh. I also have gotten great service from
them.
Dale Ensing
----- Original Message -----
From: "David & Elaine Lamphere" <lamphere(at)vabb.com>
Sent: Tuesday, May 15, 2007 3:59 PM
Subject: AeroElectric-List: AeroFlash Service
>
>
> Bought a two strobe set from AeroFlash for the Wittman Tailwind I am
> building.
> I noticed that the leads were too long going to the bulbs because I had
> mounted the power supply units fairly close to the bulbs. Since I didn't
> want to have a bunch of coiled wire there, I decided to shorten them.
> First, I found out that the male crimp on pins were NOT Molex .06 or .09
> as I thought, then wondered if the length of the wires was critical.. Sent
> off an email to Customer service at AeroFlash using the web-site form and
> asked about wire length and what the connectors were.
>
> They told me that the length was not critical, the contacts were made by
> Tyco and are sending me the necessary pins for shortening the wires! Since
> I am a "small-potatoes" customer - this is pretty nice! Thought you guys
> should know.
>
> Dave
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "glaesers" <glaesers(at)wideopenwest.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Blowing fuses |
John,
I actually heard the 'pop' of the fuses! (It was a quiet evening in the
garage) I inserted the first plug, got the green light, and when I removed
it, I heard the pop, but didn't realize what it was. Then I inserted the
second one, got the green light again, and then removed it and heard the pop
again. Then I re-inserted the plugs - no green light. I'm using regular
automotive fuses.
The circuits work just fine when I insert the plugs.
I've got another data point - just went out and played again...
This time I inserted and removed the hot plugs one at a time, no problem.
So I plugged both in and removed one, and POP, the fuse of the one still
plugged in blew. The fuse for the one I removed is still fine, and I can
insert and remove that one with no problem, and the inserting/removing other
one has no effect, now that the circuit is dead. I'm not sure how I managed
to get both that first time (just lucky I guess :-)
So it appears that when both are charging, don't remove one at a time,
instead, unplug the cord (which kills both simultaneously).
But I'd still like to know why the fuse blows.
Thanks,
Dennis
Subject: Re: Blowing fuses
From: john(at)ballofshame.com
Date: Tue May 15 - 12:31 PM
How do you know when the fuse is blowing? For example, if you plug both
in and there's a short somewhere, one fuse may blow and the other one will
look OK. The charger still sees a battery so it'll still turn green. You
unplug one (the blown one) and notice the fuse is blown. You unplug the
other one, jostle something that shorts out again, and it blows the 2nd
fuse.
I'm not suggesting this happened. I'm just curious how you determined the
timing of when the fuse actually blew. Do you see any marking on the
connectors or recepticle that would indicate an arc? Are you using a fast
or slow fuse?
Maybe there's just a small arc when you disconnect it and you have to use
a slow blow fuse? That would seem strange to me.
The most obvious answer would be that there's a short in one of the
recepticles or the plugs. That's so simple to check that it should be the
first step, I guess. Maybe I'm missing something even more obvious.
-John
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Dennis Johnson" <pinetownd(at)volcano.net> |
| Subject: | GS-Air Strobe Current 6 Amps |
Last week, a reader asked about sizing the fuse and wires for a GS-Air
strobe light power supply. The GS-Air strobe light is part of a wingtip
position and strobe light unit. The position lights are LEDs and the
strobe lights are conventional strobes. The strobes are powered by a
single, remote power supply. For more info:
www.gs-air.com
I replied that I used a 10 amp fuse instead of the 15 amp fuse in the
instruction manual and haven't had a problem in my first 50 hours of
flight. Bob asked me to measure the actual current draw, which I did
today.
My GS-Air strobe power supply is model XPAK604X-HR, 60 watt 4 outlet
strobe power supply with half speed flash patterns. It has two
selectable output levels, high and low. I run mine on high. I bought
mine a year or so ago and this power supply was a new model and replaced
the previous one. The older model may consume more or less current than
mine.
Using the "bar graph" function on my Fluke 87 meter, the current draw
fluctuated from zero to maybe 10 or so amps (I couldn't really tell),
but spent most of it's time between 5.5 and 6.5 amps. The bar graph
function on the display more or less duplicates an analog meter's
response rate.
I had intended to use a cheap ($5 from Harbor Freight) analog meter, but
it could only measure up to 0.5 amp. Lucky for me, I read the meter's
instructions first and didn't blow the meter's fuse!
By the way, I'm really happy with these strobe light/position light
combination units. They use LEDs for the position lights (green or red
forward, white aft) and are cheaper and appear more aerodynamic than the
Whelens. The GS-Air website has a 15 page document that explains how
they meet the FAA requirement, in case you happen to get a grouchy
inspector when it comes time to sign off your airplane.
Regards,
Dennis Johnson
Lancair Legacy, now flying
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Bill Denton" <bdenton(at)bdenton.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Avionics Master (to be or not to be) |
For the life of me I can't remember which piece of equipment it was, but.
There was some piece of avionics, which I think was a nav/com, that would
maintain "state" if turned off via an avionics master, but would not if
turned off via the power switch.
In other words, if you turned it off via an avionics master, when you turned
it back on it would still be set to the same active and standby frequencies,
and perhaps some other settings.
But if you turned it off with the power switch, when you turned it back on
if would wake up with some type of "default" settings.
To me, this would be a good reason for including an avionics master switch.
Does anyone else remember which piece of equipment offered a function like
this? I think it was something fairly recent by Garmin, but I'm not sure.
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of
gmcjetpilot(at)yahoo.com
Sent: Tuesday, May 15, 2007 1:55 PM
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Re: Avionics Master (to be or not to be)
Greg if you want a avionic master switch
by golly PUT ONE IN, and be proud and
happy, because it will work just like you
think it will and know you like.
After you plow thru all the required reading
and "data" which is really an elaborate opinion
dressed up with a bunch of gobbly-gook,
bottom line its your choice and yours alone.
Bob has good points, but there not all
quintessential or relevant. For examples
some modern avionics, like the very popular
excellent Icom A200 com radio needs to be
OFF during start! So does my old Collins
transponder. You can use the little volume/off
switch or mode switch and turn them on and
off individually, but it's a pain. Bob may call
for Icom's head and berate them for their
design, but he is not going to buy you a new
Icom when it fries. If you insist on leaving
avionics on during start it could happen. By
the way the ICOM A200 is an awesome
radio and a super value, recommend.
One big fat beautiful avionics master
switch is nice. You can of course avoid
single point failure several ways. I
think the e-bus will do it, or two
switches in parallel, even a single
throw, double pole switch would do it.
Chance is the master switch will never
fail, and once you throw that switch on
its not going to fail, my opinion. Are
you flying IFR at 18,000 ft or day/night
vfr. Just use good old common sense.
I sometimes disagree with Bob and this is
one of them. This is one of those topics
Bob has a very strong opinion on, emphasis
on opinion, but don't let any one tell you what
to do when it comes down to preference,
which this is.
All you have to know is there is NOT a good
reason for leaving an avionics master switch
out of your panel. If that is what you want, it's
very simple, you want it, put it in. It's common
and useful even today.
Is opinion & preference not safety, end of story.
Here is another professional opinion:
http://avionicswest.com/articles.htm
Scroll to the bottom, "Avionics Master
Switch" article
Good Luck, and don't over think it and
use the KISS principle.
George ATP/CFI-II-ME/MSME
>From: "Greg Vouga" <gmvouga(at)hotmail.com>
>Subject: AeroElectric-List: Avionics Master
>
>All,
>
>I'm working on my panel and I'm trying
>to decide if I should put an Avionics
>Master switch. In my experience with
>rental planes this was nice to have
>since there was one switch to turn
>everything on or off during engine start
>or shutdown.
>
>Is there any reason not to add this
>feature? I'm planning an E-Bus and
>Main Bus configuration similar to the Z-
>13/8 design.
_____
Food
<http://answers.yahoo.com/dir/index;_ylc=X3oDMTFvbGNhMGE3BF9TAzM5NjU0NTEwOAR
fcwMzOTY1NDUxMDMEc2VjA21haWxfdGFnbGluZQRzbGsDbWFpbF90YWcx?link=ask&sid=39654
5367> fight? Enjoy some healthy debate
in the Yahoo!
<http://answers.yahoo.com/dir/index;_ylc=X3oDMTFvbGNhMGE3BF9TAzM5NjU0NTEwOAR
fcwMzOTY1NDUxMDMEc2VjA21haWxfdGFnbGluZQRzbGsDbWFpbF90YWcx?link=ask&sid=39654
5367> Answers Food & Drink Q&A.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Terry Miles" <terrence_miles(at)hotmail.com> |
| Subject: | GS-Air Strobe Current 6 Amps |
That reader was me. Thanks, Dennis.
Regards,
Terry
Velocity XL RG
Wiriing
_____
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Dennis
Johnson
Sent: Tuesday, May 15, 2007 6:55 PM
Subject: AeroElectric-List: GS-Air Strobe Current 6 Amps
Last week, a reader asked about sizing the fuse and wires for a GS-Air
strobe light power supply. The GS-Air strobe light is part of a wingtip
position and strobe light unit. The position lights are LEDs and the strobe
lights are conventional strobes. The strobes are powered by a single,
remote power supply. For more info:
www.gs-air.com
I replied that I used a 10 amp fuse instead of the 15 amp fuse in the
instruction manual and haven't had a problem in my first 50 hours of flight.
Bob asked me to measure the actual current draw, which I did today.
My GS-Air strobe power supply is model XPAK604X-HR, 60 watt 4 outlet strobe
power supply with half speed flash patterns. It has two selectable output
levels, high and low. I run mine on high. I bought mine a year or so ago
and this power supply was a new model and replaced the previous one. The
older model may consume more or less current than mine.
Using the "bar graph" function on my Fluke 87 meter, the current draw
fluctuated from zero to maybe 10 or so amps (I couldn't really tell), but
spent most of it's time between 5.5 and 6.5 amps. The bar graph function on
the display more or less duplicates an analog meter's response rate.
I had intended to use a cheap ($5 from Harbor Freight) analog meter, but it
could only measure up to 0.5 amp. Lucky for me, I read the meter's
instructions first and didn't blow the meter's fuse!
By the way, I'm really happy with these strobe light/position light
combination units. They use LEDs for the position lights (green or red
forward, white aft) and are cheaper and appear more aerodynamic than the
Whelens. The GS-Air website has a 15 page document that explains how they
meet the FAA requirement, in case you happen to get a grouchy inspector when
it comes time to sign off your airplane.
Regards,
Dennis Johnson
Lancair Legacy, now flying
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Ed Anderson" <eanderson(at)carolina.rr.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Blowing fuses |
Dennis, this is just a stab in the dark, since I not certain what loads you
have on the plugs. But, if you have both plugs in pulling current from a
common system and suddenly unplug one of them - if there is any inductive
component in the system, then the termination of the current flowing in one
plug might induce added current in the second plug. This may be why they
only pop when you remove one. Again, just a stab in the dark.
Ed
Ed Anderson
Rv-6A N494BW Rotary Powered
Matthews, NC
eanderson(at)carolina.rr.com
http://members.cox.net/rogersda/rotary/configs.htm#N494BW
http://www.dmack.net/mazda/index.html
----- Original Message -----
From: "glaesers" <glaesers(at)wideopenwest.com>
Sent: Tuesday, May 15, 2007 6:21 PM
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Re: Blowing fuses
>
>
> John,
>
> I actually heard the 'pop' of the fuses! (It was a quiet evening in the
> garage) I inserted the first plug, got the green light, and when I
> removed
> it, I heard the pop, but didn't realize what it was. Then I inserted the
> second one, got the green light again, and then removed it and heard the
> pop
> again. Then I re-inserted the plugs - no green light. I'm using regular
> automotive fuses.
> The circuits work just fine when I insert the plugs.
>
> I've got another data point - just went out and played again...
> This time I inserted and removed the hot plugs one at a time, no problem.
> So I plugged both in and removed one, and POP, the fuse of the one still
> plugged in blew. The fuse for the one I removed is still fine, and I can
> insert and remove that one with no problem, and the inserting/removing
> other
> one has no effect, now that the circuit is dead. I'm not sure how I
> managed
> to get both that first time (just lucky I guess :-)
> So it appears that when both are charging, don't remove one at a time,
> instead, unplug the cord (which kills both simultaneously).
> But I'd still like to know why the fuse blows.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Dennis
>
>
> Subject: Re: Blowing fuses
> From: john(at)ballofshame.com
> Date: Tue May 15 - 12:31 PM
>
> How do you know when the fuse is blowing? For example, if you plug both
> in and there's a short somewhere, one fuse may blow and the other one will
> look OK. The charger still sees a battery so it'll still turn green. You
> unplug one (the blown one) and notice the fuse is blown. You unplug the
> other one, jostle something that shorts out again, and it blows the 2nd
> fuse.
>
> I'm not suggesting this happened. I'm just curious how you determined the
> timing of when the fuse actually blew. Do you see any marking on the
> connectors or recepticle that would indicate an arc? Are you using a fast
> or slow fuse?
>
> Maybe there's just a small arc when you disconnect it and you have to use
> a slow blow fuse? That would seem strange to me.
>
> The most obvious answer would be that there's a short in one of the
> recepticles or the plugs. That's so simple to check that it should be the
> first step, I guess. Maybe I'm missing something even more obvious.
>
> -John
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "r falstad" <bobair8(at)msn.com> |
| Subject: | Comm and Intercom Interconnection: Expected Results? |
Hi,
I'm installing a Garmin GNC250XL VFR GPS/Comm and a PS Engineering 1000
II intercom.
I've been checking for opens and shorts between my mic and headphone
jacks and the connectors at the end of the harnesses for the Comm and
Intercom. (As detailed below, I've installed three sets of jacks in
this two-place airplane -- pilot, copilot and aux.)
Is the following behavior to be expected? I don't want to wait until
the windshield is in and everything is installed before I find out
something is wrong. (The asterisked items show my specific
concerns/questions.)
***Mic Tip: Continuity for Pilot's and Aux Mike jacks to correct pin on
both Comm and Intercom connectors. The copilot mic tip has continuity
to Intercom pin but shows 164 ohms resistance to Comm pin whether PTT
button is pushed or not.
***Mic Audio Hi: Continuity for both pilot's and aux mic jacks to both
Comm and Intercom. Copilot's mic jack has continuity to Intercom but is
"open" to Comm pin.
Mic Audio Lo: All three jacks show continuity to both Comm and
Intercom.
***Headphones Tip: Pilot's and copilot's phone jacks show continuity to
Intercom but are "open" to Comm. Aux phone jack shows continuity to
both Comm and Intercom.
Headphones Ring: All three jacks show continuity to both Comm and
Intercom.
Additional details about my installation follow:
The wiring diagram for the Comm shows (numbers in parenthesis are pin
numbers on that units connector):
- (4) Mic Key to Mic Jack
- (2) Mic Audio Hi to Mic Jack
- (3) Mic Audio Shield (Low) to Mic Jack
- (5) Comm Audio Hi to Audio Panel
- (6) Comm Audio Low to Audio Panel
The wiring diagram for the Intercom shows:
- (12) Aircraft Radio PTT to Aux Mic Jack
- (25) Aircraft Mic Audio Hi to Aux Mic Jack
- (13) Aircraft Mic Audio Low to Aux Mic Jack
- (17) A/C Radio Phone Audio Hi to Aux Headphone Jack
- (4) A/C Radio Phone Audio Low to Aux Headphone Jack
I've installed an aux mic jack and aux headphone jack in addition to the
pilot's and copilot's jacks. I've soldered the wires from both the Comm
and the Intercom to their respective points on the aux jacks. That way
if my Intercom dies, I can plug directly into the Comm and completely
bypass the Intercom. The PTT wires for the Aux Mic Jack run to a
two-pin Molex connector just downstream from the pilot's control stick.
The respective wires from each of the pilot's and aux jack are crimped
into one pin. (I didn't attach the shields together here to avoid a
ground loop. Shields are connected together elsewhere.)
I'm also using two conductor 22 AWG shielded wire and am using the
shield for the "Lo" conductor.
Thanks in advance.
Best regards,
Bob
GlaStar
N248BF
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Christopher Barber" <CBarber(at)TexasAttorney.net> |
| Subject: | Re: GS-Air Strobe Current 6 Amps |
Dennis,
Not meaning to be a complete bonehead, but where on the GS-Air site is
the 15 page paper you refer to. I poked around and could not find it.
Their site has always been rudimentary and the only thing I saw was
ferference to meeting FAR Part 23, but no link to a paper. I have had
my lights from them for a couple of years and installed them to my
Velocity Build a few months ago, however, even though I have faith in
the product, I would like to have documentaion to show a DAR now that I
am getting somewhat closer to actually flying. TIA.
All the best,
Chris Barber
Houston, Texas
www.LoneStarVelocity.com
----- Original Message -----
From: Dennis Johnson
To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Tuesday, May 15, 2007 5:54 PM
Subject: AeroElectric-List: GS-Air Strobe Current 6 Amps
Last week, a reader asked about sizing the fuse and wires for a GS-Air
strobe light power supply. The GS-Air strobe light is part of a wingtip
position and strobe light unit. The position lights are LEDs and the
strobe lights are conventional strobes. The strobes are powered by a
single, remote power supply. For more info:
www.gs-air.com
I replied that I used a 10 amp fuse instead of the 15 amp fuse in the
instruction manual and haven't had a problem in my first 50 hours of
flight. Bob asked me to measure the actual current draw, which I did
today.
My GS-Air strobe power supply is model XPAK604X-HR, 60 watt 4 outlet
strobe power supply with half speed flash patterns. It has two
selectable output levels, high and low. I run mine on high. I bought
mine a year or so ago and this power supply was a new model and replaced
the previous one. The older model may consume more or less current than
mine.
Using the "bar graph" function on my Fluke 87 meter, the current draw
fluctuated from zero to maybe 10 or so amps (I couldn't really tell),
but spent most of it's time between 5.5 and 6.5 amps. The bar graph
function on the display more or less duplicates an analog meter's
response rate.
I had intended to use a cheap ($5 from Harbor Freight) analog meter,
but it could only measure up to 0.5 amp. Lucky for me, I read the
meter's instructions first and didn't blow the meter's fuse!
By the way, I'm really happy with these strobe light/position light
combination units. They use LEDs for the position lights (green or red
forward, white aft) and are cheaper and appear more aerodynamic than the
Whelens. The GS-Air website has a 15 page document that explains how
they meet the FAA requirement, in case you happen to get a grouchy
inspector when it comes time to sign off your airplane.
Regards,
Dennis Johnson
Lancair Legacy, now flying
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | luigit(at)freemail.it |
| Subject: | Re: Comm and Intercom Interconnection |
--- MIME Errors - No Plain-Text Section Found ---
A message with no text/plain MIME section was received.
The entire body of the message was removed. Please
resend the email using Plain Text formatting.
HOTMAIL is notorious for only including an HTML section
in their client's default configuration. If you're using
HOTMAIL, please see your email application's settings
and switch to a default mail option that uses "Plain Text".
--- MIME Errors No Plain-Text Section Found ---
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Avionics Master (to be or not to be) |
>
>From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
>[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of
>gmcjetpilot(at)yahoo.com
>Sent: Tuesday, May 15, 2007 1:55 PM
>To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com; gmvouga(at)hotmail.com
>Subject: AeroElectric-List: Re: Avionics Master (to be or not to be)
>
>Greg if you want a avionic master switch
>by golly PUT ONE IN, and be proud and
>happy, because it will work just like you
>think it will and know you like.
>
>After you plow thru all the required reading
>and "data" which is really an elaborate opinion
>dressed up with a bunch of gobbly-gook,
>bottom line its your choice and yours alone.
"Required"??? What's required of anyone
and who has taken it upon themselves to
levy such requirements? Please define
"gobbly-gook", is that a scientific term?
>Bob has good points, but there not all
>quintessential or relevant. For examples
>some modern avionics, like the very popular
>excellent Icom A200 com radio needs to be
>OFF during start! So does my old Collins
>transponder. You can use the little volume/off
>switch or mode switch and turn them on and
>off individually, but it's a pain. Bob may call
>for Icom's head and berate them for their
>design, but he is not going to buy you a new
>Icom when it fries. If you insist on leaving
>avionics on during start it could happen. By
>the way the ICOM A200 is an awesome
>radio and a super value, recommend.
Who has called for anyone's head? You
mis-represent or have mis-understood what
I've suggested. Are you asserting that
an Icom subjected to the normal, documented
and expected voltage excursions associated
with starting an engine is at risk for a
failure that generates a maintenance event?
Hmmm . . . In keeping with your understanding
of how the Icom is designed, should you also
turn it off if you're getting ready to turn
on an air conditioner compressor drive motor or
perhaps lower gear with a hydraulic pump
driven with a PM motor?
Icom is (or in my personal experience
at least was) the acknowledged leader in
operational quality of their radios. But does
this fact give them license to toss off
a rudimentary operating feature that the
vast majority of suppliers to aviation know
about, understand and embrace in the design
of their products? Are you certain that
Icom has assumed that license and chooses
admonish customers to pamper products that
suffer from rudimentary design deficiencies?
>One big fat beautiful avionics master
>switch is nice. You can of course avoid
>single point failure several ways. I
>think the e-bus will do it, or two
>switches in parallel, even a single
>throw, double pole switch would do it.
>Chance is the master switch will never
>fail, and once you throw that switch on
>its not going to fail, my opinion. Are
>you flying IFR at 18,000 ft or day/night
>vfr. Just use good old common sense.
If one has an E-bus with two feed paths,
the issue does not pivot on the probability
of failure for any single switch.
>I sometimes disagree with Bob and this is
>one of them. This is one of those topics
>Bob has a very strong opinion on, emphasis
>on opinion, but don't let any one tell you what
>to do when it comes down to preference,
>which this is.
I've told nobody to do anything. I've offered
design goals and backed them up with a recitation
of the underlying simple ideas and 46 years
of first hand design experience, customer service
and observation of the marketplace. You sir have
yet to support any assertions with an understanding
of either physics, fact or experience as a professional
>All you have to know is there is NOT a good
>reason for leaving an avionics master switch
>out of your panel. If that is what you want, it's
>very simple, you want it, put it in. It's common
>and useful even today.
And if you'd properly quoted me you would have
acknowledged the many times I've written as follows:
". . . if one wants an "avionics master" it could be
a switch in series with the diode . . . which prevents
problems from inadvertent switch operation. You still
have a backup from the alternate feed path which can
be used for either loss of main path -OR- provides
power when you've shut the main bus down after an
alternator system failure."
>Is opinion & preference not safety, end of story.
>
>Here is another professional opinion:
>
><http://avionicswest.com/articles.htm>http://avionicswest.com/articles.htm
An excellent recitation of dogma supported
by not one citation of fact in the physics
of anyone's design or the willingness of
manufacturer's to sign up to the best we know
how to do. I had lunch with a customer yesterday
to talk about pitch trim and flap actuation
systems for a new airplane. These will be processor
driven and have a lot of new features designed
to increase ride comfort and reduce pilot workload.
Neither of these designs will require operator
intervention to drag it back out of the
weeds or prevent damage due to a brown-out event
whether driven by and engine-start or any other
condition. The addition of these features will be
totally transparent to the pilot and passengers . . .
an expression and production of the best we know
how to do. Achieving this design goal adds less than
1% to cost of bill of materials and about the same to
the software task. I.e, it's easy to do so why not
do it?
>Good Luck, and don't over think it and
>use the KISS principle.
>George ATP/CFI-II-ME/MSME
Gee George, we wouldn't want to think about
it too much would we? I agree that thinking
without striving for understanding is
a waste of one's time. Hundreds of thousands
of airplanes have been built and flown
without burdening the pilots with a suggestion
that they understand how the electrical system
works . . . and the vast majority of those pilots
lived to a ripe old age. But from time to time,
one of those pilots (and the publisher of some
magazine) believes that a certain amount of
thinking would be useful . . . so we get the
dark-n-stormy night story that adds no understanding
but offers something to think about.
There are, no doubt, forums where dogma is
preached and thinking for understanding is not
promoted . . . that just happens not to be
what goes on in this forum.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Ernest Christley <echristley(at)nc.rr.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Avionics Master (to be or not to be) |
Robert L. Nuckolls, III wrote:
>>
>> From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
>> [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of
>> gmcjetpilot(at)yahoo.com
>>
>> After you plow thru all the required reading
>> and "data" which is really an elaborate opinion
>> dressed up with a bunch of gobbly-gook,
>> bottom line its your choice and yours alone.
>
> "Required"??? What's required of anyone
> and who has taken it upon themselves to
> levy such requirements?
Bob, I've seen this sort of response to your writings quite often.
While I think I understand your intent, I think other people really want
some authority to tell them what to do. If all else fails, they will
find one where none exists. I think you should carry a signature along
the lines of, "I strive to be a teacher, not your mother. I only have
suggestions, not directives."
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Edward Christian <edchristian(at)knology.net> |
I would like some input on a Panel Update I am about to embark on.
I have a VFR RV-6 with 0-360 with 2 mags and Vacuum System
Looking to update Aircraft to "modified" Z-13/8 All Electric Plane.
Modifications are as follows:
1. Keep basic Mags - no pMags
2. Basic 35amp automotive alternator plus SD-8 as shown
New electric requirements would be:
Dynon D10A or D-100
Garmin 300XL GPS/Comm
King KT-76 Transponder
FlightCom 403 Intercom
Ameri-King AK350 Encoder
Keep basic steam gauges as back up - Altimeter, A/S, VVi, and Wing
Leveler
Flaps
Land Lights
Taxi Lights
Strobe Lights
Pos Lights
Cockpit lights
Instrument lights
Fuel Guage
Hobbs
Trim - elevator only
Keep basic engine instrument or update to Grand Rapids EIS or Rocky
Mountain 101K
Otherwise, everything done in accordance with Z-13/8
Suggestions?
Ed
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Edward Christian <edchristian(at)knology.net> |
| Subject: | Alternator Cut-In |
I have an alternator from Mark Landoll - 35 amp variety with external
regulator mounted on back.
It does not come on until approx. 1500 rpm on initial start-up and
then will stay on all the way till idle - what causes this and how
can I modify so it will come on as soon as AC is started?
Thanks,
Ed
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Dennis Johnson" <pinetownd(at)volcano.net> |
| Subject: | GS-Air Tech Manual |
Hi Chris,
The GS-Air Technical Information Manual that I printed out doesn't seem
to be on the GS-Air website anymore. I'm sure he will send it to you if
you email him; customer support has always been outstanding. The full
title for the version I have is:
GS-AIR
Technical Information Manual
LED-001, LED-002, LED-003
LED-Based Position and Landing Light Systems
With Reference to FAR 23.1383 - 23.1397
However, here's one I found Googling:
http://www.sportflyingshop.com/Safety/LED_Position_Lights/LEDtechnical/le
dtechnical.html
that seems to have similar info.
Good luck,
Dennis Johnson
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Dr. Andrew Elliott" <a.s.elliott(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Avionics install supplies on ebay |
Well, about two weeks ago I put in request for information about a
connector for a Narco transponder. I got one useful reply from Bob, but
only for a similar replacement for the 18-hole, single-row Molex type KK
edge connectors, which are still used in a lot of video games, and are
available from jammaboards.com.
I also contacted Narco about getting an "official" installation kit,
which they would be happy to sell me for only $81.77, and doesn't even
include the female BNC pigtail, for which they want an extra $123.60!
Anyway, after checking ebay on and off, I discovered someone selling the
*exact* connector (no longer produced, BTW) I needed for $20, including
the contactors. I'll pick up the unusual BNC tray connector and
antenna from the Lane-Pilot-Store for about $20 each, also on ebay and a
very good source for non-NARCO avionics installation supplies.
Not bad.
Andy Elliott, Mesa, AZ
N601GE (reserved)
601XL/TD/QB, Corvair, building...
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Peter Pengilly" <peter(at)sportingaero.com> |
Dear All,
I am building a One Design and am striving for the lightest possible
weight while maintaining acceptable (to me) levels of safety. I have
researched the wiring of the starter and admit to a certain amount of
confusion as to why a relay is used to switch the current to the
starter. I have researched the subject quite extensively and would
appreciate your comments on the following.
The goals are light weight, simplicity and reliability (probably means
minimum number of components). I am not prepared to fly without a
starter. I will be using a starter button and two independent mag
switches (both ignition systems on during cranking) and a permanent
magnet type starter.
Allow me to summarise what I understand the issues are, and describe
what I intend to do. The "conventional" system where a relay on the
firewall is used to switch the thick wire to the starter is not too bad
a system, but there is a risk that the contacts weld themselves together
(and hence the British authorities require the installation of a
'starter warning light' - an led on the switched side of the relay). The
installation of a diode is recommended (still can't remember why). There
is also the possibility that once the starter button is released the
starter motor will become a generator and cause the motor mounted
solenoid to remain engaged for a short time - apparently not too good in
the long run for the starter. It also seems to me that using a jumper
from the starter feed to the solenoid is a bit daft, the starter has to
have a solenoid so why not use it?
If the firewall relay is deleted and the starter button is used to
actuate the motor mounted solenoid the button is subject to high in-rush
currents (~35A) and up to 10A of steady current, values that may require
a very heavy duty starter button, or the average starter button may have
a rather short life. But this way the starter warning light is not
needed - I don't know exactly what it is, but I really don't want one of
these lights (I never look at the one currently fitted to my current
aircraft).
The firewall relay could be retained, and the 4th terminal used to
switch the solenoid, but I'm not sure this really buys you very much
over the conventional set up.
The final set up is to run the starter feed directly from the master
relay (I really don't think it matters that this wire will be 'hot' all
the time that the master is on), and to use a relay to switch the
solenoid only. As I already have a 200+A rated relay I might as well use
that, or I could go to the local auto parts store and get one of those
plastic cube relays rated at 40A (assuming one is available). As I'm not
switching 200+ amps with the relay I won't need a starter warning light
(hooray), the starter button is only switching a few amps, I'm using the
solenoid for what its meant to do, I will only have to terminated the
minimum number of thick connections and I won't need any diodes. Seems
to me like a winner - so what have I overlooked?
Comments welcome.
Peter
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Michael Ice <aurbo(at)ak.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Starter Wiring |
Peter,
Check the archives for, contactor, relay or solenoid. I am sure your questions
have been answered many times.
Mike
----- Original Message -----
From: Peter Pengilly <peter(at)sportingaero.com>
Date: Wednesday, May 16, 2007 12:40 pm
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Starter Wiring
> Dear All,
>
> I am building a One Design and am striving for the lightest possible
> weight while maintaining acceptable (to me) levels of safety. I have
> researched the wiring of the starter and admit to a certain amount of
> confusion as to why a relay is used to switch the current to the
> starter. I have researched the subject quite extensively and would
> appreciate your comments on the following.
>
> The goals are light weight, simplicity and reliability (probably means
> minimum number of components). I am not prepared to fly without a
> starter. I will be using a starter button and two independent mag
> switches (both ignition systems on during cranking) and a permanent
> magnet type starter.
>
> Allow me to summarise what I understand the issues are, and describe
> what I intend to do. The "conventional" system where a relay on the
> firewall is used to switch the thick wire to the starter is not
> too bad
> a system, but there is a risk that the contacts weld themselves
> together(and hence the British authorities require the
> installation of a
> 'starter warning light' - an led on the switched side of the
> relay). The
> installation of a diode is recommended (still can't remember why).
> Thereis also the possibility that once the starter button is
> released the
> starter motor will become a generator and cause the motor mounted
> solenoid to remain engaged for a short time - apparently not too
> good in
> the long run for the starter. It also seems to me that using a jumper
> from the starter feed to the solenoid is a bit daft, the starter
> has to
> have a solenoid so why not use it?
>
> If the firewall relay is deleted and the starter button is used to
> actuate the motor mounted solenoid the button is subject to high
> in-rush
> currents (~35A) and up to 10A of steady current, values that may
> requirea very heavy duty starter button, or the average starter
> button may have
> a rather short life. But this way the starter warning light is not
> needed - I don't know exactly what it is, but I really don't want
> one of
> these lights (I never look at the one currently fitted to my current
> aircraft).
>
> The firewall relay could be retained, and the 4th terminal used to
> switch the solenoid, but I'm not sure this really buys you very much
> over the conventional set up.
>
> The final set up is to run the starter feed directly from the master
> relay (I really don't think it matters that this wire will be
> 'hot' all
> the time that the master is on), and to use a relay to switch the
> solenoid only. As I already have a 200+A rated relay I might as
> well use
> that, or I could go to the local auto parts store and get one of those
> plastic cube relays rated at 40A (assuming one is available). As
> I'm not
> switching 200+ amps with the relay I won't need a starter warning
> light(hooray), the starter button is only switching a few amps,
> I'm using the
> solenoid for what its meant to do, I will only have to terminated the
> minimum number of thick connections and I won't need any diodes. Seems
> to me like a winner - so what have I overlooked?
>
> Comments welcome.
>
> Peter
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Starter Wiring |
>Dear All,
>
>
Allow me to summarise what I understand the issues are, and describe what I
intend to do. The conventional system where a relay on the firewall is
used to switch the thick wire to the starter is not too bad a system, but
there is a risk that the contacts weld themselves together (and hence the
British authorities require the installation of a starter warning light
an led on the switched side of the relay).
EVERY contactor, whether built onto the starter or
added piggy-back as shown in the Z-figures is subject
to contact sticking. The warning light is a good
thing to consider no matter which contactor actually
does the task of controlling starter current.
The installation of a diode is recommended (still cant remember why).
See: http://aeroelectric.com/articles/spikecatcher.pdf
There is also the possibility that once the starter button is released the
starter motor will become a generator and cause the motor mounted solenoid
to remain engaged for a short time apparently not too good in the long
run for the starter. It also seems to me that using a jumper from the
starter feed to the solenoid is a bit daft, the starter has to have a
solenoid so why not use it?
See: http://www.aeroelectric.com/articles/strtctr.pdf
If the firewall relay is deleted and the starter button is used to actuate
the motor mounted solenoid the button is subject to high in-rush currents
(~35A) and up to 10A of steady current, values that may require a very
heavy duty starter button, or the average starter button may have a rather
short life. But this way the starter warning light is not needed I dont
know exactly what it is, but I really dont want one of these lights (I
never look at the one currently fitted to my current aircraft).
"Need" is a matter of perceptions but no contactor
is immune from sticking. Treat this as you wish for
the decision as to whether or not a starter engaged
warning light is to be a part of your system.
The firewall relay could be retained, and the 4th terminal used to switch
the solenoid, but Im not sure this really buys you very much over the
conventional set up.
Either works.
The final set up is to run the starter feed directly from the master relay
(I really dont think it matters that this wire will be hot all the time
that the master is on), and to use a relay to switch the solenoid only.
This is illustrated in: Figure Z-22 of
http://aeroelectric.com/articles/Rev11/AppZ_R11J.pdf
As I already have a 200+A rated relay I might as well use that, or I
could go to the local auto parts store and get one of those plastic cube
relays rated at 40A (assuming one is available). As Im not switching 200+
amps with the relay I wont need a starter warning light (hooray), the
starter button is only switching a few amps, Im using the solenoid for
what its meant to do, I will only have to terminated the minimum number of
thick connections and I wont need any diodes. Seems to me like a winner
so what have I overlooked?
The diode is always useful. Which ever process by
which you wish to control the starter is fine.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Alternator Cut-In |
>
>
>I have an alternator from Mark Landoll - 35 amp variety with external
>regulator mounted on back.
>
>It does not come on until approx. 1500 rpm on initial start-up and
>then will stay on all the way till idle - what causes this and how
>can I modify so it will come on as soon as AC is started?
Without knowing the details of the alternator's
regulator, one cannot deduce root cause of the
phenomenon you describe. You might try hooking
a generic "ford" regulator described in Note 21
of http://aeroelectric.com/articles/Rev11/AppZ_R11J.pdf
This regulator switches field current ON even
when the engine is not running.
Bob . . .
----------------------------------------
( "Physics is like sex: sure, it may )
( give some practical results, but )
( that's not why we do it." )
( )
( Richard P. Feynman )
----------------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Don Vs" <dsvs(at)ca.rr.com> |
Bob,
How is the testing going on the 5-volt dimmer you designed? Is it close to
being ready to sell? Thanks in advance. Don
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Avionics Master (to be or not to be) |
>Bob, I have learned my lesson not to debate you.
You've never debated simple ideas or repeatable
experiments. Therefore, your frustration with the
fruitlessness of your efforts is understandable and
predictable.
>I think
>you take different opinions, disagreement too personally. I
>am just taking the Pro to your Con. There's nothing personal.
>You can make very persuasive rhetoric. To balance it out
>some times it takes rhetoric and propaganda of my own to
>make the counter point. It's not personal. It's only a tribute
>to your well worded doctrine that one must make an effort
>to present the other views.
Yes, I've started to read a variety of works on
philosophy . . . and put most of them down after
discovering that proffered ideas play down individualism,
don't recognize the value of understanding simple ideas.
I've also put the book down when it becomes apparent that
the writer believes it's okay for folks with power to
infringe on the liberties of others with less power.
This isn't about "taking it personally" . . . it's about
common sense and honorable behavior.
>You are entitled to your opinion, and again as well thought
>and salient as your opinions are, I'm entitled to mine. In fact
>I often and mostly agree with you, even here. I have no
>disagreement with your points, but.............
>
>My point is simple, when it comes to preference regarding
>a non safety issue, where weight, cost and complexity
>are not affect appreciably, than preference trumps all
>opinion or reasoning. Its like circuit breakers or internal
>v. external regulated alternators. To each his own.
>
>***************************************************************
>You want an avionics master put one in, done deal.
>***************************************************************
George, you're tossing TV dinners into a microwave
in a gourmet kitchen and calling it "okay, if that's
what you prefer or it makes you feel good."
>
>I have no comments on your reply below, but some of its
>not accurate or consistent with your past comments.
You're not going to be allowed to toss inferential
cabbages in under an aura of honorable debate. If
you have a past comment of mine to cite, do it.
I have every posting I've ever made to this list
in an archive. I'll send them to you a CD
if you need to do a search. All other words I've
written are on my website or in the book. If I've
stated something out of misunderstanding or in error,
nobody would he happier than I to correct it. However,
you're not going to get away with an off-hand inference.
These are the rules of REAL debate George.
>
>I will make one comment. In the past you have made it
>clear that avionics should be made to the DO-160 spec
>or they are not worth a darn as designers. Its moot, I
>agree with you. However as an active builder Bob I can
>tell you not all things going into homebuilt panels are
>are as robust as you might think. Also old legacy radios
>are still making their way into homebuilt panels, and my
>Icom example, a new radio not to DO-160 specs. The
>software type products also hate being on during start.
>No damage just nuisance distracting reboots.
So the avionics master avoids distracting reboots?
Hmmmm . . . power up, BOOT, get clearance, get the ATIS,
wiggle some switches to the checklist, power down,
start the engine, power up, REBOOT. Aside from
worries about brownout damage (which should be designed
out), how does the AVMaster hold "distracting reboots"
at bay? Is there a simple-idea we're missing here?
>
>Other wise you have nit picked words and taken some
>things too seriously, I stand by my original post with no
>malice or ill will intended. I am just here to help.
>
>It is clear we really don't disagree technically and most all
>about words. You should have been a lawyer. You would
>have been a good one. That is a compliment.
Its fortunate that I'm not vulnerable to insult or offense.
I cannot take that as a compliment. This forum is not
about persuasion. Persuasion is a tool of preachers,
politicians, used car salesmen, and trial lawyers. Persuasion
is intensely personal and I don't engage in it. Simple ideas
and understanding cannot be more impersonal. If you're
suggesting that I should compromise, know that I view
compromise as one of the ugliest ideas in human existence.
Compromise means that the best we know how to do always
looses alternative but lesser agendas win an incremental
victory.
An endless string of compromises have eroded and degraded
much of what made this country great. An endless stream
of compromises is wrecking a once great airplane company
I work for. I started this forum to explore and expand
on the best we know how to do based on understanding of
simple ideas and how they fit together into recipes for
success. Exactly how many switches one has on their panel
and what they do is immaterial to me if the designer is
feeling good about his achievements based on his
understanding and not upon the advice of me or anyone
else.
Your suggestion that one should "just do it
'cause you want to" is just another bag of popcorn
going into the microwave. I hope people hang out here
because they hope to achieve some level of understanding
of the specific pieces of equipment they own and a
healthy skepticism for assertions and claims made
in the marketing literature for those products.
>
>Cheers, No hard feelings. George ATP/CFI-II-ME/MSME
No hard feelings here either. Just a sadness that
the time and effort we've wasted here has accomplished
little more than to strengthen my resolve that microwaves
are useful for mediocre popcorn, pretty good rice and
warming a cup of cold coffee. The best we know how
to do is much more difficult to achieve but if it's
too hard, one needs only to un-subscribe. There are other
forums where the alphabet soup after your signature
generates instant respect. I have no "soup" to offer.
Only simple ideas that I'm obligated to explain and
designs I must demonstrate. Know further that useful debate
advances the best we know how to do. Debate is not used
to sell what we've always done based on lousy science.
Any notion that what you've often offered here should
be welcomed in an atmosphere of cooperation and compromise
doesn't fly . . . not in this kitchen.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: 5 Volt Dimmer |
>
> Bob,
>How is the testing going on the 5-volt dimmer you designed? Is it close to
>being ready to sell? Thanks in advance. Don
Sorry for the delay. I'm stirring some big pots right now.
The original idea had to be scrapped. Some products intended
for that application don't match their spec sheets. I'd
like to resurrect that project but it's not the fast-turn
program that was possible had the purchased parts made the
grade. Sorry but that item is on indefinite hold.
Bob . . .
----------------------------------------
( "Physics is like sex: sure, it may )
( give some practical results, but )
( that's not why we do it." )
( )
( Richard P. Feynman )
----------------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Panel Update |
>
>
>I would like some input on a Panel Update I am about to embark on.
>
>I have a VFR RV-6 with 0-360 with 2 mags and Vacuum System
>
>Looking to update Aircraft to "modified" Z-13/8 All Electric Plane.
>
>Modifications are as follows:
>
> 1. Keep basic Mags - no pMags
> 2. Basic 35amp automotive alternator plus SD-8 as shown
>
>New electric requirements would be:
>
>Dynon D10A or D-100
>Garmin 300XL GPS/Comm
>King KT-76 Transponder
>FlightCom 403 Intercom
>Ameri-King AK350 Encoder
>
>Keep basic steam gauges as back up - Altimeter, A/S, VVi, and Wing
>Leveler
>
>Flaps
>Land Lights
>Taxi Lights
>Strobe Lights
>Pos Lights
>Cockpit lights
>Instrument lights
>Fuel Guage
>Hobbs
>Trim - elevator only
>
>Keep basic engine instrument or update to Grand Rapids EIS or Rocky
>Mountain 101K
>
>Otherwise, everything done in accordance with Z-13/8
>
>Suggestions?
Not sure what anyone could offer here. Are you proposing to do
something that's out of the ordinary? Keep in mind that to go
flying takes little if anything in the way of electro-whizzies.
See:
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Project_Photos/Jenny_1s.jpg
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Project_Photos/J-3.jpg
Any piece of equipment added to your project over and
above what's carried aboard these aircraft is a function
of what you want it to do, how you plan to use it, what
will fit your airplane, and whether or not you can afford
to buy it.
The list you've cited appears quite adequate to task for
the kinds of flying done by 90% or more of us GA pilots.
Without knowing how your plans might depart from what 90%
of us do, I can't think of a useful comment about your list.
Bob . . .
----------------------------------------
( "Physics is like sex: sure, it may )
( give some practical results, but )
( that's not why we do it." )
( )
( Richard P. Feynman )
----------------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | GS-Air Strobe Current 6 Amps |
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Dennis
Johnson
Sent: Tuesday, May 15, 2007 6:55 PM
Subject: AeroElectric-List: GS-Air Strobe Current 6 Amps
Last week, a reader asked about sizing the fuse and wires for a GS-Air
strobe light power supply. The GS-Air strobe light is part of a wingtip
position and strobe light unit. The position lights are LEDs and the
strobe lights are conventional strobes. The strobes are powered by a
single, remote power supply. For more info:
www.gs-air.com
I replied that I used a 10 amp fuse instead of the 15 amp fuse in the
instruction manual and haven't had a problem in my first 50 hours of
flight. Bob asked me to measure the actual current draw, which I did today.
My GS-Air strobe power supply is model XPAK604X-HR, 60 watt 4 outlet strobe
power supply with half speed flash patterns. It has two selectable output
levels, high and low. I run mine on high. I bought mine a year or so ago
and this power supply was a new model and replaced the previous one. The
older model may consume more or less current than mine.
Using the "bar graph" function on my Fluke 87 meter, the current draw
fluctuated from zero to maybe 10 or so amps (I couldn't really tell), but
spent most of it's time between 5.5 and 6.5 amps. The bar graph function
on the display more or less duplicates an analog meter's response rate.
I had intended to use a cheap ($5 from Harbor Freight) analog meter, but it
could only measure up to 0.5 amp. Lucky for me, I read the meter's
instructions first and didn't blow the meter's fuse!
Dennis,
Thanks for going after this data for us and sharing it.
What you've observed is typical of many accessories
with cyclical power demands. In order to do a realistic
load analysis on some accessories, I've had to take it
to the bench and measure the current waveform for piecemeal
integration of the RMS or real-power current. But the
data that you've gathered confirms the validity of sizing
power to this system at 10A/16AWG.
My software guru is fiddling with one of the PIC
microcontrolers having a multi-channel, 10-bit
a/d converter on it with a USB engine. We're toying
with the idea of offering a low cost, data-acquisition
accessory to run with a lap top that would facilitate
the capture of cyclical data right off customer's
airplanes for remote analysis. Like our old friend
Lord Kelvin suggested, until you can measure something
for discussion by the numbers, you scarcely know anything
about it!
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Avionics Master (to be or not to be) |
>Bob, I have learned my lesson not to debate you.
George, you've never demonstrated an interest in discussing
simple ideas or repeatable experiments. But then simple
ideas are not debatable and repeatable experiments are
debatable only if they don't repeat. I guess it follows
that frustration with the futility of your efforts is
understandable and predictable.
>I think
>you take different opinions, disagreement too personally. I
>am just taking the Pro to your Con. There's nothing personal.
>You can make very persuasive rhetoric. To balance it out
>some times it takes rhetoric and propaganda of my own to
>make the counter point. It's not personal. It's only a tribute
>to your well worded doctrine that one must make an effort
>to present the other views.
Yes, I've started to read a variety of works on
philosophy . . . and put most of them down after
discovering that ideas proffered play down individualism
or don't recognize the value of understanding simple ideas.
I've also put books down when it becomes apparent that
the writer believes it's okay for folks with power to
infringe on the liberties of others with less power.
This isn't about "taking it personally" . . . it's about
common sense and honorable behavior.
>You are entitled to your opinion, and again as well thought
>and salient as your opinions are, I'm entitled to mine. In fact
>I often and mostly agree with you, even here. I have no
>disagreement with your points, but.............
>
>My point is simple, when it comes to preference regarding
>a non safety issue, where weight, cost and complexity
>are not affect appreciably, than preference trumps all
>opinion or reasoning. Its like circuit breakers or internal
>v. external regulated alternators. To each his own.
>
>***************************************************************
>You want an avionics master put one in, done deal.
>***************************************************************
George, you're tossing TV dinners into the microwave
in a gourmet kitchen and calling it "okay, if that's
what you PREFER or it makes you FEEL better."
>
>I have no comments on your reply below, but some of its
>not accurate or consistent with your past comments.
You're not going to be allowed to toss inferential
cabbages under an aura of honorable debate. If
you have a past comment of mine to cite, do it.
Every posting I've ever made to this list is
archived. I'll send them to you a CD if you need
to do a search. All other words I've written are
on my website or in the book. If I've stated something
out of misunderstanding or in error, nobody would he
more pleased than I to correct it. However, you're
not going to get away with tossing an off-hand inference.
Got a beef with something I've written? Do your homework
and quote the instance. These sir are the rules of REAL
and useful debate.
>
>I will make one comment. In the past you have made it
>clear that avionics should be made to the DO-160 spec
>or they are not worth a darn as designers.
You misquoted me. Deciding to ignore DO-160 is the
designer's privilege. If the designer says it's
for an airplane, then the consumer is entitled to know
the details of that design and then choose whether or
not they will purchase the product based on those
discoveries.
>Its moot, I
>agree with you. However as an active builder Bob I can
>tell you not all things going into homebuilt panels are
>are as robust as you might think. Also old legacy radios
>are still making their way into homebuilt panels . . .
. . . define legacy. DO-160 was predated by DO-138 which
was in turn predated by DO-108 going back well
into the vacuum tube days . . .
>and my Icom example, a new radio not to DO-160 specs.
Fine, if you KNOW of one radio on your bus that
does not sign up to DO-160 . . . exactly what portions
of DO-160 cause it heartburn? Can't you just turn
it OFF as opposed to adding an AVMaster to the entire
bus?
>The software type products also hate being on during start.
>No damage just nuisance distracting reboots.
So the avionics master avoids distracting reboots?
Hmmmm . . . power up, BOOT, get clearance, get the ATIS,
wiggle some switches to the checklist, power down,
start the engine, power up, REBOOT. Aside from
worries about brownout damage (which should be designed
out), how does the AVMaster stand off "distracting reboots"?
Is there a simple-idea we're missing here?
>
>Other wise you have nit picked words and taken some
>things too seriously, I stand by my original post with no
>malice or ill will intended. I am just here to help.
>
>It is clear we really don't disagree technically and most all
>about words. You should have been a lawyer. You would
>have been a good one. That is a compliment.
Its fortunate that I choose not to be vulnerable to insult
or offense for I cannot take that as a compliment. This
forum is not about persuasion. Persuasion is a tool of
preachers, politicians, used car salesmen, and trial lawyers.
Simple ideas and understanding cannot be more impersonal.
Teaching for the purpose of aiding to understanding
is personal but I do not recall a single instance of your
behavior as being that of a teacher.
If you're suggesting that I should compromise, know that
compromise is one of the ugliest ideas in human existence.
Compromise means that the best we know how to do looses
a square inch of hide in an incremental victory by an
alternative but lesser agenda. Compromise never makes things
better, it only makes the less capable go away for awhile
to await their next opportunity to "make a difference".
An endless string of compromises have eroded and degraded
much of what made this country great. An endless stream
of compromises is wrecking a once great airplane company
I work for. I started this forum to explore and expand
on the best we know how to do based on understanding of
simple ideas and how they fit together into recipes for
success. Exactly how many switches one has on their panel
and what they do is immaterial to me if the designer is
feeling good about his achievements based on his
UNDERSTANDING if the ingredients that go into HIS recipe
for success . . . and not upon the advice of me or anyone
else.
Your suggestion that one should "just do it
'cause you want to" is just another bag of popcorn
going into the microwave. I believe people hang out here
because they hope to achieve some level of understanding
of the specific pieces of equipment they own and a
healthy skepticism for assertions and claims made
in the marketing literature for those products.
>
>Cheers, No hard feelings. George ATP/CFI-II-ME/MSME
No hard feelings here either. Just a sadness that
the time and effort we've wasted here has accomplished
little more than to strengthen my resolve that microwaves
are useful for mediocre popcorn, pretty good rice and
warming a cup of cold coffee. I own two of them but I
don't do any real cooking with them.
The best we know how to do is much more difficult to
achieve but if it's too hard, one needs only to
un-subscribe and take advantage of a wealth of "guidance"
offered elsewhere.
There are other forums where the alphabet soup after
your signature generates instant respect. I have no
"soup" to offer . . . only simple ideas that I'm obligated
to explain and designs that must demonstrate their usefulness.
Know further that useful debate advances the best we know how
to do. Selling tradition based on lousy science is not debate,
it's an exercise in persuasion.
Any notion that what you've often offered here should
be welcomed in an atmosphere of cooperation and tolerated
in the spirit of compromise doesn't fly in this kitchen.
'lectric No SouP Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Don Vs" <dsvs(at)ca.rr.com> |
OK I understand that. Can you recomend a ready built 5 volt dimmer? I
have the lighting built in to the panel so I can not get around using a 5
volt dimmer. Thanks. Don
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of Robert
L. Nuckolls, III
Sent: Thursday, May 17, 2007 9:54 AM
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: 5 Volt Dimmer
>
> Bob,
>How is the testing going on the 5-volt dimmer you designed? Is it close to
>being ready to sell? Thanks in advance. Don
Sorry for the delay. I'm stirring some big pots right now.
The original idea had to be scrapped. Some products intended
for that application don't match their spec sheets. I'd
like to resurrect that project but it's not the fast-turn
program that was possible had the purchased parts made the
grade. Sorry but that item is on indefinite hold.
Bob . . .
----------------------------------------
( "Physics is like sex: sure, it may )
( give some practical results, but )
( that's not why we do it." )
( )
( Richard P. Feynman )
----------------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Michael T. Ice" <aurbo(at)ak.net> |
| Subject: | Re: 5 Volt Dimmer |
Don,
Check out the LC-40 panel dimmer from Van's.
Mike
----- Original Message -----
From: "Don Vs" <dsvs(at)ca.rr.com>
Sent: Thursday, May 17, 2007 9:10 PM
Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: 5 Volt Dimmer
>
> OK I understand that. Can you recomend a ready built 5 volt dimmer? I
> have the lighting built in to the panel so I can not get around using a 5
> volt dimmer. Thanks. Don
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of Robert
> L. Nuckolls, III
> Sent: Thursday, May 17, 2007 9:54 AM
> To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
> Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: 5 Volt Dimmer
>
>
>
>
>
>>
>> Bob,
>>How is the testing going on the 5-volt dimmer you designed? Is it close
>>to
>>being ready to sell? Thanks in advance. Don
>
> Sorry for the delay. I'm stirring some big pots right now.
> The original idea had to be scrapped. Some products intended
> for that application don't match their spec sheets. I'd
> like to resurrect that project but it's not the fast-turn
> program that was possible had the purchased parts made the
> grade. Sorry but that item is on indefinite hold.
>
> Bob . . .
>
>
> ----------------------------------------
> ( "Physics is like sex: sure, it may )
> ( give some practical results, but )
> ( that's not why we do it." )
> ( )
> ( Richard P. Feynman )
> ----------------------------------------
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Larry James" <larry(at)ncproto.com> |
| Subject: | Avionics Master - I missed the point |
I've been busy and so have only quickly scanned the Digests for a couple of
weeks. This topic inferred by the subject line would be of interest to me
... but any answers seem to have been lost or over-shadowed by some other
topic.
I want an Avionics Master Switch in my Rocket. I also want to remain true
to the intent of reliability and mitigated risk in architecture behind the
Z-xx electrical system architectures. My reasoning behind wanting this
Avionics Master:
One switch turns on all pertinent avionics
Don't have to re-adjust volumes/squelches every engine start
Simplified checklist / start procedure
Simplified shut-down procedure
I wish our Decathlon had one. How do I integrate one into Z-xx ??? Anyone
with a simple answer ???
Thanks,
Larry E. James
Bellevue, WA
Super Decathlon
Rocket (under construction)
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Avionics Master - I missed the point |
>I ve been busy and so have only quickly scanned the Digests for a couple
>of weeks. This topic inferred by the subject line would be of interest to
>me &.. but any answers seem to have been lost or over-shadowed by some
>other topic.
>
>
>I want an Avionics Master Switch in my Rocket. I also want to remain true
>to the intent of reliability and mitigated risk in architecture behind the
>Z-xx electrical system architectures. My reasoning behind wanting this
>Avionics Master:
>
>One switch turns on all pertinent avionics
>
>Don t have to re-adjust volumes/squelches every engine start
>
>Simplified checklist / start procedure
>
>Simplified shut-down procedure
>
>
>I wish our Decathlon had one. How do I integrate one into Z-xx
>??? Anyone with a simple answer ???
See article first published in Sport Aviation about 11 years
ago at:
http://www.aeroelectric.com/articles/avmaster.pdf
Bob . . .
----------------------------------------
( "Physics is like sex: sure, it may )
( give some practical results, but )
( that's not why we do it." )
( )
( Richard P. Feynman )
----------------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: 5 Volt Dimmer |
>
>Don,
>
>Check out the LC-40 panel dimmer from Van's.
Some thoughts on the task of crafting a dimmer
suited for 5v lighting circuits:
First, the device cited above appears to be a
variable duty cycle control device that delivers
full bus voltage pulses of energy to the lamps
but controls the average current in the lamps
by setting the ON/OFF ratio. For example, if
you switch a 14 volt supply on for 10 milliseconds
and then off for 90 milliseconds, a device connected
downstream of that switch will experience and
average of Oout = Ein (Ton/Toff+Ton)
= 14.0 * (10/90+10) = 1.4 Volts.
This product appears to offer a full range of
control for the purpose of controlling 14 volt
lamps. When installing this style of controller
for a 5v lighting system, the controlling
potentiometer and associated resistors would
want to be tailored such that max clockwise
for the potentiometer produces a maximum duty
cycle of 5/14 or 36%.
The product cited appears to use strip-m-and-
mash-em screw terminals once used by Vision
Microsystems, recently recommended by BMA
(See page 41 of
http://www.aeroelectric.com/articles/richter/response_1.pdf )
These are not the best we know how to do (BWKHTD)
for bringing wires off an assembly and into an aircraft wire
bundle. I understand Vision Microsystems went to
D-sub connectors for their products. I use D-sub
connectors for ALL of my products where ever their
capabilities are commensurate with the task.
One might also consider pure linear dimmer controls
like those once sold from my website but now offered
from B&C's site at:
http://www.bandc.biz/cgi-bin/ez-catalog/cat_display.cgi?10X358218#dim30-14
These too are 4 to 12 volt controllers and would
require modification of their control circuitry
to provide the more useful 1.5 to 5 volt output
range. Further, a pure linear controller has to toss
off about 65 percent of total energy fed to the dimmer
when the lamps are on full bright. Hence the need for
heatsinks. However, these are dimming REGULATORS. Unlike
most variable duty cycle controllers, these devices will
maintain a constant output voltage irrespective of
perturbations of the bus voltage that might cause
visible fluctuations in the light produced by lamps
downstream.
A regulating dimmer isolates the lighting system from
such perturbations.
The BWNHTD mirrors methodologies but not the technology
in years past to provide an efficient step down of
bus voltage to the desired 1.5 - 5 volt output
range by use of inductors, capacitors and smart
transistors. These are a members of a large family
of switchmode power supplies. The device I was considering
was a commercial off the shelf product that didn't
match it's marketing hype. One can consider a scratch
built approach that is typified by this part.
http://www.linear.com/pc/productDetail.jsp?navId=H0,C1,C1003,C1042,P1915
One takes a 1.8v fixed output version of this part
and adds the potentiometer to the feedback circuit
to achieve a 1.8 to 5.0 volt output. Or perhaps
a fully adjustable version will be necessary to get
a lower min output of say 1.0 to 5 volts.
This approach would be VERY efficient. The lost energy
is so low that the package could be quite small and
heat losses easily managed.
I thought I had a quick-turn solution to offer but
it didn't work out. So I've had to back-burner the
project.
Food for thought.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | John Coloccia <john(at)ballofshame.com> |
| Subject: | Re: 5 Volt Dimmer |
Or you can use a PIC to drive a MOSFET and make a dirt cheap, simple and
effecient switching regulator. I've been using this approach to dim a
bank of LEDs.
-John
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: 5 Volt Dimmer |
>
>Or you can use a PIC to drive a MOSFET and make a dirt cheap, simple and
>effecient switching regulator. I've been using this approach to dim a
>bank of LEDs.
Yes, but do you close the loop to make it regulate?
I've used PICs for some exceedingly simplistic tasks
like generate a square wave with off-delays between
half cycles to prevent shoot-through on totem-pole
output transistors. A 555 with 2 capacitors, a diode
two resistors and a pot can be arranged to provide
an open loop, adjustable duty cycle square wave . . .
but the best we know how to do suggests we close
the loop to prevent bus perturbations from making
it through the dimmer circuit and causing the
lights to visibly vary.
If you want to write the code for a 12F683 chip
that provides a closed loop, variable duty cycle
controller, we could market programmed chips . . .
or I'd market a dimmer and pay a royalty. I have
several products in the works now being developed
by others who will get a slice of the pie for the
market life of that product. You could use one
pin as an input to strap the functionality for
both 12v and 5v dimmers. I think the 683 has
enough snort to do a dual dimmer with a lookup
table that would cause filament lamps and LEDs
to track each other for apparent intensity.
Pretty cool product . . . but close the loop so
that the output is regulated.
If interested, let's develop a Product Function
Specification and see what we can cook up.
Bob . . .
----------------------------------------
( "Physics is like sex: sure, it may )
( give some practical results, but )
( that's not why we do it." )
( )
( Richard P. Feynman )
----------------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Don Vs" <dsvs(at)ca.rr.com> |
Bob,
I could put up with the strip and mash connectors as I use ferrules that
give insulation support for this type of connector and, not the nest, but
adequate electrical connection. Can you provide a wire diagram for the
needed support parts if I use one Pot ? Thanks in advance.
-----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, May 19, 2007 7:53 AM
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: 5 Volt Dimmer
>
>Don,
>
>Check out the LC-40 panel dimmer from Van's.
Some thoughts on the task of crafting a dimmer
suited for 5v lighting circuits:
First, the device cited above appears to be a
variable duty cycle control device that delivers
full bus voltage pulses of energy to the lamps
but controls the average current in the lamps
by setting the ON/OFF ratio. For example, if
you switch a 14 volt supply on for 10 milliseconds
and then off for 90 milliseconds, a device connected
downstream of that switch will experience and
average of Oout = Ein (Ton/Toff+Ton)
= 14.0 * (10/90+10) = 1.4 Volts.
This product appears to offer a full range of
control for the purpose of controlling 14 volt
lamps. When installing this style of controller
for a 5v lighting system, the controlling
potentiometer and associated resistors would
want to be tailored such that max clockwise
for the potentiometer produces a maximum duty
cycle of 5/14 or 36%.
The product cited appears to use strip-m-and-
mash-em screw terminals once used by Vision
Microsystems, recently recommended by BMA
(See page 41 of
http://www.aeroelectric.com/articles/richter/response_1.pdf )
These are not the best we know how to do (BWKHTD)
for bringing wires off an assembly and into an aircraft wire
bundle. I understand Vision Microsystems went to
D-sub connectors for their products. I use D-sub
connectors for ALL of my products where ever their
capabilities are commensurate with the task.
One might also consider pure linear dimmer controls
like those once sold from my website but now offered
from B&C's site at:
http://www.bandc.biz/cgi-bin/ez-catalog/cat_display.cgi?10X358218#dim30-14
These too are 4 to 12 volt controllers and would
require modification of their control circuitry
to provide the more useful 1.5 to 5 volt output
range. Further, a pure linear controller has to toss
off about 65 percent of total energy fed to the dimmer
when the lamps are on full bright. Hence the need for
heatsinks. However, these are dimming REGULATORS. Unlike
most variable duty cycle controllers, these devices will
maintain a constant output voltage irrespective of
perturbations of the bus voltage that might cause
visible fluctuations in the light produced by lamps
downstream.
A regulating dimmer isolates the lighting system from
such perturbations.
The BWNHTD mirrors methodologies but not the technology
in years past to provide an efficient step down of
bus voltage to the desired 1.5 - 5 volt output
range by use of inductors, capacitors and smart
transistors. These are a members of a large family
of switchmode power supplies. The device I was considering
was a commercial off the shelf product that didn't
match it's marketing hype. One can consider a scratch
built approach that is typified by this part.
http://www.linear.com/pc/productDetail.jsp?navId=H0,C1,C1003,C1042,P1915
One takes a 1.8v fixed output version of this part
and adds the potentiometer to the feedback circuit
to achieve a 1.8 to 5.0 volt output. Or perhaps
a fully adjustable version will be necessary to get
a lower min output of say 1.0 to 5 volts.
This approach would be VERY efficient. The lost energy
is so low that the package could be quite small and
heat losses easily managed.
I thought I had a quick-turn solution to offer but
it didn't work out. So I've had to back-burner the
project.
Food for thought.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Douglas Holub" <doug.holub(at)tx.rr.com> |
| Subject: | transponder antenna ground plane |
Regarding the size of the ground plane for a transponder antenna,
Nuckolls says in his book, "5 1/2" in diameter is sufficient." I thought
that's what I did, but after I installed it I found that mine was only
5.22" in diameter. I understand that the length of the radius is
important for resonance at the transponder frequency. Can someone tell
me how much antenna degradation I can expect by being off by .18"? If
it's 10%, I'll reinstall the ground plane. If it's only 2 or 3 percent,
I'll probably just leave it the way it is.
Doug Holub
building a Velocity
Irving, Texas
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: transponder antenna ground plane |
| From: | "europa flugzeug fabrik" <n3eu(at)oh.rr.com> |
doug.holub(at)tx.rr.com wrote:
> Regarding the size of the ground plane for a transponder antenna.... Can someone
tell me how much antenna degradation I can expect by being off by .18"?
I don't think the effect can be computed, as the principal effect will be on radiation
pattern, but intuitively a small effect for that error. ATC needs you
to put out at least 70W; if your xponder does 250W-plus as many do, no problemo,
IMO.
Fred F.
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=113829#113829
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Panel Wiring Reference? |
| From: | "darinh" <gerns25(at)netscape.net> |
I am looking for some type of reference material that can help me understand the
science behind wiring my avionics, switches, etc. in my panel. I am new to
the electronics game and must admit that the panel scares the hell out of me but
I want to learn. I have the ability, just not the know how. What is the best
reference out there and where can I get it?
Thanks,
Darin Hawkes
Kitfox Series 7 (in progress)
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=113931#113931
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Fiveonepw(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Panel Wiring Reference? |
Here's your first stop, if not already visited:
_https://matronics.com/aeroelectric/Catalog/pub/pub.html#aec9_
(https://matronics.com/aeroelectric/Catalog/pub/pub.html#aec9)
Best 33 bucks you can spend. Visit the home page at:
_http://aeroelectric.com/_ (http://aeroelectric.com/) for connection to the connection. But you've
made the most important connection by being here on the Matronics list.
Stay tuned and enjoy the ride!
>From The PossumWorks in TN,
Confirmed Nuckollhead Mark Phillips, RV-6A "Mojo", Z-11
_http://websites.expercraft.com/n51pw/_
(http://websites.expercraft.com/n51pw/)
************************************** See what's free at http://www.aol.com.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | <gmcjetpilot(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | Re: transponder antenna ground plane |
You will be fine. Antennas are part physics and part black magic. Really it fine
and the plate size is a ball park. Really the ground plane should or could be
infinite. George
---------------------------------
Don't pick lemons.
See all the new 2007 cars at Yahoo! Autos.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Christopher Barber" <CBarber(at)TexasAttorney.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Panel Wiring Reference? |
Also, there is a college text book which is listed somewhere on the
site. It seems to be a first year electrical engineering reference.
Starts VERY basic.....which is what I needed. Just reading the first
few chapters (and ignoring the math....which too was even basic enough
for me to grasp in a passing manner) provided insight.
I regret I can't think of the name right now. I hope someone else can
chime in with it. MIne is at the hangar. I will try to grab it later.
I got the 1991 edition from Amazon for about $4 or $5 plus shipping
about a month ago. It proved useful.
All the best,
Chris
----- Original Message -----
From: Fiveonepw(at)aol.com
To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Monday, May 21, 2007 2:17 AM
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Panel Wiring Reference?
Here's your first stop, if not already visited:
https://matronics.com/aeroelectric/Catalog/pub/pub.html#aec9
Best 33 bucks you can spend. Visit the home page at:
http://aeroelectric.com/ for connection to the connection. But you've
made the most important connection by being here on the Matronics list.
Stay tuned and enjoy the ride!
From The PossumWorks in TN,
Confirmed Nuckollhead Mark Phillips, RV-6A "Mojo", Z-11
http://websites.expercraft.com/n51pw/
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----
See what's free at AOL.com.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Panel Wiring Reference? |
>Also, there is a college text book which is listed somewhere on the
>site. It seems to be a first year electrical engineering
>reference. Starts VERY basic.....which is what I needed. Just reading
>the first few chapters (and ignoring the math....which too was even basic
>enough for me to grasp in a passing manner) provided insight.
>
>I regret I can't think of the name right now. I hope someone else can
>chime in with it. MIne is at the hangar. I will try to grab it later. I
>got the 1991 edition from Amazon for about $4 or $5 plus shipping about a
>month ago. It proved useful.
You may be referring to "Electronics Fundamentals - Circuits,
Devices and Applications" by Floyd. New and in the latest editions
this book is over $100. ANY of older editions are just fine and
can be found in many used book offers on the 'net for under $20. A
really good text at a bargain price.
Bob . . .
----------------------------------------
( "Physics is like sex: sure, it may )
( give some practical results, but )
( that's not why we do it." )
( )
( Richard P. Feynman )
----------------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net> |
>
>Bob,
>I could put up with the strip and mash connectors as I use ferrules that
>give insulation support for this type of connector and, not the nest, but
>adequate electrical connection. Can you provide a wire diagram for the
>needed support parts if I use one Pot ? Thanks in advance.
Not sure what you're asking. I have now knowledge of the products
offered by others but I can sketch a diagram for a switchmode supply
based on one of the off-the-shelf chips. Is this what you're wanting?
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Ernest Christley <echristley(at)nc.rr.com> |
| Subject: | We can't build our own avionics |
The latest Sport Aviation has an article that attempts to explain why we
can't work on our own avionics. There's some mental gymnastic type
'logic' (the author basically states that "none of this applies" early
in the article) and some outright fallacies (a normal person can't
solder surface mount devices) amongst lots of exaggeration (repairing a
board would require a resistor or diode from the same lot used in the
original construction), a preachy style, and lots of bogeymen in the
form of the FAA and the FCC. There's even a veiled attack of Jim Weir's
audio panel. What is it with these people and their can't do attitudes?
Can we rise up in unison and tell the EAA that if this is all the help
we're going to get to please go back to actively ignoring us?
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: We can't build our own avionics |
| From: | john(at)ballofshame.com |
My dad once told me: There are 3 kinds of people in this world. Those
who make things happen, those who watch things happen, and those who
wonder "What happened?"
Apparently there's a 4th kind that writes columns.
-John
www.ballofshame.com
>
>
> The latest Sport Aviation has an article that attempts to explain why we
> can't work on our own avionics. There's some mental gymnastic type
> 'logic' (the author basically states that "none of this applies" early
> in the article) and some outright fallacies (a normal person can't
> solder surface mount devices) amongst lots of exaggeration (repairing a
> board would require a resistor or diode from the same lot used in the
> original construction), a preachy style, and lots of bogeymen in the
> form of the FAA and the FCC. There's even a veiled attack of Jim Weir's
> audio panel. What is it with these people and their can't do attitudes?
>
> Can we rise up in unison and tell the EAA that if this is all the help
> we're going to get to please go back to actively ignoring us?
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Ed Anderson" <eanderson(at)carolina.rr.com> |
| Subject: | Re: We can't build our own avionics |
Hear! Hear!
I agree Earnest. The EAA is now all about suppressing (gently of course)
any true experimentation because:
1. They now cater to the Commercial establishment not the small
experimenter (you know where the real $$ comes from)
2. All the experimenter contributes to the EAA coffers are his subscription
dues - pennies compared to what they get from the commercial establishment.
3. Experimenters are an endangered minority in the EAA community - so they
and their viewpoints count for little
4. You just might embarrass EAA by showing you can build something better
and cheaper or worst showing them to be wrong.
5. While I do believe the EAA supports general aviation, they have surely
lost sight of their roots.
The above remarks are made are tongue in cheek (sort of)
I am blind in one eye and pushing 68 years of age. I Just learned to use
surface mount components on my PC boards. Like many I thought you had to
have tons of expensive equipment and specialized knowledge. I found out all
one has to do is search the internet and you would find at least a half
dozen different ways to do surface mounts at home - very cheaply in fact.
No need for a $13000 reflow oven when a $38 GE from Target does the job just
perfectly. Same for rework stations, in case you need to repair a surface
mount board, a little ingenuity and you can have one that will do the job
for less than $100.
No need for $200+ metal stencils for flowing solder paste when a $35 made
out of Mylar does the job just fine.
Now all of that pertains to a "hobbyist" or small production type operation.
Yes, when you have orders for a 100,000 units then there is a time for the
expensive equipment.
But, look at it this way, Earnest, those who unquestionable heed and follow
such "logic" as you cited will simply stay out of our way {:>).
Ed
----- Original Message -----
From: "Ernest Christley" <echristley(at)nc.rr.com>
Sent: Monday, May 21, 2007 12:38 PM
Subject: AeroElectric-List: We can't build our own avionics
>
>
> The latest Sport Aviation has an article that attempts to explain why we
> can't work on our own avionics. There's some mental gymnastic type
> 'logic' (the author basically states that "none of this applies" early in
> the article) and some outright fallacies (a normal person can't solder
> surface mount devices) amongst lots of exaggeration (repairing a board
> would require a resistor or diode from the same lot used in the original
> construction), a preachy style, and lots of bogeymen in the form of the
> FAA and the FCC. There's even a veiled attack of Jim Weir's audio panel.
> What is it with these people and their can't do attitudes?
>
> Can we rise up in unison and tell the EAA that if this is all the help
> we're going to get to please go back to actively ignoring us?
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Richard Girard" <jindoguy(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: We can't build our own avionics |
Ed, et al, For several years now I have railed against the fact that when
renewing my Expensive Aircraft Association dues, the question "Why are you
joining/renewing?" does not have "building an experimental aircraft" as a
reason. Pretty much says it all, doesn't it?
Rick
PS On the other hand, the latest issue of Sport Pilot has a great article on
using the McCulloch engine for LSA's. I guess one slips through now and then
despite their best efforts to the contrary.
On 5/21/07, Ed Anderson wrote:
>
> eanderson(at)carolina.rr.com>
>
> Hear! Hear!
>
> I agree Earnest. The EAA is now all about suppressing (gently of course)
> any true experimentation because:
>
> 1. They now cater to the Commercial establishment not the small
> experimenter (you know where the real $$ comes from)
> 2. All the experimenter contributes to the EAA coffers are his
> subscription
> dues - pennies compared to what they get from the commercial
> establishment.
> 3. Experimenters are an endangered minority in the EAA community - so
> they
> and their viewpoints count for little
> 4. You just might embarrass EAA by showing you can build something better
> and cheaper or worst showing them to be wrong.
> 5. While I do believe the EAA supports general aviation, they have surely
> lost sight of their roots.
> The above remarks are made are tongue in cheek (sort of)
>
> I am blind in one eye and pushing 68 years of age. I Just learned to use
> surface mount components on my PC boards. Like many I thought you had to
> have tons of expensive equipment and specialized knowledge. I found out
> all
> one has to do is search the internet and you would find at least a half
> dozen different ways to do surface mounts at home - very cheaply in fact.
> No need for a $13000 reflow oven when a $38 GE from Target does the job
> just
> perfectly. Same for rework stations, in case you need to repair a surface
> mount board, a little ingenuity and you can have one that will do the job
> for less than $100.
> No need for $200+ metal stencils for flowing solder paste when a $35 made
> out of Mylar does the job just fine.
>
> Now all of that pertains to a "hobbyist" or small production type
> operation.
> Yes, when you have orders for a 100,000 units then there is a time for the
> expensive equipment.
>
> But, look at it this way, Earnest, those who unquestionable heed and
> follow
> such "logic" as you cited will simply stay out of our way {:>).
>
> Ed
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Ernest Christley" <echristley(at)nc.rr.com>
> To: "AeroElectric-List Digest Server"
> Sent: Monday, May 21, 2007 12:38 PM
> Subject: AeroElectric-List: We can't build our own avionics
>
>
> >
> >
> > The latest Sport Aviation has an article that attempts to explain why we
> > can't work on our own avionics. There's some mental gymnastic type
> > 'logic' (the author basically states that "none of this applies" early
> in
> > the article) and some outright fallacies (a normal person can't solder
> > surface mount devices) amongst lots of exaggeration (repairing a board
> > would require a resistor or diode from the same lot used in the original
> > construction), a preachy style, and lots of bogeymen in the form of the
> > FAA and the FCC. There's even a veiled attack of Jim Weir's audio
> panel.
> > What is it with these people and their can't do attitudes?
> >
> > Can we rise up in unison and tell the EAA that if this is all the help
> > we're going to get to please go back to actively ignoring us?
> >
> >
> >
>
>
--
Rick Girard
"Ya'll drop on in"
takes on a whole new meaning
when you live at the airport.
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: We can't build our own avionics |
| From: | Dj Merrill <deej(at)deej.net> |
Ernest Christley wrote:
>
>
> The latest Sport Aviation has an article that attempts to explain why
> we can't work on our own avionics. There's some mental gymnastic type
> 'logic' (the author basically states that "none of this applies" early
> in the article) and some outright fallacies (a normal person can't
> solder surface mount devices) amongst lots of exaggeration (repairing
> a board would require a resistor or diode from the same lot used in
> the original construction), a preachy style, and lots of bogeymen in
> the form of the FAA and the FCC. There's even a veiled attack of Jim
> Weir's audio panel. What is it with these people and their can't do
> attitudes?
I read the article last night, and was somewhat amused as well.
Basically, as the author states early on, apparently none of it applies
to experimental aircraft, which leads one to wonder why it was published
in the EAA magazine...
From my own research, which I freely admit may be flawed, I've
determined that none of the stuff that goes into my panel is required to
be TSO'ed (my random thoughts can be found on my website at
<http://econ.duke.edu/~deej/sportsman/tso.html> if anyone is
interested). (Presuming) If it does not need to be TSO'ed, then what
requirement would there be for the owner/builder to not be able to work
on it? Does anyone know of a FAR or other rule specifically saying that
we could not do this work? Or would this restriction just apply to
working on equipment that *is* TSO'ed? I'm curious. I figure that with
no TSO requirement, one is free to design, build, and fly with anything
you'd want in your panel, and presumably be able to repair and/or modify
as desired.
In the case of transmitters, there are likely FCC rules that need to
be followed, which may include who may perform work on the device. If
anyone has any information about this I'd greatly appreciate it
Thanks,
-Dj
--
Dj Merrill - N1JOV
Glastar Sportsman 2+2 Builder #7118 N421DJ
http://econ.duke.edu/~deej/sportsman/
"Many things that are unexplainable happen during the construction of an
airplane." --Dave Prizio, 30 Aug 2005
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Ed Anderson" <eanderson(at)carolina.rr.com> |
| Subject: | Re: We can't build our own avionics |
So true, Rick.
I renew for much of the same reason(s). I do believe the EAA plays a
strong role in defending our rights against those who would take them
away. Just wish they would throw us a few more bones more frequently
{:>)
Ed
----- Original Message -----
From: Richard Girard
To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Monday, May 21, 2007 5:16 PM
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: We can't build our own avionics
Ed, et al, For several years now I have railed against the fact that
when renewing my Expensive Aircraft Association dues, the question "Why
are you joining/renewing?" does not have "building an experimental
aircraft" as a reason. Pretty much says it all, doesn't it?
Rick
PS On the other hand, the latest issue of Sport Pilot has a great
article on using the McCulloch engine for LSA's. I guess one slips
through now and then despite their best efforts to the contrary.
On 5/21/07, Ed Anderson wrote:
Hear! Hear!
I agree Earnest. The EAA is now all about suppressing (gently of
course)
any true experimentation because:
1. They now cater to the Commercial establishment not the small
experimenter (you know where the real $$ comes from)
2. All the experimenter contributes to the EAA coffers are his
subscription
dues - pennies compared to what they get from the commercial
establishment.
3. Experimenters are an endangered minority in the EAA community -
so they
and their viewpoints count for little
4. You just might embarrass EAA by showing you can build something
better
and cheaper or worst showing them to be wrong.
5. While I do believe the EAA supports general aviation, they have
surely
lost sight of their roots.
The above remarks are made are tongue in cheek (sort of)
I am blind in one eye and pushing 68 years of age. I Just learned
to use
surface mount components on my PC boards. Like many I thought you
had to
have tons of expensive equipment and specialized knowledge. I found
out all
one has to do is search the internet and you would find at least a
half
dozen different ways to do surface mounts at home - very cheaply in
fact.
No need for a $13000 reflow oven when a $38 GE from Target does the
job just
perfectly. Same for rework stations, in case you need to repair a
surface
mount board, a little ingenuity and you can have one that will do
the job
for less than $100.
No need for $200+ metal stencils for flowing solder paste when a $35
made
out of Mylar does the job just fine.
Now all of that pertains to a "hobbyist" or small production type
operation.
Yes, when you have orders for a 100,000 units then there is a time
for the
expensive equipment.
But, look at it this way, Earnest, those who unquestionable heed and
follow
such "logic" as you cited will simply stay out of our way {:>).
Ed
----- Original Message -----
From: "Ernest Christley" < echristley(at)nc.rr.com>
To: "AeroElectric-List Digest Server"
Sent: Monday, May 21, 2007 12:38 PM
Subject: AeroElectric-List: We can't build our own avionics
>
>
> The latest Sport Aviation has an article that attempts to explain
why we
> can't work on our own avionics. There's some mental gymnastic
type
> 'logic' (the author basically states that "none of this applies"
early in
> the article) and some outright fallacies (a normal person can't
solder
> surface mount devices) amongst lots of exaggeration (repairing a
board
> would require a resistor or diode from the same lot used in the
original
> construction), a preachy style, and lots of bogeymen in the form
of the
> FAA and the FCC. There's even a veiled attack of Jim Weir's audio
panel.
> What is it with these people and their can't do attitudes?
--
Rick Girard
"Ya'll drop on in"
takes on a whole new meaning
when you live at the airport.
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | We can't build our own avionics |
No problem with the FCC on "homebuilt" radios. Until the demise of it's
electronics kit business sometime in the mid-1980s Heathkit produced many
ham radio transmitter and receiver kits which were very popular with ham
radio operators. Other than the required license for operating a
transmitter, the FCC imposed no restrictions on the amateur radio builders.
The original Heathkit from the then-named Heath Aeroplane Company was not an
electronics kit but an airplane, the Heath Parasol.
Best regards,
Rob Housman
Irvine, California
Europa XS Tri-Gear
S/N A070
Airframe complete
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Dj
Merrill
Sent: Monday, May 21, 2007 2:25 PM
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: We can't build our own avionics
Ernest Christley wrote:
>
>
> The latest Sport Aviation has an article that attempts to explain why
> we can't work on our own avionics. There's some mental gymnastic type
> 'logic' (the author basically states that "none of this applies" early
> in the article) and some outright fallacies (a normal person can't
> solder surface mount devices) amongst lots of exaggeration (repairing
> a board would require a resistor or diode from the same lot used in
> the original construction), a preachy style, and lots of bogeymen in
> the form of the FAA and the FCC. There's even a veiled attack of Jim
> Weir's audio panel. What is it with these people and their can't do
> attitudes?
I read the article last night, and was somewhat amused as well.
Basically, as the author states early on, apparently none of it applies
to experimental aircraft, which leads one to wonder why it was published
in the EAA magazine...
From my own research, which I freely admit may be flawed, I've
determined that none of the stuff that goes into my panel is required to
be TSO'ed (my random thoughts can be found on my website at
<http://econ.duke.edu/~deej/sportsman/tso.html> if anyone is
interested). (Presuming) If it does not need to be TSO'ed, then what
requirement would there be for the owner/builder to not be able to work
on it? Does anyone know of a FAR or other rule specifically saying that
we could not do this work? Or would this restriction just apply to
working on equipment that *is* TSO'ed? I'm curious. I figure that with
no TSO requirement, one is free to design, build, and fly with anything
you'd want in your panel, and presumably be able to repair and/or modify
as desired.
In the case of transmitters, there are likely FCC rules that need to
be followed, which may include who may perform work on the device. If
anyone has any information about this I'd greatly appreciate it
Thanks,
-Dj
--
Dj Merrill - N1JOV
Glastar Sportsman 2+2 Builder #7118 N421DJ
http://econ.duke.edu/~deej/sportsman/
"Many things that are unexplainable happen during the construction of an
airplane." --Dave Prizio, 30 Aug 2005
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Don Vs" <dsvs(at)ca.rr.com> |
Bob,
I was asking for a diagram of what you were talking in the excerp from your
May 19 E-Mail.
The pertinent part is included below
This product appears to offer a full range of
control for the purpose of controlling 14 volt
lamps. When installing this style of controller
for a 5v lighting system, the controlling
potentiometer and associated resistors would
want to be tailored such that max clockwise
for the potentiometer produces a maximum duty
cycle of 5/14 or 36%.
The product cited appears to use strip-m-and-
mash-em screw terminals once used by Vision
Microsystems, recently recommended by BMA
(See page 41 of
-----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, May 21, 2007 8:36 AM
Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: 5 Volt Dimmer
>
>Bob,
>I could put up with the strip and mash connectors as I use ferrules that
>give insulation support for this type of connector and, not the nest, but
>adequate electrical connection. Can you provide a wire diagram for the
>needed support parts if I use one Pot ? Thanks in advance.
Not sure what you're asking. I have now knowledge of the products
offered by others but I can sketch a diagram for a switchmode supply
based on one of the off-the-shelf chips. Is this what you're wanting?
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: We can't build our own avionics |
I had no idea that Heath started as an airplane builder. I used to do
factory repair of Heathkits when i was in college. Amazing how few people can
1)
solder properly and 2) follow directions. Most of the errors where cold
solder joints and misplaced componets.
Michael Wynn
RV 8 Fuselage
San Ramon, CA
************************************** See what's free at http://www.aol.com.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Dennis Wieck <dwieck(at)cafes.net> |
| Subject: | Re: We can't build our own avionics |
Rob Housman wrote:
>
> No problem with the FCC on "homebuilt" radios.
Depends on how you are using them. It is still OK to build ham radios (
and kits are still available just not from Heathkit any more)
Until the demise of it's
> electronics kit business sometime in the mid-1980s Heathkit produced many
> ham radio transmitter and receiver kits which were very popular with ham
> radio operators. Other than the required license for operating a
> transmitter, the FCC imposed no restrictions on the amateur radio builders.
The FCC will not let you build an aircraft transmitter or work on one.
You have to have a GROL ( General Radiotelephone Operator License) or at
least be signed off by someone with one.
Here is a summary of when you need a commercial license (GROL):
"You need a commercial radio operator license to repair and maintain the
following:
* All ship radio and radar stations.
* All coast stations.
* All hand carried units used to communicate with ships and coast
stations on marine frequencies.
* All aircraft stations and aeronautical ground stations
* including hand-carried portable units) used to communicate with
aircraft.
* International fixed public radiotelephone and radiotelegraph
stations."
this is not just a FCC requirement but an international requirement.
Dennis
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: We can't build our own avionics |
| From: | Dj Merrill <deej(at)deej.net> |
Rob Housman wrote:
>
> No problem with the FCC on "homebuilt" radios. Until the demise of it's
> electronics kit business sometime in the mid-1980s Heathkit produced many
> ham radio transmitter and receiver kits which were very popular with ham
> radio operators. Other than the required license for operating a
> transmitter, the FCC imposed no restrictions on the amateur radio builders.
> The original Heathkit from the then-named Heath Aeroplane Company was not an
> electronics kit but an airplane, the Heath Parasol.
Hi Rob,
I agree there is no problem for radios operating in the Ham bands (I've
had my ham license for about 17 years or so) since one of the reasons
for establishing the ham bands was for experimenting, but generally it
is a different beast when talking about other frequencies. Anyone know
if you can legally build and use a transmitter in the aircraft bands in
an experimental aircraft? How about fixing and returning to service a
TSO'ed commercially produced aircraft band transmitter that is used in
an experimental aircraft? Any differences between these two scenarios?
-Dj
--
Dj Merrill - N1JOV
Sportsman 2+2 Builder #7118
http://econ.duke.edu/~deej/sportsman/
"TSA: Totally Screwing Aviation"
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Christopher Barber" <CBarber(at)TexasAttorney.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Panel Wiring Reference? |
Yep, that was it. I grabed my copy from the hangar earlier today. I can't
imagine too many changes in the newer editions when it comes to the BASICS.
Even if there are, the '91 edition will surely surfice my rudementary needs.
You are correct, in the used market, it is a bargain.
All the best,
Chris Barber
Houston, Texas
President, EAA Houston
Chapter 12
----- Original Message -----
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net>
Sent: Monday, May 21, 2007 10:34 AM
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Panel Wiring Reference?
>
>
> >Also, there is a college text book which is listed somewhere on the
> >site. It seems to be a first year electrical engineering
> >reference. Starts VERY basic.....which is what I needed. Just reading
> >the first few chapters (and ignoring the math....which too was even basic
> >enough for me to grasp in a passing manner) provided insight.
> >
> >I regret I can't think of the name right now. I hope someone else can
> >chime in with it. MIne is at the hangar. I will try to grab it later.
I
> >got the 1991 edition from Amazon for about $4 or $5 plus shipping about
a
> >month ago. It proved useful.
>
> You may be referring to "Electronics Fundamentals - Circuits,
> Devices and Applications" by Floyd. New and in the latest editions
> this book is over $100. ANY of older editions are just fine and
> can be found in many used book offers on the 'net for under $20. A
> really good text at a bargain price.
>
> Bob . . .
>
>
> ----------------------------------------
> ( "Physics is like sex: sure, it may )
> ( give some practical results, but )
> ( that's not why we do it." )
> ( )
> ( Richard P. Feynman )
> ----------------------------------------
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | davidbf(at)centurytel.net |
| Subject: | off topic--2 batteries, one alternator |
I have a boat I am wanting to hook up a second battery for running on-board
equipment and charge from the same 25 amp alternator of the motor. Thinking
about paralleling the batteries with a diode separating the starting battery
through positive lead, isolating it from the load of the on board equipment.
Should there be a concern of overcharging or more likely undercharging the
second battery? See anything wrong with this simple system?
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: We can't build our own avionics |
| From: | "jetboy" <sanson.r(at)xtra.co.nz> |
Articles like that just increase the challenge....
http://lea.hamradio.si/~s53mv/avionics/avionics.html
deserves congratulations for putting so much together.
--------
Ralph - CH701 / 2200a
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=114124#114124
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | <gmcjetpilot(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | Re: We can't build our own avionics |
Ernest:
Ditto, that is what I got out of the article as well, but.......
I was waiting for him to say if you work on your avionics the terrorist
will win.
None of this applies to experimentals except for may be ELT's and
transponders. Yes FCC is another story. Gray area? Yes.
However, I disagree w/ your EAA comment. They do more than any
group for all GA, especially experimental. EAA is 100's more active
AOPA which is in the pocket of the aviation industry and
than manufactures.
Don't Bash EAA, simply write and send the editor your complaints.
Further contact EAA legal and tell them you think that this article
is full of fallacies. The EAA single handily rights the wrongs of the
FAA that misinterprets FAR's and makes up inconcistant policy
as they go. They will research it and tell you the law, not make it
up.
I just can't emphasise how much the EAA protects our right to fly
and build.
Sincerely George ATP/CFI-II-ME/MSME
>From: Ernest Christley <echristley(at)nc.rr.com>
>Subject: AeroElectric-List: We can't build our own avionics
>
>The latest Sport Aviation has an article that attempts to explain why
>we can't work on our own avionics. There's some mental gymnastic
>type 'logic' (the author basically states that "none of this applies" early
>in the article) and some outright fallacies (a normal person can't
>solder surface mount devices) amongst lots of exaggeration (repairing
>a board would require a resistor or diode from the same lot used in
>the original construction), a preachy style, and lots of bogeymen in
>the form of the FAA and the FCC. There's even a veiled attack of
>Jim Weir's audio panel. What is it with these people and their can't
>do attitudes?
>
>Can we rise up in unison and tell the EAA that if this is all the help
>we're going to get to please go back to actively ignoring us?
---------------------------------
Be a better Globetrotter. Get better travel answers from someone who knows.
Yahoo! Answers - Check it out.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Ed Anderson" <eanderson(at)carolina.rr.com> |
| Subject: | Re: We can't build our own avionics |
That's interesting, Dennis.
Way back a long time ago, I got a Commercial Radio telephone and Telegraph
operators license from the FCC - 16 years old at the time, thinking I could
get a job as radio operator aboard a US registered ship which at that time
were required by law to have a radio telegraph operator on board. But, as
soon as I got my ticket, they changed the law and they were no longer
required - so no career as a merchant ship radio operator {:>)
But, it sounds like I could legally build my transmitter (not that I would
want to).
Ed
----- Original Message -----
From: "Dennis Wieck" <dwieck(at)cafes.net>
Sent: Monday, May 21, 2007 9:27 PM
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: We can't build our own avionics
>
> Rob Housman wrote:
>> <robh@hyperion-ef.com>
>>
>> No problem with the FCC on "homebuilt" radios.
>
> Depends on how you are using them. It is still OK to build ham radios (
> and kits are still available just not from Heathkit any more)
> Until the demise of it's
>> electronics kit business sometime in the mid-1980s Heathkit produced many
>> ham radio transmitter and receiver kits which were very popular with ham
>> radio operators. Other than the required license for operating a
>> transmitter, the FCC imposed no restrictions on the amateur radio
>> builders.
>
> The FCC will not let you build an aircraft transmitter or work on one. You
> have to have a GROL ( General Radiotelephone Operator License) or at least
> be signed off by someone with one.
>
> Here is a summary of when you need a commercial license (GROL):
>
> "You need a commercial radio operator license to repair and maintain the
> following:
>
> * All ship radio and radar stations.
> * All coast stations.
> * All hand carried units used to communicate with ships and coast
> stations on marine frequencies.
> * All aircraft stations and aeronautical ground stations
> * including hand-carried portable units) used to communicate with
> aircraft.
> * International fixed public radiotelephone and radiotelegraph
> stations."
>
> this is not just a FCC requirement but an international requirement.
>
>
> Dennis
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "dwieck(at)cafes.net" <dwieck(at)cafes.net> |
| Subject: | Re: We can't build our own avionics |
That's interesting, Dennis.
Way back a long time ago, I got a Commercial Radio telephone and Telegraph
operators license from the FCC - 16 years old at the time, thinking I could get
a
job as radio operator aboard a US registered ship which at that time were
required by law to have a radio telegraph operator on board. But, as soon as
I
got my ticket, they changed the law and they were no longer required - so no
career as a merchant ship radio operator {:>)
But, it sounds like I could legally build my transmitter (not that I would want
to).
Sort of. You would have to have it approved by the FCC.
Sec. 87.39 Equipment acceptable for licensing.
Transmitters listed in this part must be certificated for a
particular use by the Commission based upon technical requirements
contained in subpart D of this part.
All of this does not mean you cant build some of your own avionics, just that
anything that transmits would require a license.
Dennis
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Michael Hinchcliff" <cfi(at)conwaycorp.net> |
| Subject: | Re: We can't build our own avionics |
Although I don't always see things the way gmcjetpilot "George" sees
them, I must agree with him on his stance about the EAA. If the EAA was
to be a purely "experimenters" organization, it would be a very, very
small group. Don't forget that plans built and kit built planes are
STILL experimental as well. Without the EAA, we might not have nearly
as many folks building their own electrical systems for OBAM aircraft.
The EAA constantly reminds me that I can do it and it's worth it. I
challenge you to tell me of another organization that better supports
our efforts with OBAM aircraft. Just becuase the EAA is imperfect does
not mean they're the enemy.
Now with that said, I will have to agree with many other's opinion that
the EAA does not support a lot of electrical systems knowledge. It
would be nice to have somebody volunteer to present a series of FACTUAL
lectures at AirVenture to futher the cuase (hint, hint). As of right
now, the only folks who regularly present electrical systems subject
matter at AirVenture are from Blue Moutain avionics. I think they have
a few good ideas, but have a very different approach to aircraft
electical systems than 'lectic Bob. I prefer Bob's roll-your own method,
which is why I'm here. This group fills the gap.
----- Original Message -----
From: gmcjetpilot(at)yahoo.com
To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Tuesday, May 22, 2007 6:52 AM
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Re: We can't build our own avionics
Ernest:
Ditto, that is what I got out of the article as well, but.......
I was waiting for him to say if you work on your avionics the
terrorist
will win.
None of this applies to experimentals except for may be ELT's and
transponders. Yes FCC is another story. Gray area? Yes.
However, I disagree w/ your EAA comment. They do more than any
group for all GA, especially experimental. EAA is 100's more active
AOPA which is in the pocket of the aviation industry and
than manufactures.
Don't Bash EAA, simply write and send the editor your complaints.
Further contact EAA legal and tell them you think that this article
is full of fallacies. The EAA single handily rights the wrongs of the
FAA that misinterprets FAR's and makes up inconcistant policy
as they go. They will research it and tell you the law, not make it
up.
I just can't emphasise how much the EAA protects our right to fly
and build.
Sincerely George ATP/CFI-II-ME/MSME
>From: Ernest Christley <echristley(at)nc.rr.com>
>Subject: AeroElectric-List: We can't build our own avionics
>
>The latest Sport Aviation has an article that attempts to explain why
>we can't work on our own avionics. There's some mental gymnastic
>type 'logic' (the author basically states that "none of this applies"
early
>in the article) and some outright fallacies (a normal person can't
>solder surface mount devices) amongst lots of exaggeration (repairing
>a board would require a resistor or diode from the same lot used in
>the original construction), a preachy style, and lots of bogeymen in
>the form of the FAA and the FCC. There's even a veiled attack of
>Jim Weir's audio panel. What is it with these people and their can't
>do attitudes?
>
>Can we rise up in unison and tell the EAA that if this is all the
help
>we're going to get to please go back to actively ignoring us?
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----
Be a better Globetrotter. Get better travel answers from someone who
knows.
Yahoo! Answers - Check it out.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: off topic--2 batteries, one alternator |
>
>I have a boat I am wanting to hook up a second battery for running on-board
>equipment and charge from the same 25 amp alternator of the motor. Thinking
>about paralleling the batteries with a diode separating the starting battery
>through positive lead, isolating it from the load of the on board equipment.
>Should there be a concern of overcharging or more likely undercharging the
>second battery? See anything wrong with this simple system?
It can be simpler yet. Assuming you have useful instrumentation/
warning systems aboard (most important . . . a low volts warning
light) then you can simple hook both batteries on line during
normal operations through a switch. See marine suppliers for
OFF, 1, 2, BOTH battery switches.
Distribute loads unique to each battery from battery busses
that are not switched. During normal operations (engine running,
low volts warning light out), the battery switch is at
BOTH. If the light comes on, move the battery switch as-desired
and keep on truck'n.
See:
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Switches/Battery_Switches/
Bob . . .
----------------------------------------
( "Physics is like sex: sure, it may )
( give some practical results, but )
( that's not why we do it." )
( )
( Richard P. Feynman )
----------------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Norman Stapelberg" <norshel(at)mweb.co.za> |
| Subject: | Wiring Diag for GTX327 |
I wonder if some could help out, I am busy fitting a Garmin GTX327
Transponder in a friends plane, as luck would have it he has misplaced
the manuals I have managed to download the operation manual, but am some
what stuck for the wiring side.
Thanks
Norman Stapelberg
South Africa
RV7 Fuselage 50%
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Gaye and Vaughn" <vaughnray(at)bvunet.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Wiring Diag for GTX327 |
Here is a link to the installation manual that I found.....Vaughn
http://aviation.vortex.is/install/Garmin%20Install%20manuals/GTX-327.pdf
----- Original Message -----
From: "Norman Stapelberg" <norshel(at)mweb.co.za>
Sent: Tuesday, May 22, 2007 1:29 PM
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Wiring Diag for GTX327
>
>
> I wonder if some could help out, I am busy fitting a Garmin GTX327
> Transponder in a friends plane, as luck would have it he has misplaced
> the manuals I have managed to download the operation manual, but am some
> what stuck for the wiring side.
>
> Thanks
>
> Norman Stapelberg
> South Africa
> RV7 Fuselage 50%
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Ernest Christley <echristley(at)nc.rr.com> |
| Subject: | Re: We can't build our own avionics |
Michael Hinchcliff wrote:
> The EAA constantly reminds me that I can do it and it's worth it. I
> challenge you to tell me of another organization that better supports
> our efforts with OBAM aircraft.
"You CAN do it. Just buy the parts from any of our vendors and plug
them in. See how nice that looks? You're such a sweet boy, Michael.
No, you can do that part, Michael. That's to difficult for you. You
have to have a kit to that. Look at all the pretty advertisements. You
wouldn't want to fly in something that looks like you built it at home
would you? Of course not. You just need to buy some things, because
they're too hard for you."
I can do without that sort of support, thank you. The article was
exactly that patronizing, and was solely written to dissuade people who
might consider obtaining the skills to build their own. How someone
could insult such a large group of people at once is beyond me.
> Just becuase the EAA is imperfect does not mean they're the enemy.
>
Any person, group, or organization that would choose to reign in the
creativity or industry of homebuilders are to be marked enemy. Any
claim that "you can't" that is not backed by instructions in simple
physics must be met with fierceness and without prejudice.
The guy claimed that you can't solder surface mount device, for Pete's
sake. I worked in a custom electronics shop as a technician for four
years. After it passed through the oven, my job was to test the board.
The most prevalent problem was that one of the devices was never put on,
or was broken off. After testing, I would put a replacement part back
on...WITH A HANDHELD SOLDERING IRON. Two lead parts were easy (tin one
pad, stick the part to that side, then solder the other side), but I
regularly repaired 40-pin, high-density IC's (lots of flux, drag a ball
of molten solder across the leads...that one takes some practice). For
someone to claim that is isn't possible to do at home is insulting,
creates an oppressive can't-do atmosphere, and is most definitely not
supportive. We are not sheep to be lined up by the EAA to be fleeced by
their vendors.
Now, I've got to put-up or shut-up. The can't-doers have had their
say. The can-doers deserve equal air time. I've built one of Jim
Weir's audio panel kits, and a display for an engine monitor. I've also
experimented with some techniques for building LED position and tail
lights. I know a few others I know have projects that would be perfect
for putting the lie to this article. I'm volunteering to write an
article entitled "Yes We Can" (I reluctantly will leave off the Da**-It,
but it deserves to be there). I will specifically be trying to drive
home the point that the EAA has no place trying to pointlessly limit
what can be done. I have some data on what the FCC will allow. But I'd
like to add pictures of components that others have built that
specifically counter the no-you-can't points, and give descriptions of
how it is accomplished. I'd like a few list members to volunteer as
editors to help me avoid making a complete fool of myself. I would like
to make a timely response, so please don't hesitate to speak up.
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Attitude gyro problem. |
| From: | "Puckett, Gregory [DENTK]" <Greg.Puckett(at)united.com> |
Help!! My attitude indicator is driving me nuts!
The attitude indicator is a RC Allen RCA26AK2 (14v electric) with 8deg
tilt installed in my RV-8.
>From the first flight, the indicator showed signs of what I thought was
precession. During constant altitude standard rate turns, when rolling
out to wings level the indicator would show up to 10deg bank in the
opposite direction. While turning at standard rate level altitude, after
90 deg of hdg change in one direction the indicator would show up to
5deg of false climb and 5deg of false descent when in the other
direction. BTW, the indicator does not show any bank during turns on the
ground.
I thought, well this thing has been sitting for some time, the bearings
must be bad. I sent the indicator back to Kelly Mfg for repair, they
replaced the bearings and recalibrated. After reinstalling, I still had
the same problem. I suspected that the repair was not sufficient and
sent it back again with no fault found. I still had the same problem in
the airplane after reinstalling.
I checked some things with the A/C such as actual panel tilt, voltage at
the instrument with respect to the instrument ground, noise on the power
in. The only thing I found was that my actual panel tilt was more like
5.5 deg and not 8. I shimmed the instrument so that it was exactly 8 deg
and it did not help the problem at all. I thought for sure, something
must be wrong with the instrument. Kelly mfg agreed to exchange it for a
new manufacture instrument. I still have the same problem with the new
instrument.
I then thought, even though it's a spinning hunk of mass, something must
be interfering with it. I wrapped the case in mu-metal, turned off all
electrical equipment in the panel including both alternators and you
guessed it, I still have the problem. WTF....
What else could possibly be causing this????
Thanks in advance,
Greg
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Charles Brame <chasb(at)satx.rr.com> |
| Subject: | Odessey Battery Capacity Test |
Based on the recent discussions of battery capacity, I decided to put
my six year old Odessey PC-680 battery through a poor man's capacity
test. I started with a fully charged battery which read 12.7 volts at
the beginning of the test. I turned on my aircraft main bus with all
the avionics, gyros, engine monitor (VM-1000), instruments, and
instrument lights - ON. The electronic ignition, nav lights, and
strobes were left OFF (aircraft on the ground.) After 20 minutes the
voltage was down to 12.1 volts. The engine was then started (cold
start and it took two tries to get it going.) The electronic ignition
and electric boost pump were turned ON; however, the alternator was
intentionally left OFF. The engine was run for three or four minutes
and shut down. The aircraft then sat for another 35 minutes with the
main bus, avionics, etc., left ON though the ignition and boost pump
were turned OFF. The lowest battery voltage was 11.4 volts. After a
full hour of battery only operation, the engine was again started
with no problems. The alternator was turned on after the second
engine start and the bus voltage read 13.8. (I forgot to check the
amperage, which is basically an alternator loadmeter.) The engine was
only run for about three minutes. After engine shutdown, the battery
voltage was back up to 12.4 and the test ended.
Pretty good battery I think. Based on the age of my PC-680, I really
didn't expect this kind of performance.
Charlie Brame
RV-6A N11CB
San Antonio
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "S. Ramirez" <simon(at)synchronousdesign.com> |
| Subject: | Attitude gyro problem. |
Greg,
Measure the voltage at the unit, not at the battery, and report back.
Simon Ramirez, Aerocanard Builder
LEZ N-44LZ
Oviedo, FL 32765 USA
Copyright C 2007
_____
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Puckett,
Gregory [DENTK]
Sent: Tuesday, May 22, 2007 6:13 PM
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Attitude gyro problem.
Help!! My attitude indicator is driving me nuts!
The attitude indicator is a RC Allen RCA26AK2 (14v electric) with 8deg tilt
installed in my RV-8.
>From the first flight, the indicator showed signs of what I thought was
precession. During constant altitude standard rate turns, when rolling out
to wings level the indicator would show up to 10deg bank in the opposite
direction. While turning at standard rate level altitude, after 90 deg of
hdg change in one direction the indicator would show up to 5deg of false
climb and 5deg of false descent when in the other direction. BTW, the
indicator does not show any bank during turns on the ground.
I thought, well this thing has been sitting for some time, the bearings must
be bad. I sent the indicator back to Kelly Mfg for repair, they replaced the
bearings and recalibrated. After reinstalling, I still had the same problem.
I suspected that the repair was not sufficient and sent it back again with
no fault found. I still had the same problem in the airplane after
reinstalling.
I checked some things with the A/C such as actual panel tilt, voltage at the
instrument with respect to the instrument ground, noise on the power in. The
only thing I found was that my actual panel tilt was more like 5.5 deg and
not 8. I shimmed the instrument so that it was exactly 8 deg and it did not
help the problem at all. I thought for sure, something must be wrong with
the instrument. Kelly mfg agreed to exchange it for a new manufacture
instrument. I still have the same problem with the new instrument.
I then thought, even though it's a spinning hunk of mass, something must be
interfering with it. I wrapped the case in mu-metal, turned off all
electrical equipment in the panel including both alternators and you guessed
it, I still have the problem. WTF..
What else could possibly be causing this????
Thanks in advance,
Greg
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Lee Logan" <leeloganster(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: AeroElectric-List Digest: 18 Msgs - 05/21/07 |
How would the FCC know your aircraft radio (TSO'd or otherwise) was broken?
If it fails, you (or someone) must fix it before it can be used again. The
next time you use it, it will have had to have been fixed. How would the
FCC know it was ever broken to even be able to ask, "who fixed it"?
Lee...
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | RE: Attitude gyro problem. |
| From: | "Puckett, Gregory [DENTK]" <Greg.Puckett(at)united.com> |
Hey Simon,
Thanks for the response.
When I say
> voltage at the instrument with respect to the instrument ground.
I meant what you said, at the backshell of the indicator, while in flight. It was
reading .2 volts less that the buss voltage with 5 mv of ripple with the alternator
online. To me, that seemed in the reasonable range.
Greg
p.s. I did notice today that the panel cutout had almost a 1 deg error in roll
with respect to the main spar that I corrected by elongating the holes in the
panel. I can't believe something like that could be the answer and unfortunately,
the weather was too crappy to fly and see. Let me know if you can think of
anything else to try.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | James Beeghly <jbeeghly(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | High VSWR reading on my antenna lead |
In the process of building up the avionics for our Wag Aero Super Sport I
reached that point where I was ready to power up the used King KY 97A Comm.
I had fabricated about a 10 - 12 foot long antenna lead using RG-400 and
BNC connectors purchased from B&C (and assembled with a RCT-2 coax crimping
tool also from B&C) to connect the comm to a used Cessna antenna (came from
a 172.) I plugged in the headset, turned on the radio, and all seemed
well. I listened (from inside the hanger) to airport traffic. I briefly
keyed the mike and heard myself on the scanner across the hanger.
Then I turned off the radio and connected a DAIWA CN 720B SWR meter in the
antenna circuit. this involved undoing the BNC connector from the back of
the tray (The tray itself is fitted with a bulkhead type of female BNC
connector so this was no problem.) The 720 B is a cross needle meter rated
up to 150 MHz and with a 5 watt range at the lower end. It has two SO-239
connectors on the back, one marked antenna and one transmitter. I had
gotten converters to use BNC connectors and had purchased a radio shack
premade RG-58 cable, about 6 feet long, to patch the meter to the radio.
The antenna lead connected to the Antenna connector on the 720 B.
My understanding (I bought this meter on E-bay and do not yet have a manual
- one is ordered) is that reading VSWR is a matter of pushing transmit and
finding the VSWR line corresponding to where the two needles intersect as
they measure forward and reflected watts. If this is correct, my system
has a VSWR of 9 or 10. Needless to say, I did not hold the transmit button
down for long.
I know that I am looking for a VSWR as close to 1 as possible, so this is
not acceptable. I don't quite know what to do next. I do not see a way to
calibrate the meter. My understanding is that this kind of meter is not
supposed to need calibration. I do not see what I could have done wrong
in constructing the antenna lead to get this kind of VSWR.
I did try another experiment. I took my JVC handheld, and put the meter
between it and the whip antenna. There was barely enough power to read
VSWR, but it was still in the 9 or 10 range. I then measured VSWR using
the JVC feeding the antenna lead and Cessna antenna. The reading for
forward power was clearly improved, but the VSWR was still at the same high
level. These results make me wonder if there isn't something wrong with
the meter (or my measuring technique.)
Does anyone have any suggestions for what to consider next? As you can no
doubt tell, I am new to this. Thanks.
Jim Beeghly
In the
process of building up the avionics for our Wag Aero Super Sport I reached
that point where I was ready to power up the used King KY 97A Comm. I
had fabricated about a 10 - 12 foot long antenna lead using RG-400 and BNC
connectors purchased from B&C (and assembled with a RCT-2 coax crimping
tool also from B&C) to connect the comm to a used Cessna antenna (came
from a 172.) I plugged in the headset, turned on the radio, and all
seemed well. I listened (from inside the hanger) to airport traffic.
I briefly keyed the mike and heard myself on the scanner across the
hanger.
Then I turned off the radio and connected
a DAIWA CN 720B SWR meter in the antenna circuit. this involved
undoing the BNC connector from the back of the tray (The tray itself is
fitted with a bulkhead type of female BNC connector so this was no
problem.) The 720 B is a cross needle meter rated up to 150 MHz and with a
5 watt range at the lower end. It has two SO-239 connectors on the
back, one marked antenna and one transmitter. I had gotten converters
to use BNC connectors and had purchased a radio shack premade RG-58 cable,
about 6 feet long, to patch the meter to the radio. The antenna lead
connected to the Antenna connector on the 720 B.
My understanding (I bought this meter on
E-bay and do not yet have a manual - one is ordered) is that reading VSWR
is a matter of pushing transmit and finding the VSWR line corresponding to
where the two needles intersect as they measure forward and reflected
watts. If this is correct, my system has a VSWR of 9 or 10.
Needless to say, I did not hold the transmit button down for
long.
I know that I am looking for a VSWR as
close to 1 as possible, so this is not acceptable. I don't quite know
what to do next. I do not see a way to calibrate the meter. My
understanding is that this kind of meter is not supposed to need
calibration. I do not see what I could have done wrong in
constructing the antenna lead to get this kind of VSWR.
I did try another experiment. I
took my JVC handheld, and put the meter between it and the whip antenna.
There was barely enough power to read VSWR, but it was still in the 9
or 10 range. I then measured VSWR using the JVC feeding the antenna
lead and Cessna antenna. The reading for forward power was clearly
improved, but the VSWR was still at the same high level. These
results make me wonder if there isn't something wrong with the meter (or my
measuring technique.)
Does anyone have any suggestions for what
to consider next? As you can no doubt tell, I am new to this.
Thanks.
Jim Beeghly
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: We can't build our own avionics |
Now with that said, I will have to agree with many other's opinion that the
EAA does not support a lot of electrical systems knowledge. It would be
nice to have somebody volunteer to present a series of FACTUAL lectures at
AirVenture to futher the cuase (hint, hint). As of right now, the only
folks who regularly present electrical systems subject matter at AirVenture
are from Blue Moutain avionics. I think they have a few good ideas, but
have a very different approach to aircraft electical systems than 'lectic
Bob. I prefer Bob's roll-your own method, which is why I'm here. This
group fills the gap.
I attended OSH for 12 years running and produced two
seminars every year . . . a one-hour gig during the day
and an evening session that ended when the EAA folks came
out and pulled the plug. I also wrote about a dozen articles
for Sport Aviation.
Long 'bout fall of '98, Cox sent me an article
written by one Mr. Paul Burgher. He said a number of
folks had looked it over and thought some of the ideas
were "fishy" . . . I read the article, did a two page
review on it and returned it to Sport Aviation and
recommended that it not be published.
Nevertheless, about May of 1999, the article pops up
in Sport Aviation anyhow. Mr. Burgher took issue with
my review and apparently, somebody in the EAA hierarchy
agreed with him and directed the magazine to publish the
thing anyhow.
So given that I was mentioned in the article, I felt that
it was only fitting that I explain myself . . .
which I did and published on AeroElectric.com
http://aeroelectric.com/articles/rules/review.html
I decided that it was not a good use of my time to
swim upstream in that current so I ceased donating
the articles to the 'cause'.
A few years later, the new editor (Spangler?) wrote
me an e-mail or called after somebody turned him on
to the critical review of Burgher's piece. He expressed
some dismay that such poorly written material would be
printed in the EAA's flagship publication. I told him I might
be interested in writing for SA again but that a decent
article took 8-10 hours. He said that he now had a budget
to pay for good work. I told him I'd dig through the
works in progress and finish up one or more for his
consideration.
A few days later, I got a call from him asking if I
had anything I could do quickly. Seems someone on tap
for the next issue wasn't going to perform and he needed
a piece in a hurry. So, I went to the keyboard and turned
some test data I had on AA alkaline cells into an article.
http://www.aeroelectric.com/articles/AA_Bat_Test.pdf
I guess it filled the bill. It appeared in the next issue
of SA. However, in years since, no remuneration has been
received from SA nor have I had any requests to continue
the relationship. In the mean time, other articles of
questionable pedigree have been published. Like this
little jewel . . .
http://www.aeroelectric.com/articles/Wired_for_Disaster.pdf
I've since decided that my time is better spent here
on the List than massaging the folks at Sport Aviation.
It's sad but typical of many publishing ventures that
graduated up from 4 pages of mimeographed hard data
and no advertising to 150 pages of 4-color, computer
aided, gee-whiz graphics, lots of advertising and
management that believes one should have a certain
number of but not too many pages of "knowledge" to
print along with the ads.
Last time I counted pages in an issue of SA, I think it
was about 130 pages long and I found 10 pages of information
on how to build airplanes. This was certainly not Paul's
vision of what the magazine should be . . . nonetheless,
that's where it is today.
I went to OSH a couple of years ago and did a couple
of gigs at some kit-dinners. I don't recall if I got a
slot in the tents or not . . . I think they offered me
an early slot early in the week. If I accepted it, there
weren't many folks there yet. No hard feelings but certainly
a sense of sadness to watch it devolve over the years.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: High VSWR reading on my antenna lead |
>In the process of building up the avionics for our Wag Aero Super Sport I
>reached that point where I was ready to power up the used King KY 97A
>Comm. I had fabricated about a 10 - 12 foot long antenna lead using
>RG-400 and BNC connectors purchased from B&C (and assembled with a RCT-2
>coax crimping tool also from B&C) to connect the comm to a used Cessna
>antenna (came from a 172.) I plugged in the headset, turned on the radio,
>and all seemed well. I listened (from inside the hanger) to airport
>traffic. I briefly keyed the mike and heard myself on the scanner across
>the hanger.
>
>Then I turned off the radio and connected a DAIWA CN 720B SWR meter in the
>antenna circuit. this involved undoing the BNC connector from the back of
>the tray (The tray itself is fitted with a bulkhead type of female BNC
>connector so this was no problem.) The 720 B is a cross needle meter rated
>up to 150 MHz and with a 5 watt range at the lower end. It has two SO-239
>connectors on the back, one marked antenna and one transmitter. I had
>gotten converters to use BNC connectors and had purchased a radio shack
>premade RG-58 cable, about 6 feet long, to patch the meter to the
>radio. The antenna lead connected to the Antenna connector on the 720 B.
>
>My understanding (I bought this meter on E-bay and do not yet have a
>manual - one is ordered) is that reading VSWR is a matter of pushing
>transmit and finding the VSWR line corresponding to where the two needles
>intersect as they measure forward and reflected watts. If this is
>correct, my system has a VSWR of 9 or 10. Needless to say, I did not hold
>the transmit button down for long.
>
>I know that I am looking for a VSWR as close to 1 as possible, so this is
>not acceptable. I don't quite know what to do next. I do not see a way
>to calibrate the meter. My understanding is that this kind of meter is
>not supposed to need calibration. I do not see what I could have done
>wrong in constructing the antenna lead to get this kind of VSWR.
>
>I did try another experiment. I took my JVC handheld, and put the meter
>between it and the whip antenna. There was barely enough power to read
>VSWR, but it was still in the 9 or 10 range. I then measured VSWR using
>the JVC feeding the antenna lead and Cessna antenna. The reading for
>forward power was clearly improved, but the VSWR was still at the same
>high level. These results make me wonder if there isn't something wrong
>with the meter (or my measuring technique.)
>
>Does anyone have any suggestions for what to consider next? As you can no
>doubt tell, I am new to this. Thanks.
First, go to Radio Shack and get the stuff to build one of these:
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Tools/DummyLoad.jpg
Use it to replace the antenna connection on the output of
the SWR meter and see if it shows 1:1 SWR. If not, the meter
is bad. If so, the antenna (or more probably) the coax connectors
at one end or the other . . . but your duplicated experiment
on two different antennas suggests that meter is bad.
Bob . . .
----------------------------------------
( "Physics is like sex: sure, it may )
( give some practical results, but )
( that's not why we do it." )
( )
( Richard P. Feynman )
----------------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Peter Harris" <peterjfharris(at)bigpond.com> |
| Subject: | Dual circuit for J3300 EFI |
First a big thank you Bob for the PM self exciting feature and the crowbar
CB tripper. Watching the voltmeter stay up, and running the electronic
ignition all with the master switch off was too much and I had to go home
and have a couple of beers to celebrate it. Clever stuff.
I have been finishing installation of a dual circuit based on Z-21A but I
have wandered astray a bit as follows:
1. Re Z21-A I have connected the starter relay direct to the battery
and not via the battery contactor. I am using the battery contactor only to
interrupt the charging current (and to close the alternator relay.) I did
this only because I do not know the logic for running the starter current
through two series relays ?
2. I have retained the DPST master switch to isolate battery from
alternator from main bus. This master connects the battery contactor which
connects the alternator relay and it connects the main bus.
3. I have earthed the alternator relay coil and action it from the
master switch through the battery contactor. I was thinking that the current
from a failed regulator will otherwise go to earth through the master switch
? But how much current to expect here, I guess it is limited by the coil
resistance. The method I have used saves another wire routed out to the
engine bay.
4. For the ebus I just had to use those two big diodes which access
either the battery or the alternator or both (normally both) each with a
green LED signal light. Z21-A offers power from battery plus alternator ,
or from battery but can not be switched to run from alternator only. So What
? Well it just appealed to me to be able to choose which power source in any
emergency and the green lights are a feel good feature.
I am offering this amendment fully expecting a flame out and ready to eat
humble pie and learn some more, mean time I will stay off the beer.
Circuit details follow :
Peter
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Can Rotax be self exciting? |
| From: | <rparigor(at)SUFFOLK.LIB.NY.US> |
Could Z-16 (Rotax 912/914 System) incorporate self excitation feature as
seen in Z25 (note 25) and be self exciting and maintain overvoltage
protection?
Thx.
Ron Parigoris
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert Feldtman" <bobf(at)feldtman.com> |
| Subject: | Re: High VSWR reading on my antenna lead |
borrow a known good meter from a ham in the area. make sure you set the
forward power to exactly full deflection, then read the reflected power. you
may have the gain set way too high. If it is 9 to one the radio would have
detected this on it's own and decreased the power. I suspect the meter is
bad or you don't have it adjusted right. get a ham to help you. Don't spend
more money - get a ham to help you
bobf
W5RF and glastar owner
ps - don't do it in the hangar - too much metal. roll it outside away from
the hanger more than 30 feet or so
On 5/22/07, James Beeghly wrote:
>
> In the process of building up the avionics for our Wag Aero Super Sport I
> reached that point where I was ready to power up the used King KY 97A Comm.
> I had fabricated about a 10 - 12 foot long antenna lead using RG-400 and
> BNC connectors purchased from B&C (and assembled with a RCT-2 coax crimping
> tool also from B&C) to connect the comm to a used Cessna antenna (came from
> a 172.) I plugged in the headset, turned on the radio, and all seemed well.
> I listened (from inside the hanger) to airport traffic. I briefly keyed
> the mike and heard myself on the scanner across the hanger.
>
> Then I turned off the radio and connected a DAIWA CN 720B SWR meter in the
> antenna circuit. this involved undoing the BNC connector from the back of
> the tray (The tray itself is fitted with a bulkhead type of female BNC
> connector so this was no problem.) The 720 B is a cross needle meter rated
> up to 150 MHz and with a 5 watt range at the lower end. It has two SO-239
> connectors on the back, one marked antenna and one transmitter. I had
> gotten converters to use BNC connectors and had purchased a radio shack
> premade RG-58 cable, about 6 feet long, to patch the meter to the radio.
> The antenna lead connected to the Antenna connector on the 720 B.
>
> My understanding (I bought this meter on E-bay and do not yet have a
> manual - one is ordered) is that reading VSWR is a matter of pushing
> transmit and finding the VSWR line corresponding to where the two needles
> intersect as they measure forward and reflected watts. If this is correct,
> my system has a VSWR of 9 or 10. Needless to say, I did not hold the
> transmit button down for long.
>
> I know that I am looking for a VSWR as close to 1 as possible, so this is
> not acceptable. I don't quite know what to do next. I do not see a way to
> calibrate the meter. My understanding is that this kind of meter is not
> supposed to need calibration. I do not see what I could have done wrong in
> constructing the antenna lead to get this kind of VSWR.
>
> I did try another experiment. I took my JVC handheld, and put the meter
> between it and the whip antenna. There was barely enough power to read
> VSWR, but it was still in the 9 or 10 range. I then measured VSWR using the
> JVC feeding the antenna lead and Cessna antenna. The reading for forward
> power was clearly improved, but the VSWR was still at the same high level.
> These results make me wonder if there isn't something wrong with the meter
> (or my measuring technique.)
>
> Does anyone have any suggestions for what to consider next? As you can no
> doubt tell, I am new to this. Thanks.
>
> Jim Beeghly
>
> *
>
>
> *
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Can Rotax be self exciting? |
>
>Could Z-16 (Rotax 912/914 System) incorporate self excitation feature as
>seen in Z25 (note 25) and be self exciting and maintain overvoltage
>protection?
>
>Thx.
>Ron Parigoris
Probably. But this is based on a schematic deduced
by individuals who disassembled a Ducati regulator.
The regulator topology is very close to that of the
regulator sold by B&C so assuming that our presumptions
are accurate and that the diagram has not changed,
the answer would be yes.
Bottom line is that the repeatable experiment rules.
Try it, see what results you get and then let us know
one way or another.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Kevin Horton <khorton01(at)rogers.com> |
| Subject: | Re: High VSWR reading on my antenna lead |
Will a VSWR meter designed for the ham radio band produce valid results with aviation
Com frequencies?
Kevin Horton
"Robert Feldtman" wrote:
> borrow a known good meter from a ham in the area. make sure you set the
> forward power to exactly full deflection, then read the reflected power. you
> may have the gain set way too high. If it is 9 to one the radio would have
> detected this on it's own and decreased the power. I suspect the meter is
> bad or you don't have it adjusted right. get a ham to help you. Don't spend
> more money - get a ham to help you
>
> bobf
> W5RF and glastar owner
>
> ps - don't do it in the hangar - too much metal. roll it outside away from
> the hanger more than 30 feet or so
>
> On 5/22/07, James Beeghly wrote:
> >
> > In the process of building up the avionics for our Wag Aero Super Sport I
> > reached that point where I was ready to power up the used King KY 97A Comm.
> > I had fabricated about a 10 - 12 foot long antenna lead using RG-400 and
> > BNC connectors purchased from B&C (and assembled with a RCT-2 coax crimping
> > tool also from B&C) to connect the comm to a used Cessna antenna (came from
> > a 172.) I plugged in the headset, turned on the radio, and all seemed well.
> > I listened (from inside the hanger) to airport traffic. I briefly keyed
> > the mike and heard myself on the scanner across the hanger.
> >
> > Then I turned off the radio and connected a DAIWA CN 720B SWR meter in the
> > antenna circuit. this involved undoing the BNC connector from the back of
> > the tray (The tray itself is fitted with a bulkhead type of female BNC
> > connector so this was no problem.) The 720 B is a cross needle meter rated
> > up to 150 MHz and with a 5 watt range at the lower end. It has two SO-239
> > connectors on the back, one marked antenna and one transmitter. I had
> > gotten converters to use BNC connectors and had purchased a radio shack
> > premade RG-58 cable, about 6 feet long, to patch the meter to the radio.
> > The antenna lead connected to the Antenna connector on the 720 B.
> >
> > My understanding (I bought this meter on E-bay and do not yet have a
> > manual - one is ordered) is that reading VSWR is a matter of pushing
> > transmit and finding the VSWR line corresponding to where the two needles
> > intersect as they measure forward and reflected watts. If this is correct,
> > my system has a VSWR of 9 or 10. Needless to say, I did not hold the
> > transmit button down for long.
> >
> > I know that I am looking for a VSWR as close to 1 as possible, so this is
> > not acceptable. I don't quite know what to do next. I do not see a way to
> > calibrate the meter. My understanding is that this kind of meter is not
> > supposed to need calibration. I do not see what I could have done wrong in
> > constructing the antenna lead to get this kind of VSWR.
> >
> > I did try another experiment. I took my JVC handheld, and put the meter
> > between it and the whip antenna. There was barely enough power to read
> > VSWR, but it was still in the 9 or 10 range. I then measured VSWR using the
> > JVC feeding the antenna lead and Cessna antenna. The reading for forward
> > power was clearly improved, but the VSWR was still at the same high level.
> > These results make me wonder if there isn't something wrong with the meter
> > (or my measuring technique.)
> >
> > Does anyone have any suggestions for what to consider next? As you can no
> > doubt tell, I am new to this. Thanks.
> >
> > Jim Beeghly
> >
> > *
> >
> >
> > *
> >
> >
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Ni-Cad Capacity check |
>
>Does anyone have a schematic for a capacity checker for small batteries like
>Ni-Cads, etc.
I have a product under development that will do the task
you're asking about. It's a 2.5 x 4 inch etched circuit
board offered in three versions. They hold 4AA,
2AA-2AAA or 4AAA cells and runs them down under a
fixed loading condition. When discharge is completed,
the time that each cell supported its load is reported
by means of voltage readings taken with your shop
mulitimeter. This device will be offered on my website
for about $40.
In the mean time, you might consider this product:
http://westmountainradio.com/CBA_ham.htm
I have one of these and find it quite useful in a
variety of battery studies. It's also been used to
measure and plot data (voltage vs. time) for the
evaluation of a number of battery chargers. See
this example:
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Curves/schumacher_3.jpg
In terms of it's utility and versatility, the
West Mountain Radio product is well worth the money.
It's flexibility allows testing of any cells or array
of cells over discharge current ranges of many amps down
to tens of milliamps.
Finally, the task is simple but the implementation
for a roll-yer-own cap-meter is $time$ consuming.
The goal is to craft a device that applies a load
and records the time that a cell supports that load.
My personal preference for mulit-cell evaluation uses
a data acquisition module from Weeder Technology
analog data input module
http://www.weedtech.com/wtadc-m.pdf
teamed with a computer running a Basic program that
measures and records data with respect to time for
May 10, 2007 - May 23, 2007
AeroElectric-Archive.digest.vol-gx