AeroElectric-Archive.digest.vol-hc
August 01, 2007 - August 15, 2007
Mike Brenner wrote:
> Larry,
>
> The trim switch and LED are both on the panel and PTT is on the stick
> so I'm pretty sure it isn't a switch crossover problem. I will check
> the ground and the connector tomorrow. I also have a headset with a
> PTT button on one of the ear muffs. I've never used it before but
> I'll try transmitting with that and see what happens.
>
> Mike Brenner
> *==============================
>
> *
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Patrick Elliott" <pelliott(at)innercite.com> |
| Subject: | GMCjetpilot T-shirts.. |
After seeing multiple comments about these T shirts, and photos of the
same
in other =91virtual=92 locations, my interest was piqued.
So off to Google I go.
I found and read Bob=92s article on why =93GMCjetpilot=94 was asked to
leave and
some other readings, which only caused me to dig deeper. ( as in scroll
down
the page.)
So in order to help clarify the mystery surrounding the identity of
=91GMCJetpilot=92 and possibly hurt T-shirt sales, I offer this: =93
http://www.myspace.com/gmcjetpilot =93
_____
Patrick Elliott
Not on GMCJetPilots friend list.
541 297 0004
7/31/2007
5:26 PM
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Rich Dodson <r_dodson(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | Re: GMCjetpilot T-shirts.. |
LOL! I think you have too much time on your hands! :-)=0AWell, now we know
that he is, at least, an engineer. I could tell by the grammar and spelli
ng.=0ARich=0ANot on the friends list either....=0A=0A----- Original Message
----=0AFrom: Patrick Elliott <pelliott(at)innercite.com>=0ATo: aeroelectric-l
ist(at)matronics.com=0ASent: Wednesday, August 1, 2007 8:09:14 PM=0ASubject: A
eroElectric-List: GMCjetpilot T-shirts..=0A=0A=0AAfter seeing multiple comm
ents about these T shirts, and photos of the same in other =91virtual=92 lo
cations, my interest was piqued. =0ASo off to Google I go. =0AI found and r
ead Bob=92s article on why =93GMCjetpilot=94 was asked to leave and some ot
her readings, which only caused me to dig deeper. ( as in scroll down the p
age.)=0A =0ASo in order to help clarify the mystery surrounding the identit
y of =91GMCJetpilot=92 and possibly hurt T-shirt sales, I offer this: =93
http://www.myspace.com/gmcjetpilot =93=0A =0A =0A =0A=0A=0A=0APatrick Elli
ott=0A=0A=0ANot on GMCJetPilots friend list.=0A =0A541 297 0004=0A =0A=0A7/
============
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "S. Ramirez" <simon(at)synchronousdesign.com> |
| Subject: | GMCjetpilot T-shirts.. |
I feel so sorry for Pammy and Haley.
Simon Ramirez, Aerocanard Builder
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 Patrick
Elliott
Sent: Wednesday, August 01, 2007 8:09 PM
Subject: AeroElectric-List: GMCjetpilot T-shirts..
After seeing multiple comments about these T shirts, and photos of the same
in other 'virtual' locations, my interest was piqued.
So off to Google I go.
I found and read Bob's article on why "GMCjetpilot" was asked to leave and
some other readings, which only caused me to dig deeper. ( as in scroll down
the page.)
So in order to help clarify the mystery surrounding the identity of
'GMCJetpilot' and possibly hurt T-shirt sales, I offer this: "
http://www.myspace.com/gmcjetpilot "
_____
Patrick Elliott
Not on GMCJetPilots friend list.
541 297 0004
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Vernon Little" <rv-9a-online(at)telus.net> |
Scott, what are the symptoms of your problems? I designed the unit, so I
can help!
Vern Little
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Scott
Sent: August 1, 2007 10:43 AM
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Annunciator Dim
I purchased the Vx Aviation lamp controller with the intent of using it to
control, dim, and provide push-to-test of my incandescent annunciators.
Dispite my best efforts, I haven't been able to make things work as
advertised.
Anyone having experience with annunciator dimming that might be able to
offer suggestions, either with the Vx product or others, would be
appreciated.
Scott Fifield
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Doug Windhorn" <N1DeltaWhiskey(at)comcast.net> |
Bob, et al,
A cohort is having problems with a Century autopilot induced audio noise
into his headphones. From any testing we have done, this appears to be
motor noise (based on spool-up/spool-down noise) transmitted into the power
lines. The Century information indicates that it can produce noise in some
avionics at the 5 kHz level. If it is not power line noise, then it might
be EMF radiation being picked up by the radio or phone circuits.
I have found some information regardng design of a "twin-T band-stop" filter
that could probably be used to filter the offending frequency out of the
offenders power line.
Assume others have probably had this type of problem an wondering how it was
solved.
On the dumb question front, the above circuit references a source and load.
I would normally think of the power supply as the source and the autopilot
the load. But, given the noise is from the autopilot, would it not be the
source and the rest of the circuit the load?
Any insight appreciated.
Doug Windhorn
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Vernon Little" <rv-9a-online(at)telus.net> |
Scott, I assume that you have the datasheet
http://vx-aviation.com/documents/IL-4A.pdf.
It covers all of the wiring and configuration of the device.
Vern
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Scott
Sent: August 1, 2007 10:43 AM
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Annunciator Dim
I purchased the Vx Aviation lamp controller with the intent of using it to
control, dim, and provide push-to-test of my incandescent annunciators.
Dispite my best efforts, I haven't been able to make things work as
advertised.
Anyone having experience with annunciator dimming that might be able to
offer suggestions, either with the Vx product or others, would be
appreciated.
Scott Fifield
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Noise filter |
| From: | Ron Quillin <rjquillin(at)gmail.com> |
At 22:00 8/2/2007, you wrote:
>A cohort is having problems with a Century autopilot induced audio
>noise into his headphones.
What model CFS system is it?
Ron Q.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert Feldtman" <bobf(at)feldtman.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Noise filter |
You might try wrappig about eight wraps of the power, and control cables
through a ferrite bead (palomar engineers)- I assume you are using twisted
pair or coax shielded wire?
bobf
W5RF
On 8/3/07, Doug Windhorn wrote:
>
> N1DeltaWhiskey(at)comcast.net>
>
> Bob, et al,
>
> A cohort is having problems with a Century autopilot induced audio noise
> into his headphones. From any testing we have done, this appears to be
> motor noise (based on spool-up/spool-down noise) transmitted into the
> power
> lines. The Century information indicates that it can produce noise in
> some
> avionics at the 5 kHz level. If it is not power line noise, then it might
> be EMF radiation being picked up by the radio or phone circuits.
>
> I have found some information regardng design of a "twin-T band-stop"
> filter
> that could probably be used to filter the offending frequency out of the
> offenders power line.
>
> Assume others have probably had this type of problem an wondering how it
> was
> solved.
>
> On the dumb question front, the above circuit references a source and
> load.
> I would normally think of the power supply as the source and the autopilot
> the load. But, given the noise is from the autopilot, would it not be the
> source and the rest of the circuit the load?
>
> Any insight appreciated.
>
> Doug Windhorn
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Alex Balic" <velocity_pilot(at)verizon.net> |
| Subject: | Multi functions for a hat switch |
Does anyone know of a schematic that I can use to control the functions of a
hat switch using a 3 position switch to create 3 separate functions for the
hat? The 3 position switch will create the logic for the 3 functions, but I
need some sort of relay board or transistor array to change the routing of
the hat outputs and I have been penciling around and am getting a bit
stumped as to the best way to do it- any help would be appreciated- there
are 4 normally open switches on the hat and the 3 position switch uses 3
wires.......
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Thermocouple wire connections |
| From: | "captbly" <captbly(at)gmail.com> |
Dean,
The material of the connectors do not really matter as long as its the same material
on both sides. Since there is no temperature difference on either side
(as long as you dont have one connector laying against the engine), any effect
is canceled out.
Now if you were making a connection at the firewall you would have a temperature
difference on one side of the connector that would enduce a little bit of an
error, all though this too probably isnt much.
The bigger issue is the mating of the two connectors. I would go with the Vision
connectors (Thomas & Betts) first, when these fastons mate together they are
very difficult to pull apart (a good thing) With the thermocouple wire the
insulation crimp is negligible.
best regards
dave
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=127430#127430
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "B Tomm" <fvalarm(at)rapidnet.net> |
| Subject: | Multi functions for a hat switch |
Alex,
Since no one has replied I will try to answer your question. You need a
quad pole, triple throw switch. One of the various electronic warehouses
may have it such as McMaster-Carr , Electrosonic, etc may have it. Possibly
radio Shack too.
What are you trying to accomplish?
Bevan
RV7A wiring
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Alex
Balic
Sent: Friday, August 03, 2007 10:01 AM
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Multi functions for a hat switch
-->
Does anyone know of a schematic that I can use to control the functions of a
hat switch using a 3 position switch to create 3 separate functions for the
hat? The 3 position switch will create the logic for the 3 functions, but I
need some sort of relay board or transistor array to change the routing of
the hat outputs and I have been penciling around and am getting a bit
stumped as to the best way to do it- any help would be appreciated- there
are 4 normally open switches on the hat and the 3 position switch uses 3
wires.......
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Doug Windhorn" <N1DeltaWhiskey(at)comcast.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Noise filter |
Century 1. Apparently an early model.
Doug
----- Original Message -----
From: "Ron Quillin" <rjquillin(at)gmail.com>
Sent: Friday, 03 August, 2007 1:08
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Noise filter
>
> At 22:00 8/2/2007, you wrote:
>>A cohort is having problems with a Century autopilot induced audio noise
>>into his headphones.
>
> What model CFS system is it?
>
> Ron Q.
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Doug Windhorn" <N1DeltaWhiskey(at)comcast.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Noise filter |
Negative. Sounds like you are suggesting twisted B+ and B- wires might
correct the problem. Correct?
Doug
----- Original Message -----
From: Robert Feldtman
To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Friday, 03 August, 2007 3:37
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Noise filter
You might try wrappig about eight wraps of the power, and control
cables through a ferrite bead (palomar engineers)- I assume you are
using twisted pair or coax shielded wire?
bobf
W5RF
On 8/3/07, Doug Windhorn wrote:
Bob, et al,
A cohort is having problems with a Century autopilot induced audio
noise
into his headphones. From any testing we have done, this appears to
be
motor noise (based on spool-up/spool-down noise) transmitted into
the power
lines. The Century information indicates that it can produce noise
in some
avionics at the 5 kHz level. If it is not power line noise, then it
might
be EMF radiation being picked up by the radio or phone circuits.
I have found some information regardng design of a "twin-T
band-stop" filter
that could probably be used to filter the offending frequency out of
the
offenders power line.
Assume others have probably had this type of problem an wondering
how it was
solved.
On the dumb question front, the above circuit references a source
and load.
I would normally think of the power supply as the source and the
autopilot
the load. But, given the noise is from the autopilot, would it not
be the
source and the rest of the circuit the load?
Any insight appreciated.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Terry Miles" <terrence_miles(at)hotmail.com> |
| Subject: | Multi functions for a hat switch |
You can buy a relay board from Spruce that is designed for hat switch
purpose. Also the same can be had thru Infinity Aerospace that sells a
stick grip and has this board on his product list. Over $100 I think. Or
if you look on his website or write to him, he may have the wiring schematic
available.
Terry
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Alex
Balic
Sent: Friday, August 03, 2007 1:01 PM
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Multi functions for a hat switch
Does anyone know of a schematic that I can use to control the functions of a
hat switch using a 3 position switch to create 3 separate functions for the
hat? The 3 position switch will create the logic for the 3 functions, but I
need some sort of relay board or transistor array to change the routing of
the hat outputs and I have been penciling around and am getting a bit
stumped as to the best way to do it- any help would be appreciated- there
are 4 normally open switches on the hat and the 3 position switch uses 3
wires.......
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Greg Campbell" <gregcampbellusa(at)GMAIL.COM> |
| Subject: | Intermittent vs. Continuous Duty Contactors (was batteries)... |
*Bob wrote:*
This is why we SWITCH starter loads with STARTER CONTACTORS.
These have exceedingly thin and light contacts compared
to *continuous duty contactors* . . . these contacts are
*driven together with much greater force* so as to minimize
the bouncing and contact resistance. See:
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Contactors/S702-1b.jpg
---- To which I'd like to add this little anecdote ---
I recently read where a friend of mine smelled electrical problems
while testing things on the ground and it came from using an
*intermittent duty* "starter" contactor where a
*continuous duty* "master switch" type contactor was called for.
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Lancair_ES/message/8615
To his credit - the box he bought said it contained a continuous duty
contactor.
Unfortunately, the little metal can inside the box was an intermittent duty
contactor.
When he smelled things getting hot on the ground and saw smoke, he shut
everything off
and discovered a cooked contactor in the back and later figured out why.
(The box had contained the wrong part!)
LESSON: Check the contents of those boxes - someone may have switched them
around!
Greg
Lesson #1) - check the contents of the box to make sure it's the correct
item inside.
Lesson #2) - the "starter contactors", as Bob said, are driven together with
more force.
Typically this means their coils draw about 3 or 4 times as much current
as their "continuous duty" brothers. This means more heat in the same area.
This means that the "starter" contactors will get hot and that's why they
need
to cool off between prolonged uses.
It's all about heat dissipation - and that boils down to power over surface
area.
Most of us can relate to a 60 Watt lightbulb.
A "regular" light bulb would be the A-style bulb. You can grab one
and unscrew it after it's been on for awhile. You probably can't hold it -
but you can grab it and spin it out
Just as an example:
Intermittent Duty "Starter" Contactors - may draw 5 or 6 amps.
This lets their coils authoritatively slam the contacts together and
allows for more "spring tension" to break the connection reliably & quickly.
On a 12v system - this translates to about 60 to 70 Watts.
Continuous Duty "Master" Contactors - may draw 1 or 2 amps.
This is enough to switch an infrequent and lower current than a starter.
On a 12v system - this translates to about 12 to 24 Watts.
This comes down to a matter of dissipating the heat. That's a matter of
surface area and wattage. The contactors are typically in the same size
metal "can", so the surface area is the same.
60 Watts spread out over a large volume won't get too hot.
60 Watts spread out over a
Here's a simple way for most folks to visualize the heat dissipation.
It's mostly related to Power divided by Surface Area.
Put a 60 Watt heater inside a toaster oven and it's not much of a toaster.
Put a 60 Watt bulb inside a smaller metal box and you have an Easy Bake
oven.
Put a 60 Watt bulb inside:
- a toaster oven - and it's not much of an oven
- a small metal box and it's an Easy Bake oven
- inside a candelabra size bulb
So for anyone who's not an engineer - here's a simple way to relate
this to how hot things can get:
Imagine grabbing a common 60 Watt or 75 Watt incandescent light bulb
that's been on for an hour with your bare hand. Ouch...
Since the starter contactor is smaller than a regular "Type A" light bulb,
imagine grabbing a 60 Watt candelabra sized light bulb that's been on
for an hour. Ouch + fried skin!
Now imagine grabbing our "continous duty" starter by grabbing
a 15 Watt candelabra bulb. Warm, but not burning hot.
Mount it in a metal can with a little metal standoff bracket -
and no problem letting it run all day long.
Anyway - that's the way I visualize the power and heat dissipation issues
between an intermittent and continuous starter contactor.
It's also the way I judge how hot something should "normally" be.
For example - if you have an EFIS drawing 5 Amps @ 12V,
then you can imagine a 60 Watt light bulb inside a metal box of similar size
to the EFIS - and have enough experience to estimate how warm it might
be after an hour or two of continuous use.
But in the meantime - make sure you double check the part numbers
on your "master switch" contactors and make sure it's not an intermittent
duty!
Fly safe,
Greg
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | <gmcjetpilot(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | Re: GMCjetpilot T-shirts.. |
>Patrick Elliott
>Subject: AeroElectric-List: GMCjetpilot T-shirts..
>
>After seeing multiple comments about these T shirts,
>and photos of the same in other 'virtual' locations, my
>interest was piqued.
Dear Pat:
You seem obsessed with me? Should I alert the authorities?
If any thing happens to me it's Patrick....
BTW, I saw the Tee-shirt and love it. Laughed my tail
off. The guy wore the t-shirt because people last year asked
if he was me. He must be hansom. lol. I get a cut of sales!
Dude, what would possess you to write this and waste every
one's time? What have I done to you? Relevance to aircraft
wiring is what? Are you just making trouble and instigating? I
not impressed. Shame on you. You are "piqued", really? You
are the curious one.
Bob and I had a riff in the past, but all has been well for
months since I learned my lesson; I may not be smart but its
obvious the solution is to not comment, reply or debate any
of Bob's post. I got it!
I realize now the debates where only about tearing people
down and discrediting them. I should have known better than
to get suckered into these endless urination matches. It
never was about clarifying or communication, it's baiting and
argument, ostensibly to ridicule or dis-credit. Just look at the
manifesto on Bob's web site. I suppose I could get my lawyer
since I did not give him permission, but why would any one
spend so much time twisting words around? Its just simple
DC wiring. I see the motive; its not about an honest debate.
Now I don't hold grudges. I could get mad at some of the
comments made towards me and others. One of my earlier
post on aeroelectric Bob let me know he has contempt for
engineers (or persons with engineering degrees)? "I would
never hire an engineer". It sounded like a personal problem.
That should have been a clue to bail.
Who knew going to college was a waste of time and made
you retarded. This is why the USA is losing the technical
edge. Other countries have more engineering grads and
they are beating us technically, but let live, forgive and
forget, right. People are dying in Iraq, bridge collapse....
This is suppose to be fun.
This is old news Patrick, you should move on. I like to learn,
share information and deal in facts and scientific data, not all
this baloney. You posted this, to just say to me, I don't like
you, is really immature baloney. Lets talk about airplanes for
gosh sakes.
>I found and read Bob's article on why "GMCjetpilot" was
>asked to leave and some other readings, which only caused
>me to dig deeper.
Caused me to Dig deeper? Stalker? Weird. You're referring
to "the manifesto"? That's also old news also.
Are you referring to the last blow up, when I said IR
alternators be turned on BEFORE engine start and the fur
ball round of posts that ensued, which was unpleasant? Yea
I said internally regulated alternators should be turned on
before start. What was I thinking?
After 5 calls to regulator manufactures and designers, plus
friends who damaged their alternator by turning them on/off
while spinning under load, I came to my conclusion. I should
have left my comments with out debate or defense. Go
ahead, flip the ALT on after start, off before shut-down under
load, its your alternator. (This applies to stock IR ND's, not
plane-power units, which are wired differently than stock.)
Again, in the future I'll not reply, respond or debate Bob. Its
not a contest.
If I make a comment or suggestion, they will stand alone.
People who understand or appreciate my post/input will
accept them it. Others that want to fight, argue, dismiss and
ridicule my comments. Feel free. You will tango alone.
One post per topic and given with out defense. If you want
the full meal deal explanation of my research, data and
supporting facts, write me. No mystery, ask, I don't bite.
I don't know why Bob and I can't talk? One of my first post,
Bob let me know he hates engineers. "I would never hire an
engineer." Who knew going to college was a waste of time
and makes you retarded. This is why the USA is losing the
technical edge. It sounded like a personal problem.
When Bob wrote the diatribe and posted it on his site, it
starts with a quote of mine (out of context). "No offense to
Bob, but OV relays are a step backwards." That comment is
true in my opinion. We have better options, Plane-Power,
either their internal or externally regulated alternators. If you
have a stock internally regulated alternator and if you feel
you must have extra OV protection....SELL IT and buy a
plane-power unit. It's common sense. If you really care about
the BEST, than buy the best, but don't BAND AID it.
However a good quality stock unit is very reliable and
unlikely to ever fail in a severe over voltage condition, but if
you need it because your panel is expensive/sensitive or
your operations are critical (IFR) than don't mess around
with OV relays.
BTW I just found out Plane-Power will have an external
voltage regulator soon. I currently suggest the Transpo
V1200, OV protected voltage regulator for external
regulation. I do not work for P-P, but I looked into getting into
the business of making alternators for homebuilts years ago.
I gave up when I say what plane-power was doing. The did it
right with proper rotation fans, high altitude brushes,
corrosion protection and in-house manufacture of critical
parts. (B&C is a fine company that Bob has had or has a
relationship with. I just think Plane-Power offers better value,
sorry only an opinion.)
Don't put a band-aid on a cut that needs stitches.
I take full responsibility for my words and have got mad at
Bob and gave him a few digs, but it takes two tango. I
stopped dancing long ago. I realize now the debates where
only about tearing people down and discrediting them. I
should have known better than to get suckered into these
endless urination matches. Nuff said.
Folks lighten up, this is fun stuff, learning and sharing. I
support & appreciate every ones effort 100%, except all the
waste of time arguing for argument sake.
>Patrick Elliott Not on GMCJetPilots friend list.
I'll have to go on without you on my friends list? Life will
go on but will miss you Patrick "piqued" Ellliottt. I'll get a
t-shirt so you can find me at the airshow and tell me off in
person. 27 years ago I started building my first kit plane,
folks where real nice than, helpful and supportive. It would
be nice to get back to those days.
Flame suit and asbestos underwear on.
Cheers
---------------------------------
Park yourself in front of a world of choices in alternative vehicles.
Visit the Yahoo! Auto Green Center.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Glen Matejcek <aerobubba(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Multi functions for a hat switch |
Hi Alex-
>...create 3 separate functions for the
>hat? ...
I know this isn't the response you were looking for, but please be careful about
what you wish for. Having multi functions for each switch on your trim system
sounds like it would be a human factors issue. For example, one day you will
accidentally fire a rocket when all you wanted was to run a little pitch trim...
It's statistically bound to happen. Perhaps not a big deal if there are
no critical, or at least time critical, functions on the switch. However, incorporating
that kind of operational complexity into your cockpit is generally
contrary to the KISS principle.
FWIW-
Glen Matejcek
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "C Smith" <pilot4profit(at)sbcglobal.net> |
| Subject: | GMCjetpilot T-shirts.. |
So This Pat guy writes a couple lines and we get this?
Talk about self obsessed. Dude, put the mirror down.
_____
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of
gmcjetpilot(at)yahoo.com
Sent: Saturday, August 04, 2007 1:50 PM
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: GMCjetpilot T-shirts..
>Patrick Elliott
>Subject: AeroElectric-List: GMCjetpilot T-shirts..
>
>After seeing multiple comments about these T shirts,
>and photos of the same in other 'virtual' locations, my
>interest was piqued.
Dear Pat:
You seem obsessed with me? Should I alert the authorities?
If any thing happens to me it's Patrick....
BTW, I saw the Tee-shirt and love it. Laughed my tail
off. The guy wore the t-shirt because people last year asked
if he was me. He must be hansom. lol. I get a cut of sales!
Dude, what would possess you to write this and waste every
one's time? What have I done to you? Relevance to aircraft
wiring is what? Are you just making trouble and instigating? I
not impressed. Shame on you. You are "piqued", really? You
are the curious one.
Bob and I had a riff in the past, but all has been well for
months since I learned my lesson; I may not be smart but its
obvious the solution is to not comment, reply or debate any
of Bob's post. I got it!
I realize now the debates where only about tearing people
down and discrediting them. I should have known better than
to get suckered into these endless urination matches. It
never was about clarifying or communication, it's baiting and
argument, ostensibly to ridicule or dis-credit. Just look at the
manifesto on Bob's web site. I suppose I could get my lawyer
since I did not give him permission, but why would any one
spend so much time twisting words around? Its just simple
DC wiring. I see the motive; its not about an honest debate.
Now I don't hold grudges. I could get mad at some of the
comments made towards me and others. One of my earlier
post on aeroelectric Bob let me know he has contempt for
engineers (or persons with engineering degrees)? "I would
never hire an engineer". It sounded like a personal problem.
That should have been a clue to bail.
Who knew going to college was a waste of time and made
you retarded. This is why the USA is losing the technical
edge. Other countries have more engineering grads and
they are beating us technically, but let live, forgive and
forget, right. People are dying in Iraq, bridge collapse....
This is suppose to be fun.
This is old news Patrick, you should move on. I like to learn,
share information and deal in facts and scientific data, not all
this baloney. You posted this, to just say to me, I don't like
you, is really immature baloney. Lets talk about airplanes for
gosh sakes.
>I found and read Bob's article on why "GMCjetpilot" was
>asked to leave and some other readings, which only caused
>me to dig deeper.
"Caused me to Dig deeper"? Stalker? Weird. You're referring
to "the manifesto"? That's also old news also.
Are you referring to the last blow up, when I said IR
alternators be turned on BEFORE engine start and the fur
ball round of posts that ensued, which was unpleasant? Yea
I said internally regulated alternators should be turned on
before start. What was I thinking?
After 5 calls to regulator manufactures and designers, plus
friends who damaged their alternator by turning them on/off
while spinning under load, I came to my conclusion. I should
have left my comments with out debate or defense. Go
ahead, flip the ALT on after start, off before shut-down under
load, its your alternator. (This applies to stock IR ND's, not
plane-power units, which are wired differently than stock.)
Again, in the future I'll not reply, respond or debate Bob. Its
not a contest.
If I make a comment or suggestion, they will stand alone.
People who understand or appreciate my post/input will
accept them it. Others that want to fight, argue, dismiss and
ridicule my comments. Feel free. You will tango alone.
One post per topic and given with out defense. If you want
the full meal deal explanation of my research, data and
supporting facts, write me. No mystery, ask, I don't bite.
I don't know why Bob and I can't talk? One of my first post,
Bob let me know he hates engineers. "I would never hire an
engineer." Who knew going to college was a waste of time
and makes you retarded. This is why the USA is losing the
technical edge. It sounded like a personal problem.
When Bob wrote the diatribe and posted it on his site, it
starts with a quote of mine (out of context). "No offense to
Bob, but OV relays are a step backwards." That comment is
true in my opinion. We have better options, Plane-Power,
either their internal or externally regulated alternators. If you
have a stock internally regulated alternator and if you feel
you must have extra OV protection....SELL IT and buy a
plane-power unit. It's common sense. If you really care about
the BEST, than buy the best, but don't BAND AID it.
However a good quality stock unit is very reliable and
unlikely to ever fail in a severe over voltage condition, but if
you need it because your panel is expensive/sensitive or
your operations are critical (IFR) than don't mess around
with OV relays.
BTW I just found out Plane-Power will have an external
voltage regulator soon. I currently suggest the Transpo
V1200, OV protected voltage regulator for external
regulation. I do not work for P-P, but I looked into getting into
the business of making alternators for homebuilts years ago.
I gave up when I say what plane-power was doing. The did it
right with proper rotation fans, high altitude brushes,
corrosion protection and in-house manufacture of critical
parts. (B&C is a fine company that Bob has had or has a
relationship with. I just think Plane-Power offers better value,
sorry only an opinion.)
Don't put a band-aid on a cut that needs stitches.
I take full responsibility for my words and have got mad at
Bob and gave him a few digs, but it takes two tango. I
stopped dancing long ago. I realize now the debates where
only about tearing people down and discrediting them. I
should have known better than to get suckered into these
endless urination matches. Nuff said.
Folks lighten up, this is fun stuff, learning and sharing. I
support & appreciate every ones effort 100%, except all the
waste of time arguing for argument sake.
>Patrick Elliott Not on GMCJetPilots friend list.
I'll have to go on without you on my friends list? Life will
go on but will miss you Patrick "piqued" Ellliottt. I'll get a
t-shirt so you can find me at the airshow and tell me off in
person. 27 years ago I started building my first kit plane,
folks where real nice than, helpful and supportive. It would
be nice to get back to those days.
Flame suit and asbestos underwear on.
Cheers
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Bill Bradburry" <bbradburry(at)bellsouth.net> |
| Subject: | Homemade Aviation Headset |
I am considering trying to make a headset as is described in the link below:
http://www.cozy1200.com/geeklog/article.php?story 070427102533266
I am confused by the fact that the transformer he suggests to use from Radio
Shack is 1000 ohm input/8 ohm output. The plane system is going to be
looking for a 600 ohm input???
What will this 1000 ohm transformer do to the plane system? Will it harm
it? Will the system output be louder or softer with the 1000 ohm than it
would have been with a 600 ohm transformer?
If I knew what I was doing here I would probably afraid to proceed. As it
is I am fearless....:>)
Thanks for your assistance.
Bill B
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Ernest Christley <echristley(at)nc.rr.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Homemade Aviation Headset |
Bill Bradburry wrote:
>
> I am considering trying to make a headset as is described in the link below:
>
> http://www.cozy1200.com/geeklog/article.php?story 070427102533266
>
> I am confused by the fact that the transformer he suggests to use from Radio
> Shack is 1000 ohm input/8 ohm output. The plane system is going to be
> looking for a 600 ohm input???
>
> What will this 1000 ohm transformer do to the plane system? Will it harm
> it? Will the system output be louder or softer with the 1000 ohm than it
> would have been with a 600 ohm transformer?
>
> If I knew what I was doing here I would probably afraid to proceed. As it
> is I am fearless....:>)
>
> Thanks for your assistance.
>
>
Bill, I just made a set and tested it in both my embryonic project and
it a fellow chapter member's Cherokee. I used Phillips ANR earplugs. I
used the 1/4" adapter supplied with the earbuds and got excellent audio
quality.
I used a $2.59 electret microphone from Radio Shack. In the Cherokee,
the voice quality was BETTER through the Radio Shack mic, wired directly
to a homemade 3/16" mic plug with no additional electronics, than
through my Telex Echelon headsets. I do not know what sort of
intercom he was using. I built one of RST-Engineering's intercoms for
my project. The Radio Shack mic was obviously loading down the input
circuit to the intercom (it draws amplifying power from the input
circuit). The voice input was fine with my homemade headset or the
Echelons if used individually, but dropped to a very low level if both
were plugged in simultaneously.
--
"Life is not a journey to the grave with the intention of arriving safely in
a pretty and well preserved body, but rather to skid in broadside,
thoroughly used up, totally worn out, with chocolate in one hand and wine in
the other, loudly proclaiming 'WOO HOO What a Ride!'"
--Unknown
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Homemade Aviation Headset |
"Bill Bradburry" wrote:
>
> I am considering trying to make a headset as is described in the link below:
>
> http://www.cozy1200.com/geeklog/article.php?story 070427102533266
>
> I am confused by the fact that the transformer he suggests to use from Radio
> Shack is 1000 ohm input/8 ohm output. The plane system is going to be
> looking for a 600 ohm input???
>
> What will this 1000 ohm transformer do to the plane system? Will it harm
> it? Will the system output be louder or softer with the 1000 ohm than it
> would have been with a 600 ohm transformer?
>
> If I knew what I was doing here I would probably afraid to proceed. As it
> is I am fearless....:>)
>
> Thanks for your assistance.
>
> Bill B
Hi Bill,
The 1000 ohm transformer will not load a 600 ohm circuit quite as
much. In audio circuits, you need to match impedance to maximize power
transfer. If you don't need maximum power transfer, and you probably
don't, it should work just fine.
Bob W.
--
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: | GMCjetpilot T-shirts.. |
>So This Pat guy writes a couple lines and we get this?
>Talk about self obsessed. Dude, put the mirror down.
>
>
>----------
>From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
>[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of
>gmcjetpilot(at)yahoo.com
>Sent: Saturday, August 04, 2007 1:50 PM
>To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
>Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: GMCjetpilot T-shirts..
>
> >Patrick Elliott
> >Subject: AeroElectric-List: GMCjetpilot T-shirts..
> >
> >After seeing multiple comments about these T shirts,
> >and photos of the same in other 'virtual' locations, my
> >interest was piqued.
>
>Dear Pat:
>
>You seem obsessed with me? Should I alert the authorities?
>If any thing happens to me it's Patrick....
Gentlemen, this List should be for the posting, sifting
and assemblage of simple-ideas into repeatable experiments.
The IDEAS should be subject to intense scrutiny for the
purpose of gaining understanding and ultimately deciding
whether or not the idea is useful or even correct.
By carrying this thread beyond the simple notice
that someone was publicly advertising his/her
personal projections about another person does
not speak well of us. I'll suggest that we each
endeavor to evaluate things said of us under the
microscope of personal critical review. Nobody knows
you better than you. When evaluating something
said of you, it's either (1) true and worthy
of further consideration or (2) false and not
worthy of further consideration beyond a simple
defense. Hence, none of us needs to fall victim
to feelings of injury or insult.
When we make the conversations about people, there
is no value to be added anywhere, no repeatable
experiment to be identified except to demonstrate
what has already been shown: Some folks are
unwilling or incapable of entering into critical
thought without projecting their own vision
(usually negative) of others thus driving the
conversation out of the practical and into the personal.
Folks who speak the truth about you are teachers.
Those who do not have a dishonorable agenda or
a socio-pathological condition.
We should strive for accurate and factual in
defense against an conscious agenda for this is honorable
behavior. But to make fun of those who may not be able
to help themselves does not speak well of us.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Carl Peters <say.ahh1(at)verizon.net> |
| Subject: | Re: GMCjetpilot T-shirts.. |
George,
Please don't get caught up in this drivel. Some of us appreciate your
long and thoughtful responses. After a year of reading these posts, I
notice you put a bit of time and effort into them. Beats the "check the
archives" that many write. It is up to the builder to read, further
research, learn, and decide on the matters brought forward. There will
always be differing opinions - just today read Greg Richter's booklet
and saw his lecture at Osh. There were some obvious differences in
aircraft electrical system design compared to the philosophies of Mr.
Nuckolls (what a wonderful teacher after spending a year perusing his
writings). It is up to ME as a newbie to decide which is best, more
accurate and will best fit my needs. Whether I end up agreeing with your
opinion on a topic matters not. But I do appreciate anyone who spends
the time and effort as you do. Thanks for your contributions and please
keep them up.
Carl
PS - My apologies to the group for furthering this thread, but things
were getting a little nasty. I know most of you share the fellowship
that usually pervades these posts and what I saw amongst RV'ers at Osh.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Deene Ogden " <deene(at)austin.rr.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Thermocouple wire connections |
Easy solution is to connect hat switch common to -+14v and each other hat
contact to each of the three relay board coil -+ connections respectively.
Then use the three way switch to select the desired relay common coil ground
connection to ground.
Deene Ogden
EAA Tech Counselor/Flight Advisor
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "John Wayne" <jwayne_1652(at)fuse.net> |
| Subject: | Aero-Electric Chat Room |
I have recently found the AeroElectric-List Digest Archive.
Unfortunately, it appears to have become a chat room instead of a
constructive exchange of useful information.
I would hope that it would return to what I believe was its original
intent.
John K. Wayne
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | AEC9011 and other worries . . . |
>Hope your trip to Osh went well. I am still interested in the AEC9011
>module for the Z-19RB diagram. Can you give me an estimate as to when
>this module will be available? I will be using the Eggenfellner engine
>with an internally regulated alternator. Can you also give me design
>modifications to your schematic to suit this application? I wish I could
>use an externally regulated alternator, but at this time that isn t an
>option.
I'm not sure that's true. I'm told that Plane Power is
going to be offering an externally regulated alternator.
Check with them to see how long that will be.
Keep in mind that you don't need an alternator
installed on your airplane until time for first
flight. How far away are you from flying? I wouldn't
spend a LOT of time praying over present options especially
if a lack of understanding and knowledge may be
driving your anxiety levels upward.
>There surely is something I can include in my design to make this
>alternator application as safe as possible. Eggenfellner isn t offering
>any changes in alternator options. Your help would be greatly
>appreciated. I am working with Tim Hedding from B&C Electronics and
>purchasing all hardware from their supply if available. You might be more
>aware of what they stock and recommend something.
Beyond incorporation of ov protection there are
no SAFETY issues that should drive your alternator
selection. Many folks seem to feel that they're
flying around with a fused bomb that only waiting
for some opportune time to light up and ruin their
day. Alternators are indeed capable of extreme
and expensive misbehavior but they are never
a safety concern in a properly architectured,
adequately maintained system, only a cost-of-
ownership concern.
>Do I need a separate avionics master switch for the Z-19 design? Everyone
>seems to think about protecting the avionics, or is the 7A fuse to the
>E-bus built-in protection?
Go to the website front page and do a search on
"avionics master". If one were useful, it would have
appeared on the Z-figures.
> Can the (1-7) switch for the volt meter be exchanged for a (2-1)
> switch? This might give the option of continuous monitoring voltage on
> either battery.
Yes, you can adjust functionality of any Z-figure
to address your wants and desires. The Z-figures are
illustrations of architecture with some parts selection
and system fabrication details. But the primary value
of the Z-figures are to lay the ground-work for
a minimum-parts count, simplest-operation system to
achieve the desired operability.
If it's absolutely necessary that a decision be made
today, get a Plane Power alternator. Install the AEC9011
when it becomes available later this summer and you'll
be done.
If you can provide me with a set of Eggenflener's
drawings, perhaps I can tailor Z-19 to be a tad more
specific to this engine.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Fergus Kyle" <VE3LVO(at)rac.ca> |
| Subject: | BATTERY MASTER SWITCH |
Cheers,
I'm still searching for that elusive device - in an attempt to avoid
the cost of an ampere or two of contactor current - which will control a
primary battery source and another for secondary battery source.
I have found several which meet one criterion or another, but not
all:
[a] should carry as much current as a contactor for that job;
[b] needs to be an up-down rather than rotary type switch;
[c] should be on a remote(able) stalk so I can undo the connection to
remove the instrument panel ;
[d] cost less than the usual contactor - or at least be competitive.
I have devised a system to isolate the controls from wandering
fingers so am not fussy about security. I'm not sure what a "Kill switch" is
really.
Any help would be most appreciated.
Ferg
Classic 914 CS prop mono
PS: My server is down for the last 2 days, so my thanks will be
delayed.........
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Aero-Electric Chat Room |
>I have recently found the AeroElectric-List Digest
>Archive. Unfortunately, it appears to have become a chat room instead of
>a constructive exchange of useful information.
>
>I would hope that it would return to what I believe was its original intent.
This is a fundamental condition for every "wide open"
forum. This is why one needs to be adept at using the
search functions. You'll find that adjustment of search
terms and honing your scanning skills will offer a strong
filtering function for separating chaff from the good stuff.
The archives were never intended to be a short-cut, in
fact it may be a longer path to the answer sought than
to simply repeat the topic on today's postings. However,
the archives offer a greater depth of coverage than
you might get from a lick-and-a-promise exchange on
the current list.
I'm sorry my friend but education is never a simple,
time-frugal endeavor. If it were, everybody would be
smart.
I've attempted to condense the salient features of
some topics into articles on the website. I'll suggest
you being with a search at
http://aeroelectric.com
and expand the search if you don't get the needed help
there.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "John McMahon" <blackoaks(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Intermittent vs. Continuous Duty Contactors (was |
batteries)...
Greg or Bob , I know that there is an electrical way of telling the two
apart in the Connection, but do you know if there is a way to tell them
apart visually? All mine as they came with the firewall from Lancair seem
to look alike, even to the stenciled numbers on them?
> **
>
--
John McMahon
Lancair Super ES, S/N 170, N9637M (Reserved)
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Optimal bus voltage set point . . . |
>Comments/Questions: I plan on using a gell cell battery in my Glasair and
>have been told that I must set the charging voltage at a different level
>if I do not want to damage the battery. No one is able to tell me what
>voltage level I should use.So much for these self styled experts ,eh?
>Can you help?
>Stan
No special considerations. Set for 14.2 volts nominal.
There ARE "optimal" modes of operation for best life
in the lab . . . which are generally impractical in the
field and overshadowed by other, much more significant
stresses.
Install it, run it, check for capacity after first
year and replace when capacity drops below your
personally defined endurance minimums. The act of
"tweaking" nominal bus voltage for the purpose of
maximizing service life will be exceedingly difficult
to validate and probably not improve on service life
by more than a few percent.
Bob . . .
----------------------------------------
( IF one wishes to be "world class" at )
( anything, what ever you do must be )
( exercised EVERY day . . . )
( R. L. Nuckolls III )
----------------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Intermittent vs. Continuous Duty Contactors (was |
batteries)...
>Greg or Bob , I know that there is an electrical way of telling the two
>apart in the Connection, but do you know if there is a way to tell them
>apart visually? All mine as they came with the firewall from Lancair seem
>to look alike, even to the stenciled numbers on them?
No. Put an ohmmeter on them. A continuous duty contactor
will NEVER measure under 6 ohms while an intermittent
duty device is always under 6 ohms.
Or wire to battery and measure coil current. A tennis
ball sized contactor that dissipates more than 20 watts
is in deep doo-doo in a matter of minutes. 1.5 A draw
from a 12v battery is 18 watts . . . .
An intermittent duty device will draw 3-5 amps, 36 to
60 watts.
Bob . . .
----------------------------------------
( "Physics is like sex: sure, it may )
( give some practical results, but )
( that's not why we do it." )
( )
( Richard P. Feynman )
----------------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Ken <klehman(at)albedo.net> |
| Subject: | Strobe whoop whoop wine |
>
>
>> We have completed 130 flight hours with our Z-14 wired subaru now
>> without any nuisance OV trips. The only electrical issue is that I
>> recently purchased a comfortable David Clarke headset and with our
>> fairly quiet engine, I now hear weak but annoying strobe whine that I
>> couldn't hear in cruise with other headsets. I have already followed
>> most of your wiring recommendations so it may take me awhile to solve
>> this one especially since the strobes operate off a different
>> alternator and battery as the radio and intercom.
>
>
> Start with a test battery made up of a couple 6v
> lantern batteries to run the strobe supply with a
> short cable and batteries located right at the power
> supply. You need to deduce the propagation mode. I suspect
> it's conducted and a relatively simple filter at the
> power supply will fix it.
>
> Bob . . .
>
It is a pain to pull my wingtips to get at the aeroflash power supplies
and I have not done that yet. However I have powered the strobes from a
separate battery with their normal fuse pulled and I still hear the
noise faintly in the headset even with the engine, master switch,
intercom, and radio turned OFF. It is a bit louder with the intercom
powered up but I was not expecting to hear it with the intercom and
radio turned off. It is a metal airframe and the strobe power supplies,
the comm radio, and the intercom are all grounded to the airframe
because they are all internally grounded to their respective cases. The
headset jacks are insulated from the airframe (in a plastic box) and
wired with shielded wire. Thinking it could be a ground loop situation
I tried grounding the temporary battery to a screw on the wing spar but
it did not seem to make a difference. Adding some inductance to the
+power lead and some electrolytic capacitors made no diference.
Before I pull the wingtips I'd like to have a plan and any needed parts
on hand. I will look for some automotive radio power supply filters and
pick up some nylon bolts to insulate the power supply from the airframe.
Any other suggestions? Is there any point adding some capacitance to
the headphone audio circuit to try and bypass some of the higer
frequencies. This noise was not bothering me until I replaced one
headset with a DC H10-13.4.
thanks
Ken
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: ...T-shirts.. |
Henador Titzoff a crit :
> They're talking about a nice song in French and Spanish...
Wait a minute...I'm French ;-)
Sorry, no moustache, no beret, no baguette...
Best regards,
--
Gilles
http://contrails.free.fr
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | <psiegel(at)fuse.net> |
| Subject: | Antenna for second com radio |
To get ready for the 2008 AirVenture Cup Race, I am conducting a drag reduction
program on my all metal Evo. I would like to eliminate one of the two external
surface com antennae from the belly.
Two options seem available, an antenna mounted in the cockpit behind the passenger
seat on the aft cockpit bulkhead, or a thin wire antenna taped to the windscreen
(not unlike the thin wire antennae found in windshields on automobiles.)
Any suggestions from the list members on how to proceed?
If I use the taped wire antenna on the windscreen, should I use the same system
as used on copper foil entennae on composite aircraft but substituting a thin
wire for the copper foil?
Thanks in advance for any help or suggestions!
Paul Siegel N4XU
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "r falstad" <bobair8(at)msn.com> |
| Subject: | Powering a Camcorder to Record Flight Tests |
I have an old analog Sony Handycam (CCD-FX310) that I'd like to mount in
the cockpit to record my upcoming flight tests. Batteries are expensive
and don't last long -- I'd like to use ship's power. It has a 110VAC to
7.5VDC power brick (Sony Model AC-V35) with a special adapter plate that
clicks into the place where the battery would go. The brick says the
output is 7.5VDC & 1.6A. I'd like to cut the cord between the brick and
the adapter plate, insert a set of connectors and make a pigtail with a
matching connector on one end and a cigarette lighter plug on the other.
Because of the voltage difference (14VDC - 7.5VDC), it looks like I'll
need about a 4 ohm resistor to drop the 6.5VDC. It looks like the power
consumption will be about 10.4 Watts. The closest thing I could find on
Radio Shack's website is either a 1 ohm or 10 ohm, 10 Amp, 10%
wire-wound power resistor (Catalog No. 271-131). There was no
indication how large they are physically. In theory, I could chain four
of the 1 ohm units together.
Is my thinking correct? All I want is to power the camcorder from
ship's power. Any recommendations on connectors and any critique on the
idea of simply putting a resistor (and a fuse) in the pigtail/circuit to
reduce the voltage? Is there any other power conditioning I should do?
Best regards,
Bob
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Carl Morgan" <zk-vii(at)rvproject.gen.nz> |
| Subject: | Powering a Camcorder to Record Flight Tests |
Hi Bob,
Depending on how complicated you want to get. A LM2579 plus a few external
components (a schotty diode, a couple of caps / resistors and an inductor)
can provide a switched DC-DC step down supply <3A.
http://www.onsemi.com/pub/Collateral/LM2576-D.PDF
Total parts from digikey / mouser should be < $20 I would hope.
Regards,
Carl (working on a Canon DV camera power feed ;-)
--
ZK-VII - RV 7A QB - still finishing? - New Zealand
http://www.rvproject.gen.nz/
-----Original Message-----
From: r falstad [mailto:bobair8(at)msn.com]
Sent: Tuesday, 7 August 2007 1:13 p.m.
To: AEROELECTRIC LIST
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Powering a Camcorder to Record Flight Tests
I have an old analog Sony Handycam (CCD-FX310) that I'd like to mount in
the cockpit to record my upcoming flight tests. Batteries are expensive and
don't last long -- I'd like to use ship's power. It has a 110VAC to 7.5VDC
power brick (Sony Model AC-V35) with a special adapter plate that clicks
into the place where the battery would go. The brick says the output is
7.5VDC & 1.6A. I'd like to cut the cord between the brick and the adapter
plate, insert a set of connectors and make a pigtail with a matching
connector on one end and a cigarette lighter plug on the other.
Because of the voltage difference (14VDC - 7.5VDC), it looks like I'll
need about a 4 ohm resistor to drop the 6.5VDC. It looks like the power
consumption will be about 10.4 Watts. The closest thing I could find on
Radio Shack's website is either a 1 ohm or 10 ohm, 10 Amp, 10% wire-wound
power resistor (Catalog No. 271-131). There was no indication how large
they are physically. In theory, I could chain four of the 1 ohm units
together.
Is my thinking correct? All I want is to power the camcorder from ship's
power. Any recommendations on connectors and any critique on the idea of
simply putting a resistor (and a fuse) in the pigtail/circuit to reduce the
voltage? Is there any other power conditioning I should do?
Best regards,
Bob
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Powering a Camcorder to Record Flight Tests |
| From: | "Eric M. Jones" <emjones(at)charter.net> |
Your calculations on how to do this show why it isn't usually done with resistors.
Resistors also presume constant load, which in general is not often true.
If you had to do this in a hurry you could simply wire a 6V lamp in series. But
the right way to do it is a linear regulator chip like the LM350.
See: http://www.national.com/mpf/LM/LM350.html. The LM317 can be used, but is 1.5A. The LM350 is the same part at 3A.
"Don't worry about people stealing an idea. If it's original, you will have to
ram it down their throats."
-- Howard Aiken
--------
Eric M. Jones
www.PerihelionDesign.com
113 Brentwood Drive
Southbridge, MA 01550
(508) 764-2072
emjones(at)charter.net
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=127880#127880
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Ernest Christley <echristley(at)nc.rr.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Powering a Camcorder to Record Flight Tests |
r falstad wrote:
> I have an old analog Sony Handycam (CCD-FX310) that I'd like to mount in the
cockpit to record my upcoming flight tests. Batteries are expensive and don't
last long -- I'd like to use ship's power. It has a 110VAC to 7.5VDC power brick
(Sony Model AC-V35) with a special adapter plate that clicks into the place
where the battery would go. The brick says the output is 7.5VDC & 1.6A. I'd
like to cut the cord between the brick and the adapter plate, insert a set
of connectors and make a pigtail with a matching connector on one end and a cigarette
lighter plug on the other.
>
> Because of the voltage difference (14VDC - 7.5VDC), it looks like I'll need about
a 4 ohm resistor to drop the 6.5VDC. It looks like the power consumption
will be about 10.4 Watts. The closest thing I could find on Radio Shack's website
is either a 1 ohm or 10 ohm, 10 Amp, 10% wire-wound power resistor (Catalog
No. 271-131). There was no indication how large they are physically. In
theory, I could chain four of the 1 ohm units together.
>
> Is my thinking correct? All I want is to power the camcorder from ship's power.
Any recommendations on connectors and any critique on the idea of simply
putting a resistor (and a fuse) in the pigtail/circuit to reduce the voltage?
Is there any other power conditioning I should do?
>
> Best regards,
>
> Bob
>
>
Seems to be a lot of work for a temporary use that could be holding up
your flight tests. You can get a 70watt inverter for about $20 that
will plug into the cigarette lighter jack. Then you can use your
adapter plate as-is, don't have to worry that you got all the
electronics modified correctly, and won't regret cutting the cord at
some point in the future.
--
"Life is not a journey to the grave with the intention of arriving safely in
a pretty and well preserved body, but rather to skid in broadside,
thoroughly used up, totally worn out, with chocolate in one hand and wine in
the other, loudly proclaiming 'WOO HOO What a Ride!'"
--Unknown
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Bob McCallum" <robert.mccallum2(at)sympatico.ca> |
| Subject: | Re: Powering a Camcorder to Record Flight Tests |
Bob;
One of the shortcomings of doing it with a simple resistor is that the
Camcorder's current draw will vary as you record, or go to standby,
zoom, or turn it on/off etc. (It's not constant at that 1.6 Amp figure,
that's just a max) Therefore the voltage you're applying to it will vary
(perhaps drastically, all the way up to the supply voltage) and the
camcorder may not like that. (As the current requirement falls so does
the voltage drop across your resistor and therefore a greater voltage is
applied to your camcorder than you planned for)
Bob McC
----- Original Message -----
From: r falstad
To: AEROELECTRIC LIST
Sent: Monday, August 06, 2007 9:13 PM
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Powering a Camcorder to Record Flight
Tests
I have an old analog Sony Handycam (CCD-FX310) that I'd like to mount
in the cockpit to record my upcoming flight tests. Batteries are
expensive and don't last long -- I'd like to use ship's power. It has a
110VAC to 7.5VDC power brick (Sony Model AC-V35) with a special adapter
plate that clicks into the place where the battery would go. The brick
says the output is 7.5VDC & 1.6A. I'd like to cut the cord between the
brick and the adapter plate, insert a set of connectors and make a
pigtail with a matching connector on one end and a cigarette lighter
plug on the other.
Because of the voltage difference (14VDC - 7.5VDC), it looks like I'll
need about a 4 ohm resistor to drop the 6.5VDC. It looks like the power
consumption will be about 10.4 Watts. The closest thing I could find on
Radio Shack's website is either a 1 ohm or 10 ohm, 10 Amp, 10%
wire-wound power resistor (Catalog No. 271-131). There was no
indication how large they are physically. In theory, I could chain four
of the 1 ohm units together.
Is my thinking correct? All I want is to power the camcorder from
ship's power. Any recommendations on connectors and any critique on the
idea of simply putting a resistor (and a fuse) in the pigtail/circuit to
reduce the voltage? Is there any other power conditioning I should do?
Best regards,
Bob
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Powering a Camcorder to Record Flight Tests |
| From: | Ron Quillin <rjquillin(at)gmail.com> |
At 19:13 8/6/2007, you wrote:
>Seems to be a lot of work for a temporary use that could be holding
>up your flight tests. You can get a 70watt inverter for about $20
>that will plug into the cigarette lighter jack. Then you can use
>your adapter plate as-is, don't have to worry that you got all the
>electronics modified correctly, and won't regret cutting the cord at
>some point in the future.
Or just purchase a car-cord for the unit...
http://www.ebuybatteries.com/product/models/2_Sony-NP-77-AC-charger_Sony+CCD-FX310.htm
http://www.dc-battery.com.au/sony-np77-battery-charger-p-1330.html
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "S. Ramirez" <simon(at)synchronousdesign.com> |
| Subject: | Powering a Camcorder to Record Flight Tests |
Bob,
Th other guys are correct about using a resistor to drop the voltage.
It
will have varying voltage at the load, as it draws varying current. Not
a
good way to go.
You need a voltage regulator. Someone earlier suggested that you need a
linear voltage regulator. The problem with this solution is that it
will
dissipate (not consume) 6.5V*1.6A = 10.4W. That's a lot of power, and
you
will have to heat sink it very heftily. It does have the advantage of
providing the cleanest output, though, if you can handle the heat
sinking.
Another solution is to go with a packaged switching voltage regulator.
Digi-Key has the TI PT78HT208H (Digi-Key pn 296-20250-ND) in stock for
USD
$16.20. It outputs 8.0V at 2.0A all day long. Can you handle 8.0V =B1
2%?
Can you handle output voltage ripple of =B11% (0.08V)? If you can, this
may
be the way to go. This part comes in an EFA package, which is about 1
inch
X .90 inch X .31 inch.
Unfortunately, it needs a 1 uF ceramic capacitor C1 at the input and a
100
uF electrolytic capacitor C2 at the output. Here are some examples:
Digi-Key pn493-1283-ND
100 uF, 16V, electrolytic, radial, 20%, general purpose, min buy
1,
price USD $0.14 each
Digi-Key pn 478-4504-ND
1 uF, 50V, ceramic, 10%, radial, general purpose, min buy 1,
price
USD $9.02 each
All parts above are RoHS, so soldering will be about the same temp.
Since Digi-Key has a USD $5 handling charge for orders less than USD
$25,
you can throw these caps into the same order to get it above $25. I
would
strongly advise you looking at the datasheets to know what you are
getting
into, but I believe that this combo of parts would suit your
requirements,
if you can handle 8 VDC =B1 the tolerances above.
Simon Ramirez, Aerocanard Builder
Flying LEZ
Copyright =A9 2007
_____
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of r
falstad
Sent: Monday, August 06, 2007 9:13 PM
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Powering a Camcorder to Record Flight Tests
I have an old analog Sony Handycam (CCD-FX310) that I'd like to mount in
the
cockpit to record my upcoming flight tests. Batteries are expensive and
don't last long -- I'd like to use ship's power. It has a 110VAC to
7.5VDC
power brick (Sony Model AC-V35) with a special adapter plate that clicks
into the place where the battery would go. The brick says the output is
7.5VDC & 1.6A. I'd like to cut the cord between the brick and the
adapter
plate, insert a set of connectors and make a pigtail with a matching
connector on one end and a cigarette lighter plug on the other.
Because of the voltage difference (14VDC - 7.5VDC), it looks like I'll
need
about a 4 ohm resistor to drop the 6.5VDC. It looks like the power
consumption will be about 10.4 Watts. The closest thing I could find on
Radio Shack's website is either a 1 ohm or 10 ohm, 10 Amp, 10%
wire-wound
power resistor (Catalog No. 271-131). There was no indication how large
they are physically. In theory, I could chain four of the 1 ohm units
together.
Is my thinking correct? All I want is to power the camcorder from
ship's
power. Any recommendations on connectors and any critique on the idea
of
simply putting a resistor (and a fuse) in the pigtail/circuit to reduce
the
voltage? Is there any other power conditioning I should do?
Best regards,
Bob
7.5.476 /
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Carl Peters <say.ahh1(at)verizon.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Homemade Aviation Headset |
Getting ready to do the same, and have all the parts and an old headset
to gut for the mic, cords, and plugs.
A couple simple Q's:
1) And the most basic of questions - if I build a stereo headset, is
there any problem with a stereo plug in a mono intercom system jack? I
assume I will just hear monaural sound.
2) One builder put in pots and another just added resistors to adjust
the ear speakers to match other headsets (in case someone flying with
you uses a different headset) - has anyone built one without these? I
guess I will need to experiment, and it will depend on the sensitivity
of the in-ear speakers. I did get the Comply headset with their
proprietary tips that are wonderful. The set looks to be the same from
TrickAudio. Haven't tested in the air, but cuts out the wife and kids
nicely...I mean excessive noises. After two hours in the ear, the
comfort is wonderful - really don't notice the tips. The set is nice
enough that I will have it jack separately into the project box so I can
use them elsewhere besides the plane.
http://www.canardzone.com/members/nickugolini/CuplessHeadet/cupless_headset.htm
http://www.cozy1200.com/geeklog/index.php
http://www.trickearphones.com/index.htm
Carl
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Bill Maxwell" <wrmaxwell(at)bigpond.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Homemade Aviation Headset |
and if you run two such headsets at the same time, the 1000 ohms falls to
500 ohms, a much better match?
Bill
----- Original Message -----
From: "Bob White" <bob@bob-white.com>
Sent: Monday, August 06, 2007 2:02 AM
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Homemade Aviation Headset
>
> "Bill Bradburry" wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> I am considering trying to make a headset as is described in the link
>> below:
>>
>> http://www.cozy1200.com/geeklog/article.php?story 070427102533266
>>
>> I am confused by the fact that the transformer he suggests to use from
>> Radio
>> Shack is 1000 ohm input/8 ohm output. The plane system is going to be
>> looking for a 600 ohm input???
>>
>> What will this 1000 ohm transformer do to the plane system? Will it harm
>> it? Will the system output be louder or softer with the 1000 ohm than it
>> would have been with a 600 ohm transformer?
>>
>> If I knew what I was doing here I would probably afraid to proceed. As
>> it
>> is I am fearless....:>)
>>
>> Thanks for your assistance.
>>
>> Bill B
>
> Hi Bill,
>
> The 1000 ohm transformer will not load a 600 ohm circuit quite as
> much. In audio circuits, you need to match impedance to maximize power
> transfer. If you don't need maximum power transfer, and you probably
> don't, it should work just fine.
>
> Bob W.
>
> --
> 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: | Ernest Christley <echristley(at)nc.rr.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Homemade Aviation Headset |
Carl Peters wrote:
>
>
> Getting ready to do the same, and have all the parts and an old
> headset to gut for the mic, cords, and plugs.
> A couple simple Q's:
> 1) And the most basic of questions - if I build a stereo headset, is
> there any problem with a stereo plug in a mono intercom system jack? I
> assume I will just hear monaural sound.
No the stereo plug was designed around the mono plug to be
interchangable. You'll simply get sound in one ear when you plug a
stereo headphone into a mono jack.
My intercom is mono, and I don't want to modify the headphones (so that
I can use them elsewhere, as you state). The stereo jack has three
contacts: ground, left and right. The stereo plug has 3 regions. The
sleeve closest to the plastic is ground. The middle area is left and
the tip is right (I think. I may have left and right reversed). By
jumpering the left and right together in the jack, I get sound in both
ears without modifying the phones. This also drops the 1000ohm to 500
as Bill stated.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Ernest Christley <echristley(at)nc.rr.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Homemade Aviation Headset |
Carl Peters wrote:
> 2) One builder put in pots and another just added resistors to adjust
> the ear speakers to match other headsets (in case someone flying with
> you uses a different headset) - has anyone built one without these? I
> guess I will need to experiment, and it will depend on the sensitivity
> of the in-ear speakers.
The intercom has a volume control. Most aviation headsets have a volume
control. I'll set the volume to my comfort with the intercom, and let
everyone else adjust to that. If it gets to be a problem, a pot can be
added easily enough later.
Another option is that there are lots of earbuds with inline volume
control already.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Harley <harley(at)AgelessWings.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Powering a Camcorder to Record Flight Tests |
Have you considered simply buying a new camera? The new snapshot
cameras also do video as good as the digital camcorders. Kinda an
all-in-one.
I just got a Fuji V10 from Tiger Direct for $170 that not only takes 5
MB photos, but has an almost unlimited video feature (and it does it in
AVI...uncompressed...format..best quality...results look - and are-
BETTER than my JVC analog video camera). Has a card slot, which Fuji
uses their own more expensive XD cards in, but with the 1 GB XD card
that came with it, I'm all set for 15 minute videos.
You don't have to get a Fuji, though. Todays newer cameras have all the
featueres of ones just a month or two old. Look for a camera that uses
the cheaper SD cards, and get a couple of $20 2GB cards, and you'll be
set for hour long videos. Video length is limited only by the size or
number of the SD cards.
It also has several neat games built in to keep the GIB or KIB (Kid In
Back) busy on long trips.
www.dpreview.com/news/0601/06010403fuji_v10.asp
As someone else mentioned, get a universal car power cord from Radio
Shack and with the camera's standard tripod mount, you could mount it
just about anywhere in the plane with a tripod screw. Haven't tested
the battery yet for longevity, but it lasts for days. I take many
pictures daily...took a 15 minute video and a bunch of flash pictures at
a family gathering last Friday, transferred them to the computer and the
battery indicator still read full.
Has full normal video...30 frames per second at 640 x 480 pixels, so
it's as good as any analog unit. Also has NTSC output for TV viewing,
sound, built in slide show option, etc.
Look around and you'll probably find a better one cheaper now...they
seem to upgrade monthly!
Harley Dixon
------------------------------------------------------------------------
r falstad wrote:
> I have an old analog Sony Handycam (CCD-FX310) that I'd like to mount
> in the cockpit to record my upcoming flight tests. Batteries are
> expensive and don't last long -- I'd like to use ship's power. It has
> a 110VAC to 7.5VDC power brick (Sony Model AC-V35) with a special
> adapter plate that clicks into the place where the battery would go.
> The brick says the output is 7.5VDC & 1.6A. I'd like to cut the cord
> between the brick and the adapter plate, insert a set of connectors
> and make a pigtail with a matching connector on one end and a
> cigarette lighter plug on the other.
>
> Because of the voltage difference (14VDC - 7.5VDC), it looks like I'll
> need about a 4 ohm resistor to drop the 6.5VDC. It looks like the
> power consumption will be about 10.4 Watts. The closest thing I could
> find on Radio Shack's website is either a 1 ohm or 10 ohm, 10 Amp, 10%
> wire-wound power resistor (Catalog No. 271-131). There was no
> indication how large they are physically. In theory, I could chain
> four of the 1 ohm units together.
>
> Is my thinking correct? All I want is to power the camcorder from
> ship's power. Any recommendations on connectors and any critique on
> the idea of simply putting a resistor (and a fuse) in the
> pigtail/circuit to reduce the voltage? Is there any other power
> conditioning I should do?
>
> Best regards,
>
> Bob
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: BATTERY MASTER SWITCH |
>
>Cheers,
> I'm still searching for that elusive device - in an attempt to avoid
>the cost of an ampere or two of contactor current - which will control a
>primary battery source and another for secondary battery source.
> I have found several which meet one criterion or another, but not
>all:
>[a] should carry as much current as a contactor for that job;
>[b] needs to be an up-down rather than rotary type switch;
>[c] should be on a remote(able) stalk so I can undo the connection to
>remove the instrument panel ;
>[d] cost less than the usual contactor - or at least be competitive.
> I have devised a system to isolate the controls from wandering
>fingers so am not fussy about security. I'm not sure what a "Kill switch" is
>really.
> Any help would be most appreciated.
Ferg, Why not build one? You need to support two 5/16" brass
studs on an insulating material, say 1/8" thick fiberglass/epoxy
sheet. Taper switch ends of studs to provide a spherical tip
with about 1/8th inch radius. Mount studs just far enough apart
to allow connection with fat-wires . . . about 1" would probably
do. Build box on terminal board to capture a brass "slider"
(3/8" square stock) that is pressed against stud tips with
spring loading from back side. You could rig a Bowden control
cable to operate the slide (you need about 1/2 to 3/4" stroke)
for making and breaking the switch. This seems like a project
that could be crafted with common hand tools. The
end product would be on the order of 3" long, 1.5" wide and
perhaps 2" deep. Perfect the design and we'll do an article
on it for the website.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Antenna for second com radio |
>
>To get ready for the 2008 AirVenture Cup Race, I am conducting a drag
>reduction program on my all metal Evo. I would like to eliminate one of
>the two external surface com antennae from the belly.
>
>Two options seem available, an antenna mounted in the cockpit behind the
>passenger seat on the aft cockpit bulkhead, or a thin wire antenna taped
>to the windscreen (not unlike the thin wire antennae found in windshields
>on automobiles.)
>
>Any suggestions from the list members on how to proceed?
>
>If I use the taped wire antenna on the windscreen, should I use the same
>system as used on copper foil entennae on composite aircraft but
>substituting a thin wire for the copper foil?
>
>Thanks in advance for any help or suggestions!
>
>Paul Siegel N4XU
If this is a temporary configuration change to accommodate
a short time event, why not simply do away with the sticky-out
antennas all together? Use a hand-held with rubber duck during
the event.
I had a builder some years ago mount all his sticky-out antennas
on removable inspection plates. While being judged for show,
all antennas were replaced with blank plates. Seems like cheating
to me but perhaps the judges were not interested in overall system
utility, only appearances. In any case, the optimum solution to
your problem is one that generates the least amount of pre-event
labor and modifications to an otherwise perfectly good working
airplane.
Bob . . .
----------------------------------------
( "Physics is like sex: sure, it may )
( give some practical results, but )
( that's not why we do it." )
( )
( Richard P. Feynman )
----------------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | BobsV35B(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Antenna for second com radio |
Good Morning Bob, Paul,
Back in my glider flying days, we used one of those little fiberglass
antennas that were sometimes used instead of rubber duckies with a handheld. We
used a section of Coax between the handheld and the antenna. A hole was drilled
in the belly of the glider and the antenna stuck through the hole when it was
needed. A piece of tape was applied over the hole when it was not in use so
as to eliminate any drag produced by the hole. We did seem to get better
results from the handheld with the antenna out the belly than when it was just
used directly.
I doubt if it was a very efficient set up, but seemed to work fairly well
except for when somebody forgot to remove the antenna before landing. To handle
that eventuality, most of us carried a spare antenna.
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
AKA
Bob Siegfried
Ancient Aviator
Stearman N3977A
Brookeridge Air Park LL22
Downers Grove, IL 60516
630 985-8503
In a message dated 8/7/2007 9:37:10 A.M. Central Daylight Time,
nuckollsr(at)cox.net writes:
If this is a temporary configuration change to accommodate
a short time event, why not simply do away with the sticky-out
antennas all together? Use a hand-held with rubber duck during
the event.
http://discover.aol.com/memed/aolcom30tour
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Scott R. Shook" <sshook(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Circuit Breaker Bus Bar |
Greetings,
I have lurked in the AeroElectric list for a while and I am coming to point
in my project where I am going to be planning and building my electrical
system. I am looking at 12 circuit breakers (spare the groans) in a 3 x 4
configuration.
Would anyone be willing to send a photo or many photos of how would one go
about making a copper bus bar for a configuration like that where the
breakers are not inline?
Also, what are you doing to insulate the bus bar against accidental contact
with a ground?
Thank you,
Scott R. Shook
RV-7A (Building)
N696JS (Reserved)
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Michael Ice <aurbo(at)ak.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Circuit Breaker Bus Bar |
Scott,
The answers you look for are the same reasons folks don't use that system.
But: Use 3 cappoer bars and tie them together on the ends with another copper strip.
You can put "liquid Electrical Tape" on the ends to try and keep it all
safe. Most bus bars have no protection, at least the ones I have seen. I am sure
your idea will work and you will fly successfully for years.
Build on, Mike
----- Original Message -----
From: "Scott R. Shook" <sshook(at)cox.net>
Date: Tuesday, August 7, 2007 1:31 pm
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Circuit Breaker Bus Bar
> Greetings,
>
> I have lurked in the AeroElectric list for a while and I am coming
> to point
> in my project where I am going to be planning and building my
> electricalsystem. I am looking at 12 circuit breakers (spare the
> groans) in a 3 x 4
> configuration.
>
> Would anyone be willing to send a photo or many photos of how
> would one go
> about making a copper bus bar for a configuration like that where the
> breakers are not inline?
>
> Also, what are you doing to insulate the bus bar against
> accidental contact
> with a ground?
>
> Thank you,
>
>
>
> Scott R. Shook
> RV-7A (Building)
> N696JS (Reserved)
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Fergus Kyle" <VE3LVO(at)rac.ca> |
| Subject: | Missed email mesages |
I must apologize, but my server 'ra.ca' had lost control of its machinery
this last weekend and in the process of countering spam lost all emails to
me from Saturday 04AUG to yesterday, Monday 07Aug. 7, 07 inclusive.
If you had sent me critical advice or legal information during that
period, I will not have got it and cannot therefore respond..........
Sorry
Ferg
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Alan Adamson" <aadamson(at)highrf.com> |
| Subject: | Circuit Breaker Bus Bar |
I don't know if this will work for anyone but...
Lancair Avionics will sell "pre-drilled" copper buss bars that are setup on
a specific spacing for Klixon breakers. I actually have some and won't be
using them. They come in two lengths with two different centers.
I just pulled mine and the long bars (about 8-9 inches) are on approx .75"
centers... The short bars are about 7" long and on drilled on 1.1" centers
(these are approx centers and I just grabbed my dial calipers and eyeballed
them. The wider centers are used to connect the horizontal rows, vertically
and to the main wires coming to the busses. The narrower centers are used
to connect the breakers together in any specific row.
Here are some pictures that I shot quick
http://www.highrf.com/albums/Legacy-Panel/DSCN1977.sized.jpg - the buss bars
<http://www.highrf.com/albums/Legacy-Panel/DSCN1978.sized.jpg>
http://www.highrf.com/albums/Legacy-Panel/DSCN1978.sized.jpg - another of
the bars
<http://www.highrf.com/albums/Legacy-Panel/DSCN1979.sized.jpg>
http://www.highrf.com/albums/Legacy-Panel/DSCN1979.sized.jpg - the spacing
that they fit
Hope this helps. I don't remember those strips being that expensive, but
it's been awhile since I got these.
Alan
_____
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Michael
Ice
Sent: Tuesday, August 07, 2007 7:11 PM
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Circuit Breaker Bus Bar
Scott,
The answers you look for are the same reasons folks don't use that system.
But: Use 3 cappoer bars and tie them together on the ends with another
copper strip. You can put "liquid Electrical Tape" on the ends to try and
keep it all safe. Most bus bars have no protection, at least the ones I have
seen. I am sure your idea will work and you will fly successfully for years.
Build on, Mike
----- Original Message -----
From: "Scott R. Shook" <sshook(at)cox.net>
Date: Tuesday, August 7, 2007 1:31 pm
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Circuit Breaker Bus Bar
> Greetings,
>
> I have lurked in the AeroElectric list for a while and I am coming
> to point
> in my project where I am going to be planning and building my
> electricalsystem. I am looking at 12 circuit breakers (spare the
> groans) in a 3 x 4
> configuration.
>
> Would anyone be willing to send a photo or many photos of how
> would one go
> about making a copper bus bar for a configuration like that where the
> breakers are not inline?
>
> Also, what are you doing to insulate the bus bar against
> accidental contact
> with a ground?
>
> Thank you,
>
>
>
> Scott R. Shook
> RV-7A (Building)
> N696JS (Reserved)
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Circuit Breaker Bus Bar |
>Greetings,
>
>I have lurked in the AeroElectric list for a while and I am coming to
>point in my project where I am going to be planning and building my
>electrical system. I am looking at 12 circuit breakers (spare the groans)
>in a 3 x 4 configuration.
>
>Would anyone be willing to send a photo or many photos of how would one go
>about making a copper bus bar for a configuration like that where the
>breakers are not inline?
See:
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Breakers/Breaker_Panel_Busing_0.jpg
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Breakers/Breaker_Panel_Busing_1.jpg
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Breakers/Breaker_Panel_Busing_2.jpg
>Also, what are you doing to insulate the bus bar against accidental
>contact with a ground?
Not necessary. There should be nothing in vicinity capable
of producing the ground. All bus bars on light aircraft
are essentially waving in the breeze behind the breaker
panel.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: BATTERY MASTER SWITCH |
>
>Cheers,
> I'm still searching for that elusive device - in an attempt to avoid
>the cost of an ampere or two of contactor current - which will control a
>primary battery source and another for secondary battery source.
> I have found several which meet one criterion or another, but not
>all:
>[a] should carry as much current as a contactor for that job;
>[b] needs to be an up-down rather than rotary type switch;
>[c] should be on a remote(able) stalk so I can undo the connection to
>remove the instrument panel ;
>[d] cost less than the usual contactor - or at least be competitive.
> I have devised a system to isolate the controls from wandering
>fingers so am not fussy about security. I'm not sure what a "Kill switch" is
>really.
> Any help would be most appreciated.
Ferg, Why not build one? You need to support two 5/16" brass
studs on an insulating material, say 1/8" thick fiberglass/epoxy
sheet. Taper switch ends of studs to provide a spherical tip
with about 1/8th inch radius. Mount studs just far enough apart
to allow connection with fat-wires . . . about 1" would probably
do. Build box on terminal board to capture a brass "slider"
(3/8" square stock) that is pressed against stud tips with
spring loading from back side. You could rig a Bowden control
cable to operate the slide (you need about 1/2 to 3/4" stroke)
for making and breaking the switch. This seems like a project
that could be crafted with common hand tools. The
end product would be on the order of 2.5" long, 1.2" wide and
perhaps 2" tall overall. Perfect the design and we'll do an article
on it for the website.
Here's a rough layout of a possible design
http://aeroelectric.com/Catalog/AEC/9042/9042-100.pdf
The brass stock, parts and spring-stud are McMaster catalog
items. Side brackets can be aluminum sheet or extrusion.
Insulating material could be Delrin or perhaps even a
hard "machinable" wood like walnut or oak.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | paul wilson <pwmac(at)sisna.com> |
| Subject: | Re: BATTERY MASTER SWITCH |
Clever design. I guess the operating cable is non conductive, or did
I miss something?
Paul
======================
At 11:05 PM 8/7/2007, you wrote:
>
> Ferg, Why not build one? You need to support two 5/16" brass
> studs on an insulating material, say 1/8" thick fiberglass/epoxy
> sheet. Taper switch ends of studs to provide a spherical tip
> with about 1/8th inch radius. Mount studs just far enough apart
> to allow connection with fat-wires . . . about 1" would probably
> do. Build box on terminal board to capture a brass "slider"
> (3/8" square stock) that is pressed against stud tips with
> spring loading from back side. You could rig a Bowden control
> cable to operate the slide (you need about 1/2 to 3/4" stroke)
> for making and breaking the switch. This seems like a project
> that could be crafted with common hand tools. The
> end product would be on the order of 2.5" long, 1.2" wide and
> perhaps 2" tall overall. Perfect the design and we'll do an article
> on it for the website.
>
> Here's a rough layout of a possible design
>
>http://aeroelectric.com/Catalog/AEC/9042/9042-100.pdf
>
> The brass stock, parts and spring-stud are McMaster catalog
> items. Side brackets can be aluminum sheet or extrusion.
> Insulating material could be Delrin or perhaps even a
> hard "machinable" wood like walnut or oak.
>
> Bob . . .
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Ernest Christley <echristley(at)nc.rr.com> |
| Subject: | Re: BATTERY MASTER SWITCH |
Robert L. Nuckolls, III wrote:
>
> Here's a rough layout of a possible design
>
> http://aeroelectric.com/Catalog/AEC/9042/9042-100.pdf
>
> The brass stock, parts and spring-stud are McMaster catalog
> items. Side brackets can be aluminum sheet or extrusion.
> Insulating material could be Delrin or perhaps even a
> hard "machinable" wood like walnut or oak.
>
> Bob . . .
>
What a cool idea. This looks like it would be a fun project, Bob. The
only thing I would change would be to make the slider a square piece and
arrange it so that it contacts both taper switch ends at the same time.
I know this real smart guy that taught me that contactors have multiple
break points in order to break the arc faster.
With a couple more of those spring-studs, it should be possible to make
the slider pop off the switch ends at a much higher rate. Just arrange
a few on both sides of the switch ends so that the slider is
cantilevered away when it is slid out, but hits the springs and pushed
against the contacts when slid in.
Dang!! I'm gonna have to make one now. Right after I finish building
several more earbud headsets. I'll never get airplane finished at this
rate (but, I will have the coolest contactor in the universe!!).
Ernest (Is anyone else having this much fun?)
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Fergus Kyle" <VE3LVO(at)rac.ca> |
Bob sent:
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net>
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: BATTERY MASTER SWITCH
> I'm still searching for that elusive device - in an attempt to
avoid
>the cost of an ampere or two of contactor current - which will control a
>primary battery source and another for secondary battery source.
> I have found several which meet one criterion or another, but not
>all:
>[a] should carry as much current as a contactor for that job;
>[b] needs to be an up-down rather than rotary type switch;
>[c] should be on a remote(able) stalk so I can undo the connection to
>remove the instrument panel ;
>[d] cost less than the usual contactor - or at least be competitive.
> I have devised a system to isolate the controls from wandering
>fingers so am not fussy about security. I'm not sure what a "Kill switch"
is
>really.
> Any help would be most appreciated.
Ferg, Why not build one? You need to support two 5/16" brass
studs on an insulating material, say 1/8" thick fiberglass/epoxy
sheet. Taper switch ends of studs to provide a spherical tip
with about 1/8th inch radius. Mount studs just far enough apart
to allow connection with fat-wires . . . about 1" would probably
do. Build box on terminal board to capture a brass "slider"
(3/8" square stock) that is pressed against stud tips with
spring loading from back side. You could rig a Bowden control
cable to operate the slide (you need about 1/2 to 3/4" stroke)
for making and breaking the switch. This seems like a project
that could be crafted with common hand tools. The
end product would be on the order of 2.5" long, 1.2" wide and
perhaps 2" tall overall. Perfect the design and we'll do an article
on it for the website.
Here's a rough layout of a possible design
http://aeroelectric.com/Catalog/AEC/9042/9042-100.pdf
The brass stock, parts and spring-stud are McMaster catalog
items. Side brackets can be aluminum sheet or extrusion.
Insulating material could be Delrin or perhaps even a
hard "machinable" wood like walnut or oak.
Bob . . .
'lectric Bob,
What a scheme! I appreciate the work and creativity, but not too sure I am
up to it. I would have to check with my inspector about the reliability
design factors - I see him Friday night so will broach the subject. How do
you find these tidbits? Having a couple of productive buddies may prove the
answer as am 'way behind and have had to move the project up to the hangar
this week as family events will demand the 'factory' back to a bedroom.
Perhaps between us we can come up with a couple of samples.
Thanks again for your diligence. It's always an eye-opener..........
Hugs to Dr. Dee
Ferg
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: BATTERY MASTER SWITCH |
| From: | "Eric M. Jones" <emjones(at)charter.net> |
> I'm still searching for that elusive device - in an attempt to avoid
> the cost of an ampere or two of contactor current - which will control a
> primary battery source and another for secondary battery source.
> I have found several which meet one criterion or another, but not
> all:
> [a] should carry as much current as a contactor for that job;
> [b] needs to be an up-down rather than rotary type switch;
> [c] should be on a remote(able) stalk so I can undo the connection to
> remove the instrument panel ;
> [d] cost less than the usual contactor - or at least be competitive.
> I have devised a system to isolate the controls from wandering
> fingers so am not fussy about security. I'm not sure what a "Kill switch" is
> really. Any help would be most appreciated.
Ferg,
As Bob says you can build one. but I suggest Flaming River's push-pull battery
switch. Not cheap but you won't have to build it.
If you want to build one, get a scrap type-70 or similar contactor, toss the coil
and use the parts. You can buy high current contacts too, although you can
buy silver and make contacts that will do the job for this application.
Don't neglect the patents online at USPTO. Search high current switch, etc. and
see how people did it.
--------
Eric M. Jones
www.PerihelionDesign.com
113 Brentwood Drive
Southbridge, MA 01550
(508) 764-2072
emjones(at)charter.net
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=128076#128076
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Walter Fellows" <walter.fellows(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Circuit Breaker Bus Bar |
There are some diagrams on spacing you may find useful in the Tony Bingelis
book Sportplane Construction Techniques available from EAA.
On 8/7/07, Scott R. Shook wrote:
>
> Greetings,
>
> I have lurked in the AeroElectric list for a while and I am coming to
> point in my project where I am going to be planning and building my
> electrical system. I am looking at 12 circuit breakers (spare the groans)
> in a 3 x 4 configuration.
>
> Would anyone be willing to send a photo or many photos of how would one go
> about making a copper bus bar for a configuration like that where the
> breakers are not inline?
>
> Also, what are you doing to insulate the bus bar against accidental
> contact with a ground?
>
> Thank you,
>
> *** *
>
> *Scott R. Shook*
>
> *RV-7A (Building)*
>
> *N696JS (Reserved)*
>
> *
>
>
> *
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: BATTERY MASTER SWITCH |
>
>Clever design. I guess the operating cable is non conductive, or did I
>miss something?
>Paul
The conventional Bowden push-pull control is obviously
metallic. I'd probably drill the slider and fit a full
length plastic insulator tubing down the hole and craft
insulator washers for each end that would isolate the
wire from the slider. There's a variety of ways to
consider for attaching the wire . . . but your
observations concerning the need for insulation are
correct.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Speedy11(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: BATTERY MASTER SWITCH |
Eric Jones had a neat design for such a device. Contact him at
_emjones(at)charter.net_ (mailto:emjones(at)charter.net) .
Stan Sutterfield
>Cheers,
> I'm still searching for that elusive device - in an attempt to
avoid
>the cost of an ampere or two of contactor current - which will control a
>primary battery source and another for secondary battery source.
> I have found several which meet one criterion or another, but not
>all:
>[a] should carry as much current as a contactor for that job;
>[b] needs to be an up-down rather than rotary type switch;
>[c] should be on a remote(able) stalk so I can undo the connection to
>remove the instrument panel ;
>[d] cost less than the usual contactor - or at least be competitive.
> I have devised a system to isolate the controls from wandering
>fingers so am not fussy about security. I'm not sure what a "Kill switch" is
>really.
> Any help would be most appreciated.
Ferg, Why not build one? You need to support two 5/16" brass
studs on an insulating material, say 1/8" thick fiberglass/epoxy
sheet. Taper switch ends of studs to provide a spherical tip
with about 1/8th inch radius. Mount studs just far enough apart
to allow connection with fat-wires . . . about 1" would probably
do. Build box on terminal board to capture a brass "slider"
(3/8" square stock) that is pressed against stud tips with
spring loading from back side. You could rig a Bowden control
cable to operate the slide (you need about 1/2 to 3/4" stroke)
for making and breaking the switch. This seems like a project
that could be crafted with common hand tools. The
end product would be on the order of 3" long, 1.5" wide and
perhaps 2" deep. Perfect the design and we'll do an article
on it for the website.
http://discover.aol.com/memed/aolcom30tour
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Larry James" <larry(at)ncproto.com> |
| Subject: | Avionics Stack width |
I've measured a few items now and have found some discrepancy in dimensions.
What is the supposed standard panel opening for avionics ?? In the case of
a slide in unit utilizing a tray, this would be the outside width of the
tray. Second, what is the supposed standard slide-in width ?? In the same
case, this would be the inside opening width of the tray; of the outside
width of the avionics unit.
Thanks !!!
Larry E. James
Bellevue, WA
Super Decathlon
Rocket (fuselage / systems)
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Circuit Breaker Bus Bar |
Scott,
If you haven't already considered it, a 20 slot fuse block is easier
and cheaper to setup than breakers. Use a breaker for the alternator and
main buss, but as Bob would say, you can only reset those expensive
critters once - after that you already have a problem. Install the fuse
block where it's accessible to easily change the fuses but not ugly and
you'll have more panel space for other goodies. You'll also have
hundreds of dollars left over from not buying breakers.
If you are dead set on cb's I think the list has already donated
some nice examples.
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Scott
R. Shook
Sent: Tuesday, August 07, 2007 5:28 PM
To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Circuit Breaker Bus Bar
Greetings,
I have lurked in the AeroElectric list for a while and I am
coming to point in my project where I am going to be planning and
building my electrical system. I am looking at 12 circuit breakers
(spare the groans) in a 3 x 4 configuration.
Would anyone be willing to send a photo or many photos of how
would one go about making a copper bus bar for a configuration like that
where the breakers are not inline?
Also, what are you doing to insulate the bus bar against
accidental contact with a ground?
Thank you,
Scott R. Shook
RV-7A (Building)
N696JS (Reserved)
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | BobsV35B(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Avionics Stack width |
Good Afternoon Larry,
Ever since the "Glover Box" radios appeared in the late forties, the
standard width was considered to be six and one quarter inches for us light
plane
types. Unfortunately, it seems that some have fattened up a bit so that it
now
seems better to plan on six and five sixteenths of an inch. If your box is
skinny, you can always add washer or two, but if they are on the fat side,
it
is hard to fix.
In any case, it is best to measure the actual units. Some of them will give
a dimension to within one one thousandth of an inch, but when you measure
them, as you have noted, there can be a fifty thousandth error. Once again
,
measure the actual box if at all possible!
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
AKA
Bob Siegfried
Ancient Aviator
Stearman N3977A
Brookeridge Air Park LL22
Downers Grove, IL 60516
630 985-8503
In a message dated 8/8/2007 2:55:06 P.M. Central Daylight Time,
larry(at)ncproto.com writes:
I=99ve measured a few items now and have found some discrepancy in di
mensions.
What is the supposed standard panel opening for avionics ?? In the case o
f
a slide in unit utilizing a tray, this would be the outside width of the
tray. Second, what is the supposed standard slide-in width ?? In the same
case, this would be the inside opening width of the tray; of the outside wi
dth of
the avionics unit.
Thanks !!!
Larry E. James
Bellevue, WA
Super Decathlon
Rocket (fuselage / systems)
t
http://discover.aol.com/memed/aolcom30tour
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Avionics Stack width |
| From: | "Hinde, Frank George (Corvallis)" <frank.hinde(at)hp.com> |
Old Bob is right...I measured my stack ( A PS engineering Audio panel
and the rest Garmin) and cut a 6.25" hole in the panel.
Frank RV 7a
________________________________
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of
BobsV35B(at)aol.com
Sent: Wednesday, August 08, 2007 1:30 PM
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Avionics Stack width
Good Afternoon Larry,
Ever since the "Glover Box" radios appeared in the late forties, the
standard width was considered to be six and one quarter inches for us
light plane types. Unfortunately, it seems that some have fattened up a
bit so that it now seems better to plan on six and five sixteenths of an
inch. If your box is skinny, you can always add washer or two, but if
they are on the fat side, it is hard to fix.
In any case, it is best to measure the actual units. Some of them will
give a dimension to within one one thousandth of an inch, but when you
measure them, as you have noted, there can be a fifty thousandth error.
Once again, measure the actual box if at all possible!
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
AKA
Bob Siegfried
Ancient Aviator
Stearman N3977A
Brookeridge Air Park LL22
Downers Grove, IL 60516
630 985-8503
In a message dated 8/8/2007 2:55:06 P.M. Central Daylight Time,
larry(at)ncproto.com writes:
I've measured a few items now and have found some discrepancy in
dimensions. What is the supposed standard panel opening for avionics ??
In the case of a slide in unit utilizing a tray, this would be the
outside width of the tray. Second, what is the supposed standard
slide-in width ?? In the same case, this would be the inside opening
width of the tray; of the outside width of the avionics unit.
Thanks !!!
Larry E. James
Bellevue, WA
Super Decathlon
Rocket (fuselage / systems)
________________________________
<http://discover.aol.com/memed/aolcom30tour/?ncid=AOLAOF00020000000982>
.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: BATTERY MASTER SWITCH |
>
>
>Robert L. Nuckolls, III wrote:
>>
>> Here's a rough layout of a possible design
>>
>>http://aeroelectric.com/Catalog/AEC/9042/9042-100.pdf
>>
>> The brass stock, parts and spring-stud are McMaster catalog
>> items. Side brackets can be aluminum sheet or extrusion.
>> Insulating material could be Delrin or perhaps even a
>> hard "machinable" wood like walnut or oak.
>>
>> Bob . . .
>What a cool idea. This looks like it would be a fun project, Bob. The
>only thing I would change would be to make the slider a square piece and
>arrange it so that it contacts both taper switch ends at the same time.
>I know this real smart guy that taught me that contactors have multiple
>break points in order to break the arc faster.
This isn't a contactor. It's a low velocity, sliding
contact switch that depends on PRESSURE at the contact
locations to achieve low resistance connection. This
is a low voltage (12v) low current (10A or less) SWITCHING
task that must handle 200+ amps only after the switch
is static in the close position.
>With a couple more of those spring-studs, it should be possible to make
>the slider pop off the switch ends at a much higher rate. Just arrange a
>few on both sides of the switch ends so that the slider is cantilevered
>away when it is slid out, but hits the springs and pushed against the
>contacts when slid in.
This borrows from some very old technology - the
knife switch. See:
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Switches/knife_switch_1.jpg
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Switches/knife_switch_2.jpg
Two pressure dependent contacts to one moving part. Operating
velocity is not critical but good connection in the pressure
joints is. Hence two spring-studs to maintain force against
the slider . . . flat surface against a spherical surface.
VERY LOW contact area, HIGH pressure.
>Dang!! I'm gonna have to make one now. Right after I finish building
>several more earbud headsets. I'll never get airplane finished at this
>rate (but, I will have the coolest contactor in the universe!!).
>Ernest (Is anyone else having this much fun?)
This is properly called a SPST switch. The
drawing is intended to be a door-opener for
individuals who would like to expend some effort and
acquire some real-time, hands-on experience. At the
same time, it offers at least one compact solution
to the remotely controlled, zero draw battery switch.
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: BATTERY MASTER SWITCH |
>
>
> > I'm still searching for that elusive device - in an attempt to avoid
> > the cost of an ampere or two of contactor current - which will control a
> > primary battery source and another for secondary battery source.
> > I have found several which meet one criterion or another, but not
> > all:
> > [a] should carry as much current as a contactor for that job;
> > [b] needs to be an up-down rather than rotary type switch;
> > [c] should be on a remote(able) stalk so I can undo the connection to
> > remove the instrument panel ;
> > [d] cost less than the usual contactor - or at least be competitive.
> > I have devised a system to isolate the controls from wandering
> > fingers so am not fussy about security. I'm not sure what a "Kill
> switch" is
> > really. Any help would be most appreciated.
>
>
>Ferg,
>
>As Bob says you can build one. but I suggest Flaming River's push-pull
>battery switch. Not cheap but you won't have to build it.
>
>If you want to build one, get a scrap type-70 or similar contactor, toss
>the coil and use the parts.
The type-70 is a low pressure, large area design where it's not
clear to me how one would utilize the components . . .
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Contactors/S701-1a.jpg
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Contactors/S701-1b.jpg
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Contactors/S701-1c.jpg
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Contactors/S701-1d.jpg
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Contactors/S701-1e.jpg
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Contactors/S701-1f.jpg
and craft a manually operated mechanism to achieve remote
control.
> You can buy high current contacts too, although you can buy silver and
> make contacts that will do the job for this application.
If one were seeking to craft a high cycle SWITCHING
device, higher quality contacts would be useful as would
some design philosophy that achieves minimum bounce on
closure and rapid contact spreading velocity. In the
case of a battery contactor, going beyond the requirement
to occasionally SWITCH 10A and occasionally CARRY 200A
in a once-per flight-cycle operation seems to have a poor
return on infestment for the effort.
>Don't neglect the patents online at USPTO. Search high current switch,
>etc. and see how people did it.
Good idea . . . but keep in mind that most designs
are at least attempting to improve on an existing design
that exhibits less than ideal service life or performance
as a kilo-operations switch working at or near max
ratings. For our purposes, a wrench used to connect the
battery terminal before flight and disconnect at the
end of flight would have more than adequate electrical
performance. The design goals here are to achieve convenient
manual remote control, light weight, small size and
use materials and techniques readily available to the
greatest number of interested builders. I.e., the elegant
solution.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Peter Harris" <peterjfharris(at)bigpond.com> |
| Subject: | Re: BATTERY MASTER SWITCH |
Bob
If you remove the circlip and fit a bolt threaded to engage at the bottom,
it could be used to pull the circular contactor down to engage with the
copper terminals. Insulate where required.
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: Thursday, 9 August 2007 9:10 AM
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: BATTERY MASTER SWITCH
>
>
> > I'm still searching for that elusive device - in an attempt to avoid
> > the cost of an ampere or two of contactor current - which will control a
> > primary battery source and another for secondary battery source.
> > I have found several which meet one criterion or another, but not
> > all:
> > [a] should carry as much current as a contactor for that job;
> > [b] needs to be an up-down rather than rotary type switch;
> > [c] should be on a remote(able) stalk so I can undo the connection to
> > remove the instrument panel ;
> > [d] cost less than the usual contactor - or at least be competitive.
> > I have devised a system to isolate the controls from wandering
> > fingers so am not fussy about security. I'm not sure what a "Kill
> switch" is
> > really. Any help would be most appreciated.
>
>
>Ferg,
>
>As Bob says you can build one. but I suggest Flaming River's push-pull
>battery switch. Not cheap but you won't have to build it.
>
>If you want to build one, get a scrap type-70 or similar contactor, toss
>the coil and use the parts.
The type-70 is a low pressure, large area design where it's not
clear to me how one would utilize the components . . .
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Contactors/S701-1a.jpg
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Contactors/S701-1b.jpg
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Contactors/S701-1c.jpg
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Contactors/S701-1d.jpg
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Contactors/S701-1e.jpg
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Contactors/S701-1f.jpg
and craft a manually operated mechanism to achieve remote
control.
> You can buy high current contacts too, although you can buy silver and
> make contacts that will do the job for this application.
If one were seeking to craft a high cycle SWITCHING
device, higher quality contacts would be useful as would
some design philosophy that achieves minimum bounce on
closure and rapid contact spreading velocity. In the
case of a battery contactor, going beyond the requirement
to occasionally SWITCH 10A and occasionally CARRY 200A
in a once-per flight-cycle operation seems to have a poor
return on infestment for the effort.
>Don't neglect the patents online at USPTO. Search high current switch,
>etc. and see how people did it.
Good idea . . . but keep in mind that most designs
are at least attempting to improve on an existing design
that exhibits less than ideal service life or performance
as a kilo-operations switch working at or near max
ratings. For our purposes, a wrench used to connect the
battery terminal before flight and disconnect at the
end of flight would have more than adequate electrical
performance. The design goals here are to achieve convenient
manual remote control, light weight, small size and
use materials and techniques readily available to the
greatest number of interested builders. I.e., the elegant
solution.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Manual Battery Switch Project |
>'lectric Bob,
> What a scheme! I appreciate the work and creativity, but not too sure I am
>up to it. I would have to check with my inspector about the reliability
>design factors - I see him Friday night so will broach the subject.
Reliability should not be an issue. The classic master-switch/
battery-contactor has no published reliability statistics. I.e.,
and MTBF "calculation" would be so fraught with assumptions as
to make the exercise meaningless. Even if you purchased a manufactured
manual battery switch, there's no data to allow a quantified
comparison between the legacy switch/contactor combination versus
a manually operated substitute.
At the same time, (repeat after me) "WE craft failure tolerant
systems." I.e., we KNOW that the legacy contactors have failed
at inopportune times for thousands of airplane owners and
we've crafted a plan-B to comfortably accommodate a battery
switch failure whether it's the traditional switch/contactor
approach or a manual switch.
>How do you find these tidbits? Having a couple of productive buddies may
>prove the
>answer as am 'way behind and have had to move the project up to the hangar
>this week as family events will demand the 'factory' back to a bedroom.
>Perhaps between us we can come up with a couple of samples.
I have all the materials in the shop to craft this switch
and access to the machine tools necessary to do a really "professional
looking" job. However, it would be nice if I could demonstrate a
fabrication
process that used nothing more exotic than a table or band saw,
a 1" vertical belt sander and a drill press. It would be a fun
comic book to do. Unfortunately, I've got a ton of things
on my plate right now . . . but who knows.
> Thanks again for your diligence. It's always an eye-opener..........
>Hugs to Dr. Dee
Thank you sir. I'll pass along your compliments.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Terry Watson" <terry(at)tcwatson.com> |
Bob,
We didn't get (or I missed) a report on your Dad. I hope the news was
better.
Terry
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Vertical Power transcends on Z-19 |
Bob,
Just wanted to get your opinion of the integration of Z-19 and
Vertical Powers' V-200 unit. I believe they are charging about 10k for
that package. Do you feel there is enough valued added integrity there
to substantiate that investment? It seems to me that Z-19 already has
enough robustness built into the design. VP does perform some fancy
automation stuff, but that becomes personal rather an integral to the
system. I will be using an external EIS 4000 which is married to the
Subaru and provides all necessary engine parameters. The V-200 supports
just a few of the Subaru engine functions at this time - more planned
for 2008.
http://www.verticalpower.com/docs/VP_Z-19.pdf
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: BATTERY MASTER SWITCH |
>
>
>Bob
>If you remove the circlip and fit a bolt threaded to engage at the bottom,
>it could be used to pull the circular contactor down to engage with the
>copper terminals. Insulate where required.
>Peter
Not sure what you mean. The motion in
this device is longitudinal to the "slider", I.e.,
a Bowden wire coming in from the left would be used
to move the slider such that it disengages from
the left-hand stud only. The motion is not intended
to emulated the actions of a contactor. There's
no circlip in the assembly as illustrated. Only
two fixed terminal studs with spherical ends
and a brass-slide bar held against the studs
with spring loaded balls from underneath. The
spring-studs are threaded so that the pressure
and spring-travel can be adjusted.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Vertical Power transcends on Z-19 |
>
>Bob,
> Just wanted to get your opinion of the integration of Z-19 and
>Vertical Powers' V-200 unit. I believe they are charging about 10k for
>that package. Do you feel there is enough valued added integrity there
>to substantiate that investment? It seems to me that Z-19 already has
>enough robustness built into the design. VP does perform some fancy
>automation stuff, but that becomes personal rather an integral to the
>system. I will be using an external EIS 4000 which is married to the
>Subaru and provides all necessary engine parameters. The V-200 supports
>just a few of the Subaru engine functions at this time - more planned
>for 2008.
Return on investment is a decision you'll have to
make. What are your proposed design goals for
incorporating the system? Are you wanting to save
time? How would the time "saved" be put to better
use in the conduct of your flight? What's the
cost of ownership? Is there risk that you'll spend
more money over your ownership of the airplane such
that you're going to come out money ahead for
compared to not having incorporated the system?
I have no doubts that the product performs as
advertised (or will if any bugs are detected).
The questions to be asked and answered have to
be based on perception of performance or hazard
shortfall for not having used this system to replace the
traditional hardware and techniques.
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: Manual Battery Master Switch |
Based on the number of on and off-List comments I'm getting
on the proposed design, it's apparent that some folks are
not understanding the operation of the device. I've updated
the drawing at:
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Catalog/AEC/9042/9042-100.pdf
to show the Bowden control and insulation necessary to complete
the manual battery switch system.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Peter Harris" <peterjfharris(at)bigpond.com> |
| Subject: | Re: BATTERY MASTER SWITCH |
Bob I was referring to the first of the pics you sent showing a type 70
contactor open for inspection.
It could be used by manually actuating the movement with the use of a bolt.
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: Thursday, 9 August 2007 2:05 PM
Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Re: BATTERY MASTER SWITCH
>
>
>Bob
>If you remove the circlip and fit a bolt threaded to engage at the bottom,
>it could be used to pull the circular contactor down to engage with the
>copper terminals. Insulate where required.
>Peter
Not sure what you mean. The motion in
this device is longitudinal to the "slider", I.e.,
a Bowden wire coming in from the left would be used
to move the slider such that it disengages from
the left-hand stud only. The motion is not intended
to emulated the actions of a contactor. There's
no circlip in the assembly as illustrated. Only
two fixed terminal studs with spherical ends
and a brass-slide bar held against the studs
with spring loaded balls from underneath. The
spring-studs are threaded so that the pressure
and spring-travel can be adjusted.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | <bakerocb(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Manual Battery Switch Project |
8/9/2007
Bob Nuckolls wrote:
"Reliability should not be an issue. The classic master-switch/
battery-contactor has no published reliability statistics. I.e.,
and MTBF "calculation" would be so fraught with assumptions as
to make the exercise meaningless......skip....."
and
"At the same time, (repeat after me) "WE craft failure tolerant
systems." I.e., we KNOW that the legacy contactors have failed
at inopportune times for thousands of airplane owners and
we've crafted a plan-B to comfortably accommodate a battery
switch failure whether it's the traditional switch/contactor
approach or a manual switch."
Precisely on target. I personally am aware of three contactor failures
within the last year. One nearly new, presently available, commonly used
type, and two decades older ones built by SBC. Two were battery contactors
and one was a starter contactor.
I have rewired my plane a bit accordingly.
'OC' Says: "The best investment we can make is the effort to gather and
understand knowledge."
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: BATTERY MASTER SWITCH |
>
>
>Bob I was referring to the first of the pics you sent showing a type 70
>contactor open for inspection.
>It could be used by manually actuating the movement with the use of a bolt.
>Peter
Aha! Understand. Interestingly enough, there have been
products offered in the distant past that allowed for
manual operation of this style of contactor. I helped
some folks find a suitable replacement for a contactor
much like the Model 70 on a Lockheed Lodestar. The
contactor they took off was much like the Model 70 except
it had a non-metalic push-button protruding from a
hole in the top cap that allowed one to push the
plunger assembly down manually.
I suppose one could use modified guts of a Model 70
to craft a manual switch but it would not be my
process of choice. The contactor is a large area,
relatively low pressure connection device that would
be more prone to failure due to contamination and/or
corrosion. Once opened for the purpose of converting
to manual operations, then we've exposed the innards
to the environment which opens opportunities for
unintended consequences for service life.
As folks follow this thread, please keep in mind that
in no way are we suggesting that one launch into any
sort of modification to their stock battery contactor
of any make. Nor are we suggesting that it's even
desirable to replace the electro-mechanical contactor
with a purely mechanical switch.
This is an exercise in crafting a light, compact,
ZERO POWER switch capable of reasonably convenient
control by push-pull Bowden cable. It's a design study
for specific cases (airplanes fitted with small alternators).
We KNOW that battery contactors of any pedigree can,
do and will fail at some point in time. In my never
humble opinion, it's far better to craft a plan-b
to comfortably mitigate such failures than to modify
manufactured parts or spend a lot of $time$ crafting
our own, one-of-a-kind, manual switch.
Until someone has crafted what they believe is a
part that meets the zero-power, remote-controlled
design goal then all of the foregoing is simply an
academic exercise to consider the options. No generalized
recommendations to depart from what's published in the
Z-figures or elsewhere should be inferred.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Manual Battery Switch Project |
>
>8/9/2007
>
>Precisely on target. I personally am aware of three contactor failures
>within the last year. One nearly new, presently available, commonly used
>type, and two decades older ones built by SBC. Two were battery contactors
>and one was a starter contactor.
If one goes into the repair records of aircraft in
existence, there are no doubt dozens of failures
every week . . . and all of those aircraft went to
the shop for replacement from which we may infer that the
failure did not produce a "smoking-hole" event.
While your assertions concerning numbers of observed
failures are no doubt correct, we should be careful
that we do not read meaning into those assertions
that cannot be directly quantified into fleet-wide
risk.
Anecdotal data are often useful but should with
caution. For example, I could say that I'm aware
of dozens of sidewall failures in tires and then
offer a follow-on assertion as to how I reacted to
that information. Now, if I was observing the flow
of flat tires into a tire-store, and the dozens of
sidewall failures were but 1/2 percent of all failures,
then perhaps the sense of urgency to craft an
alternative philosophy for the use of tires.
>I have rewired my plane a bit accordingly.
As I recall you're working with a TC aircraft.
How did you rewire your airplane?
Bob . . .
----------------------------------------
( "Physics is like sex: sure, it may )
( give some practical results, but )
( that's not why we do it." )
( )
( Richard P. Feynman )
----------------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | BobsV35B(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: BATTERY MASTER SWITCH |
In a message dated 8/9/2007 9:53:26 A.M. Central Daylight Time,
nuckollsr(at)cox.net writes:
Aha! Understand. Interestingly enough, there have been
products offered in the distant past that allowed for
manual operation of this style of contactor. I helped
some folks find a suitable replacement for a contactor
much like the Model 70 on a Lockheed Lodestar. The
contactor they took off was much like the Model 70 except
it had a non-metalic push-button protruding from a
hole in the top cap that allowed one to push the
plunger assembly down manually.
For What It Is Worth,
When I was a lad, Ford automobiles had a plunger on their starter contactor
that allowed us to actuate the starter manually. There was no way to open the
contactor if it was stuck closed, but if the electrical activation option was
not operative, we could spin over the engine by pushing on the plunger.
Obviously, the battery had to be sound.
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
AKA
Bob Siegfried
Ancient Aviator
Stearman N3977A
Brookeridge Air Park LL22
Downers Grove, IL 60516
630 985-8503
http://discover.aol.com/memed/aolcom30tour
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Alan Adamson" <aadamson(at)highrf.com> |
| Subject: | Vertical Power transcends on Z-19 |
For the sake of complete disclosure, there are multiple versions of the
Vertical Power product. The 10K version is slated primarily for a dual
buss, dual alternator environment. There are also other versions for $6495
and 3495 as well. These are slated for less complex environments and also
have differing feature sets. Here's a very complete version of the 2 major
product lines, the VP-200 comes in a single Control Unit and Dual Control
unit version (the latter is the 10K priced version).
http://www.verticalpower.com/features.html
Hope this helps further, I should have mine flying in the next couple of
months and I just can't wait. I know it's hard to think about it as
something different than just a wiring solution, but there is so much more
capability to the product, it really is better positioned as a Smart
Aircraft Management system.... But I'll let you all make your own
decision...
Btw, I'm doing a VP-200 Duo in a 24v dual alt, dual batt system.
Alan
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of
longg(at)pjm.com
Sent: Wednesday, August 08, 2007 10:18 PM
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Vertical Power transcends on Z-19
Bob,
Just wanted to get your opinion of the integration of Z-19 and
Vertical Powers' V-200 unit. I believe they are charging about 10k for that
package. Do you feel there is enough valued added integrity there to
substantiate that investment? It seems to me that Z-19 already has enough
robustness built into the design. VP does perform some fancy automation
stuff, but that becomes personal rather an integral to the system. I will be
using an external EIS 4000 which is married to the Subaru and provides all
necessary engine parameters. The V-200 supports just a few of the Subaru
engine functions at this time - more planned for 2008.
http://www.verticalpower.com/docs/VP_Z-19.pdf
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Alan Adamson" <aadamson(at)highrf.com> |
| Subject: | Vertical Power transcends on Z-19 |
My mistake, I had no idea that the phrase that I thot I had made up was
actually another product. Vertical Power in no way, to the best of my
knowledge, is associated with Smart Aircraft Management Systems or their
product line. The owner of SAMS requested that I post a clarification,
which I'll quickly do.
www.smartaircraftsystems.com
Guess, you learn something every day...
My apologies,
Alan
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Alan
Adamson
Sent: Thursday, August 09, 2007 3:10 PM
Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Vertical Power transcends on Z-19
-->
For the sake of complete disclosure, there are multiple versions of the
Vertical Power product. The 10K version is slated primarily for a dual
buss, dual alternator environment. There are also other versions for $6495
and 3495 as well. These are slated for less complex environments and also
have differing feature sets. Here's a very complete version of the 2 major
product lines, the VP-200 comes in a single Control Unit and Dual Control
unit version (the latter is the 10K priced version).
http://www.verticalpower.com/features.html
Hope this helps further, I should have mine flying in the next couple of
months and I just can't wait. I know it's hard to think about it as
something different than just a wiring solution, but there is so much more
capability to the product, it really is better positioned as a Smart
Aircraft Management system.... But I'll let you all make your own
decision...
Btw, I'm doing a VP-200 Duo in a 24v dual alt, dual batt system.
Alan
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of
longg(at)pjm.com
Sent: Wednesday, August 08, 2007 10:18 PM
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Vertical Power transcends on Z-19
Bob,
Just wanted to get your opinion of the integration of Z-19 and
Vertical Powers' V-200 unit. I believe they are charging about 10k for that
package. Do you feel there is enough valued added integrity there to
substantiate that investment? It seems to me that Z-19 already has enough
robustness built into the design. VP does perform some fancy automation
stuff, but that becomes personal rather an integral to the system. I will be
using an external EIS 4000 which is married to the Subaru and provides all
necessary engine parameters. The V-200 supports just a few of the Subaru
engine functions at this time - more planned for 2008.
http://www.verticalpower.com/docs/VP_Z-19.pdf
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Mr. Nuckolls |
>
>
>Bob,
>
>We didn't get (or I missed) a report on your Dad. I hope the news was
>better.
>
>Terry
After 83 years of gracefully playing the cards dealt
to him, Dad cashed out in peace and comfort about 10
days ago. It was time and he was ready. Dr. Dee and
I were with him at the end. He left us with many
admirable goals and recipes for success. He will
be missed but will live on in all those who learned
from him. Thanks for asking.
See:
http://aeroelectric.com/articles/In_Memory_of_Robert_L_Nuckolls_Jr.pdf
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Mr. Nuckolls |
In a message dated 8/9/2007 8:07:45 P.M. Eastern Standard Time,
nuckollsr(at)cox.net writes:
http://aeroelectric.com/articles/In_Memory_of_Robert_L_Nuckolls_Jr.pdf
I am sorry for your loss. I also had a dad from the greatest generation,
who survived and thrived under circumstances that intimidate me. I lack
your eloquence, but share your pride and sorrow.
http://discover.aol.com/memed/aolcom30tour
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Mr. Nuckolls |
In a message dated 8/9/2007 9:07:47 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
nuckollsr(at)cox.net writes:
http://aeroelectric.com/articles/In_Memory_of_Robert_L_Nuckolls_Jr.pdf
Dear Bob, I read about your Dad's passing. I also read the biography that
you wrote. He seemed like quite a guy. One I wouldn't of minded knowing. Please
accept our sympathy's
Tom & Sandy Saccio
http://discover.aol.com/memed/aolcom30tour
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Maurice" <mo44d(at)comcast.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Mr. Nuckolls |
Bob, Thank you for sharing this with us. Your love for this very special
man is quite moving.
Maurice Fitzgerald
----- Original Message -----
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net>
Sent: Thursday, August 09, 2007 7:06 PM
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Mr. Nuckolls
>
>
>
>>
>>
>>
>>Bob,
>>
>>We didn't get (or I missed) a report on your Dad. I hope the news was
>>better.
>>
>>Terry
>
> After 83 years of gracefully playing the cards dealt
> to him, Dad cashed out in peace and comfort about 10
> days ago. It was time and he was ready. Dr. Dee and
> I were with him at the end. He left us with many
> admirable goals and recipes for success. He will
> be missed but will live on in all those who learned
> from him. Thanks for asking.
>
> See:
>
> http://aeroelectric.com/articles/In_Memory_of_Robert_L_Nuckolls_Jr.pdf
>
> Bob . . .
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Geoff Evans <hellothaimassage(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | P-mag to VM-1000C tach signal |
I've been trying to get my Vision Microsystems VM-1000C to read the RPM pul
ses coming from my P-mag ignition. After much testing, here is where I am:
=0A =0ATesting the ignition separately with an oscilloscope determined that
it is putting out a 5V pulse with a 4ms duration. The bottom of the pulse
(baseline) is at ground. Some of the pulses are slightly distorted on the b
ack end, but I don't think that should matter.=0A =0ATesting the VM-1000C s
eparately with the scope and a frequency generator determined that it corre
ctly counts pulses as long as the bottom of the pulse (baseline) is within
300mv of ground. If the bottom of the pulse gets higher than this, the VM-1
000C doesn't see it.=0A =0AHowever... When I connect the ignition to the VM
-1000C and watch both of them together with the scope, I see that the VM-10
00C raises the baseline of the ignition output from 0V to 2.7V. This is obv
iously way too high for it to count, and the RPM indicator thus reads zero.
=0A =0AThe ignition people suggested putting a 0.47 microfarad capacitor in
series between the ignition and the VM-1000C in an attempt to move the bot
tom of the pulse closer to ground. However, the capacitor actually raised t
he bottom of the pulse from 2.7V to 4.8V. That obviously doesn't help.=0A
=0ACan anyone offer me any guidance here? Something in the VM-1000C appears
to be raising the baseline of the tach signal and preventing the pulses fr
om being counted because they never get close enough to ground.=0A =0APleas
e reference these images from the scope:=0A=0Ahttp://home.comcast.net/~n70g
e/end_images/Ign.jpg shows the ignition output by itself.=0A=0Ahttp://home.
comcast.net/~n70ge/end_images/ignvms.jpg shows the ignition output when con
nected to the VM-1000C.=0A=0Ahttp://home.comcast.net/~n70ge/end_images/ignv
mscap.jpg shows the ignition output connected to the VM-1000C through the c
apacitor.=0A =0AThere must be a simple fix for this...=0A=0AThanks,=0A=0A-G
eoff=0A=0ARV-8 ready to fly for the first time once I get this bug fixed=0A
=0A=0A =0A___________________________________________________________
_________________________=0ABe a better Heartthrob. Get better relationship
nswers.yahoo.com/dir/?link=list&sid=396545433
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Rich Dodson <r_dodson(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Mr. Nuckolls |
Bob,=0A=0AThat is one heck of a tribute. I am terribly sorry for your loss
, but I am eternally grateful that this man was with us to inspire family a
nd friends.=0A=0ASincerely,=0ARich=0A=0A----- Original Message ----=0AFrom:
"Robert L. Nuckolls, III" =0ATo: aeroelectric-list@matr
onics.com=0ASent: Thursday, August 9, 2007 10:06:06 PM=0ASubject: Re: AeroE
"Robert L. Nuckolls, III" =0A=0AAt 05:37 PM 8/8/2007 -0
n" =0A>=0A>=0A>Bob,=0A>=0A>We didn't get (or I missed)
a report on your Dad. I hope the news was=0A>better.=0A>=0A>Terry=0A=0A A
fter 83 years of gracefully playing the cards dealt=0A to him, Dad cashed
out in peace and comfort about 10=0A days ago. It was time and he was re
ady. Dr. Dee and=0A I were with him at the end. He left us with many=0A
admirable goals and recipes for success. He will=0A be missed but will l
ive on in all those who learned=0A from him. Thanks for asking.=0A=0A S
ee:=0A=0Ahttp://aeroelectric.com/articles/In_Memory_of_Robert_L_Nuckolls_Jr
============
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Mr. Nuckolls |
| From: | Michael W Stewart <mike.stewart(at)us.ibm.com> |
Bob,
So sorry for your loss. Thanks for the great reading tribute to your da
d.
You should know that even from afar, with people you have never met, yo
u
have extended his reach to many with your years of teaching to us.
I read this list every day, always in amazement at what I learn, and yo
ur
patience and focus to teach us. While I still smoke a wire and blow a a
fuse now and again from poor technique, Im always striving to find out
why
and fix it. Voices of Bob in my head from all the readings. Keep it sim
ple,
put in what you need for good reasons whose risk reward can be articula
ted,
and enjoy the fruits of my labor.
I enjoy the fruits of my labor nearly every day on my plane, whose
electrons whizzing about are supporting my lifes great pleasure. And wh
en
im in the soup, and its dark and lonely, im confident my whiz bang stuf
f
will keep alive to get me home each time cause Ive paid good attention
to
this list and your techniques over the years.
Your dads teachings live on and spread far and wide for us here, and my
kids at home. Thanks for all you do. Here's to your dad. Cheers.
Mike Stewart
"Robert L.
Nuckolls, III"
aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
Sent by:
cc
owner-aeroelectri
c-list-server@mat Subj
ect
ronics.com Re: AeroElectric-List: Mr. Nucko
lls
08/09/2007 10:06
PM
Please respond to
aeroelectric-list
@matronics.com
>
>
>Bob,
>
>We didn't get (or I missed) a report on your Dad. I hope the news was
>better.
>
>Terry
After 83 years of gracefully playing the cards dealt
to him, Dad cashed out in peace and comfort about 10
days ago. It was time and he was ready. Dr. Dee and
I were with him at the end. He left us with many
admirable goals and recipes for success. He will
be missed but will live on in all those who learned
from him. Thanks for asking.
See:
http://aeroelectric.com/articles/In_Memory_of_Robert_L_Nuckolls_Jr.pdf
Bob . . .
========================
============
========================
============
========================
============
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Terry Miles" <terrence_miles(at)hotmail.com> |
Bob
I join my sentiments to you and to yours with so many others, Bob. I sorry
to hear of this. I lost my own father many, many years ago. I was an
electrician by trade.and I still miss him.
Terry Miles
_____
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of
TSaccio(at)aol.com
Sent: Thursday, August 09, 2007 11:01 PM
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Mr. Nuckolls
In a message dated 8/9/2007 9:07:47 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
nuckollsr(at)cox.net writes:
http://aeroelectric.com/articles/In_Memory_of_Robert_L_Nuckolls_Jr.pdf
Dear Bob, I read about your Dad's passing. I also read the biography that
you wrote. He seemed like quite a guy. One I wouldn't of minded knowing.
Please accept our sympathy's
Tom & Sandy Saccio
_____
AOL.com.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | <bakerocb(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Manual Battery Switch Project |
8/10/2007
Hello Bob Nuckolls, You wrote: "As I recall you're working with a TC
aircraft.
How did you rewire your airplane?"
Thank you for your follow up interest -- amazing memory considering the many
subjects that you deal with just on this list alone.
The TC aircraft was my friend's 24 volt system Beech Sierra that suffered
first an SBC9401 (-?) black plastic case, base mounted, starter contactor
failure then within a year an SBC 9401 (-?) black plastic case, base
mounted, main battery contactor failure. (Both of these contactors had just
the number 9401 stamped on them even though the starter contactor was
supposed to be a 9401-1).
After much flailing around, false starts, wrong part ordering, and research,
the starter contactor was replaced with a metal case, side mounted, Eaton
Aerospace Controls Division, P/N 6041H190 intermittent duty contactor. The
main battery contactor was replaced with a metal case, side mounted, Eaton
Aerospace Controls Division, P/N 6041H189 continuous duty contactor.
The Beechcraft Aeroclub community and Beechcraft itself is largely ignorant
and bereft of documentation on both the fact that two different types
(intermittent versus continuous duty) of contactors are preferred / required
for these two installations and how the mounting method conversion and
wiring is to be accomplished.
To date I have not located any Beechcraft documentation on how one is
supposed to change either the physical mounting or the wiring from the base
mounted to the side mounted contactors so the local A&P is forced to just
wing it. I haven't given up entirely on trying to wring some further
information on this subject from Beech.
Also the original SBC contactors had a confusing, unmarked array of TVS
devices attached and it is unclear just how the local FBO handled the
installation of any replacement TVS devices. (I am only allowed to "help" to
a certain extent on this TC aircraft that is FBO maintained.)
My comment about rewiring my plane a bit referred to my amateur built
experimental airplane. After my hangar mate suffered a fairly new main
battery contactor failure I moved my transponder electrical power source
from the main avionics bus to the essential avionics bus so that I could
have transponder power for "get home" operation within the Washington DC
ADIZ.
'OC' Says: "The best investment we can make is the effort to gather and
understand knowledge."
PS: The few pages of Sierra wiring diagrams that you emailed to me a while
back were absolutely essential in helping to understand the aircraft's
contactor situation -- many thanks again.
----------------------------------- RESPONDING TO -----------------
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net>
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Manual Battery Switch Project
>
>8/9/2007
>
>Precisely on target. I personally am aware of three contactor failures
>within the last year. One nearly new, presently available, commonly used
>type, and two decades older ones built by SBC. Two were battery contactors
>and one was a starter contactor.
If one goes into the repair records of aircraft in
existence, there are no doubt dozens of failures
every week . . . and all of those aircraft went to
the shop for replacement from which we may infer that the
failure did not produce a "smoking-hole" event.
While your assertions concerning numbers of observed
failures are no doubt correct, we should be careful
that we do not read meaning into those assertions
that cannot be directly quantified into fleet-wide
risk.
Anecdotal data are often useful but should with
caution. For example, I could say that I'm aware
of dozens of sidewall failures in tires and then
offer a follow-on assertion as to how I reacted to
that information. Now, if I was observing the flow
of flat tires into a tire-store, and the dozens of
sidewall failures were but 1/2 percent of all failures,
then perhaps the sense of urgency to craft an
alternative philosophy for the use of tires.
>I have rewired my plane a bit accordingly.
As I recall you're working with a TC aircraft.
How did you rewire your airplane?
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert Feldtman" <bobf(at)feldtman.com> |
| Subject: | Re: P-mag to VM-1000C tach signal |
Makes me think you need a better ground between the mag and the VM unit -
sounds like a floating ground issue. Capacitor won't work, dodn't know why
they suggested that. You could build a separate transistor based trigger
circuit, but you shouldn't have to. Check your ground carefully and don't
rely on the air frame. I'd use a separate large copper wire between the two
bobf
On 8/10/07, Geoff Evans wrote:
>
> I've been trying to get my Vision Microsystems VM-1000C to read the RPM
> pulses coming from my P-mag ignition. After much testing, here is where I
> am:
> Testing the ignition *separately* with an oscilloscope determined that
> it is putting out a 5V pulse with a 4ms duration. The bottom of the pulse
> (baseline) is at ground. Some of the pulses are slightly distorted on the
> back end, but I don't think that should matter.
>
> Testing the VM-1000C *separately* with the scope and a frequency generator
> determined that it correctly counts pulses as long as the bottom of the
> pulse (baseline) is within 300mv of ground. If the bottom of the pulse gets
> higher than this, the VM-1000C doesn't see it.
>
> However... When I connect the ignition to the VM-1000C and watch *both of
> them together* with the scope, I see that the VM-1000C raises the baseline
> of the ignition output from 0V to 2.7V. This is obviously way too high for
> it to count, and the RPM indicator thus reads zero.
>
> The ignition people suggested putting a 0.47 microfarad capacitor in
> series between the ignition and the VM-1000C in an attempt to move the
> bottom of the pulse closer to ground. However, the capacitor actually raised
> the bottom of the pulse from 2.7V to 4.8V. That obviously doesn't help.
>
> Can anyone offer me any guidance here? Something in the VM-1000C appears
> to be raising the baseline of the tach signal and preventing the pulses from
> being counted because they never get close enough to ground.
>
> Please reference these images from the scope:
>
> http://home.comcast.net/~n70ge/end_images/Ign.jpg shows the ignition
> output by itself.
>
> http://home.comcast.net/~n70ge/end_images/ignvms.jpg shows the ignition
> output when connected to the VM-1000C.
>
> http://home.comcast.net/~n70ge/end_images/ignvmscap.jpg shows the ignition
> output connected to the VM-1000C through the capacitor.
>
> There must be a simple fix for this...
>
> Thanks,
>
> -Geoff
>
> RV-8 ready to fly for the first time once I get this bug fixed
>
> ------------------------------
> Ready for /body>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: P-mag to VM-1000C tach signal |
| From: | "Eric M. Jones" <emjones(at)charter.net> |
I don't think the 0.47 uF cap is right either. There may be a simple way to fix
this thing. The P-mag people should know.
But failing all that, I have just finished a little circuit to convert 0-14.2V
to 0.20 to 1.35 V to feed the R.A.C. bar graph indicator. The circuit uses one
LM324 quad op amp. One of the op amps is configured as a non-inverting summing
amplifier where Vout is the sum of V1+V2-V3-V4. This makes it simple to manipulate
the output with small voltage dividers using the other op amps as buffers.
PCBs are available. Email me offline.
Additionally, for those with a tacho frequency problem, I have designed a tiny
device that converts 3 ppr to 1.5 ppr and maintains pulse width. PCBs are available.
Email me offline.
See attached.
"Everything you've learned in school as "obvious" becomes
less and less obvious as you begin to study the universe.
For example, there are no solids in the universe. There's
not even a suggestion of a solid. There are no absolute con-
tinuums. There are no surfaces. There are no straight lines."
- R. Buckminster Fuller
--------
Eric M. Jones
www.PerihelionDesign.com
113 Brentwood Drive
Southbridge, MA 01550
(508) 764-2072
emjones(at)charter.net
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=128457#128457
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | North to Alaska . . . |
Dr. Dee and I are getting into the big iron bird
this afternoon to travel to Anchorage Alaska for
a weekend seminar. We've tacked a few days on the end
for some goof-off time too. We'll be back on the List
next Thursday.
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: P-mag to VM-1000C tach signal |
>I've been trying to get my Vision Microsystems VM-1000C to read the RPM
>pulses coming from my P-mag ignition. After much testing, here is where I am:
>
>Testing the ignition separately with an oscilloscope determined that it is
>putting out a 5V pulse with a 4ms duration. The bottom of the pulse
>(baseline) is at ground. Some of the pulses are slightly distorted on the
>back end, but I don't think that should matter.
>
>Testing the VM-1000C separately with the scope and a frequency generator
>determined that it correctly counts pulses as long as the bottom of the
>pulse (baseline) is within 300mv of ground. If the bottom of the pulse
>gets higher than this, the VM-1000C doesn't see it.
>
>However... When I connect the ignition to the VM-1000C and watch both of
>them together with the scope, I see that the VM-1000C raises the baseline
>of the ignition output from 0V to 2.7V. This is obviously way too high for
>it to count, and the RPM indicator thus reads zero.
>
>The ignition people suggested putting a 0.47 microfarad capacitor in
>series between the ignition and the VM-1000C in an attempt to move the
>bottom of the pulse closer to ground. However, the capacitor actually
>raised the bottom of the pulse from 2.7V to 4.8V. That obviously doesn't help.
>
>Can anyone offer me any guidance here? Something in the VM-1000C appears
>to be raising the baseline of the tach signal and preventing the pulses
>from being counted because they never get close enough to ground.
>
>Please reference these images from the scope:
>
><http://home.comcast.net/~n70ge/end_images/Ign.jpg>http://home.comcast.net/~n70ge/end_images/Ign.jpg
>shows the ignition output by itself.
>
><http://home.comcast.net/~n70ge/end_images/ignvms.jpg>http://home.comcast.net/~n70ge/end_images/ignvms.jpg
>shows the ignition output when connected to the VM-1000C.
>
><http://home.comcast.net/~n70ge/end_images/ignvmscap.jpg>http://home.comcast.net/~n70ge/end_images/ignvmscap.jpg
>shows the ignition output connected to the VM-1000C through the capacitor.
>
>There must be a simple fix for this...
Without knowing more about the input-output characteristics
of the two systems, I'll have to wag it a bit. Sounds like
a classic dc-restoration problem reminiscent of the TV
sync separator designs many moons ago. Take a peek at:
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Schematics/p-Mag_VM-1000_Interface.JPG
I'm fairly certain that the first circuit will work but is more
complex in that it requires power. The second circuit may work
and I'd try that first. If this doesn't get you running,
I'll contact P-mag and VM to see if we can take a more
predictable approach knowing the details of their input
and output circuits.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Geoff Evans <hellothaimassage(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | Re: P-mag to VM-1000C tach signal |
Bob wrote:
Without knowing more about the input-output characteristics
of the two systems, I'll have to wag it a bit. Sounds like
a classic dc-restoration problem reminiscent of the TV
sync separator designs many moons ago. Take a peek at:
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Schematics/p-Mag_VM-1000_Interface.JPG
I'm fairly certain that the first circuit will work but is more
complex in that it requires power. The second circuit may work
and I'd try that first. If this doesn't get you running,
I'll contact P-mag and VM to see if we can take a more
predictable approach knowing the details of their input
and output circuits.
Bob . . .
=========
After explaining all of this to Tom from E-mag, he (correctly) figured out that
the tach pulse input line on the VM-1000C is biased hi (+5V). According to Tom,
I have an older (1.5 years) version of the P-mag circuit board that uses a
resistor to drive the baseline of the pulse to ground, and it doesn't work when
connected to an instrument that is biased hi.
Newer versions of the P-mag circuit boards use an opto-isolator instead of a resistor
to drive baseline of the pulse to ground. This newer board also has a configurable
option called "open collector mode" that, in conjunction with the
opto-isolator, should make this whole setup work properly. At least that's what
Tom thinks, anyway.
Later today I got an email from an engineer at Vision (JPI). He confirmed that the tach input line was biased hi, and he suggested this circuit to fix it if the ignition couldn't be made compatible: http://home.comcast.net/~n70ge/end_images/Electronic_Ignition_Interface.pdf.
This circuit is slightly different than the ones you drew, Bob, but I assume it
has the same function. Is that correct? Alternatively, Tom from E-mag suggested
using a TTL 7404 driver chip if the upgrade to the P-mag board doesn't work.
Thank for your help.. I can troubleshoot somewhat and throw around big electronic
words, but I'm certainly no circuit designer...
Interestingly enough, the drawing I linked to above from JPI is titled "Electronic
Ignition Interface to EDM900/930/950/VM1000/VM1000C". If all of those instruments
are biased hi on the input line, I wonder why this problem hasn't come
up before with other instrument and/or ignition combinations.
-Geoff
http://smallbusiness.yahoo.com/webhosting
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Fergus Kyle" <VE3LVO(at)rac.ca> |
| Subject: | solenoids relays contactors & Aunt Min |
Ancient Robert:
"When I was a lad, Ford automobiles had a plunger on their starter contactor
that allowed us to actuate the starter manually. There was no way to open
the
contactor if it was stuck closed, but if the electrical activation option
was
not operative, we could spin over the engine by pushing on the plunger.
Obviously, the battery had to be sound. Happy Skies, Old Bob"
When I was lad, we didn't have a car, we had streetcar tickets though. On
the other hand, Aunt Minnie (yup) had a Ford A and I think she stamped on
the floor to flog the little engine into life. Do you suppose that itty bump
was the top of a mechanical contactor?
Ferg
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Fiveonepw(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | GPS/XM antenna interference |
At an OSH forum it was recommended to not locate active antennas(ae?) next to
each other as their active electronics could degrade or corrupt data from
them. I've been unable to find any such restrictions in the installation
information provided with the equipment which includes GNS430W, GRT Dual Horizons
with XM satellite and internal GPS, Trutrak ADI with it's own GPS, for a total
of
3 GPS antennas(ae?) and one XM receiver. I'd like to mount these on a common
shelf at the top of the firewall under the cowl.
Each antenna appears to have a simple coaxial connection which tells me
little of it's "active" capability or if these are simple (non-active) devices,
although I know the antenna for the 430W is a dedicated unit (not same as non-W
unit). The antenna for the ADI is a Laipac Tech model GLP1.
Before I contact the various suppliers tomorrow, does anyone have any actual
experience with this or know of any installation requirements/recommended
practices for these devices, or is this more Urban Legend?
Mark Phillips
(with apologies for posting to multiple lists!)
http://discover.aol.com/memed/aolcom30tour
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Alan Adamson" <aadamson(at)highrf.com> |
| Subject: | GPS/XM antenna interference |
I believe that the issue is a little more complicated. There are really 2
types of antennas. One that just has a pre-amp in it - these are mostly for
GPS receivers, and then the XM type antennas - these not only have a pre-amp
installed, but also have a full communications receiver in them. Even
receivers are basically little transmitters with LO frequencies that may
"mix" with other active antennas. Either in the pre-amp or the RX that may
be included in the antenna. This MIX may cause interference with the RX'rs
ability to decode the signal that they are intended for and so the signal
may be degraded.
At 2.4Ghz, these wave lengths are pretty small so locating item at least 1
wave length apart shouldn't be too difficult. What I wouldn't do it stack
or locate them so they were touching in any way. The farther apart the
better just to be safe.
Alan
_____
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of
Fiveonepw(at)aol.com
Sent: Sunday, August 12, 2007 2:06 PM
Subject: AeroElectric-List: GPS/XM antenna interference
At an OSH forum it was recommended to not locate active antennas(ae?) next
to each other as their active electronics could degrade or corrupt data from
them. I've been unable to find any such restrictions in the installation
information provided with the equipment which includes GNS430W, GRT Dual
Horizons with XM satellite and internal GPS, Trutrak ADI with it's own GPS,
for a total of 3 GPS antennas(ae?) and one XM receiver. I'd like to mount
these on a common shelf at the top of the firewall under the cowl.
Each antenna appears to have a simple coaxial connection which tells me
little of it's "active" capability or if these are simple (non-active)
devices, although I know the antenna for the 430W is a dedicated unit (not
same as non-W unit). The antenna for the ADI is a Laipac Tech model GLP1.
Before I contact the various suppliers tomorrow, does anyone have any actual
experience with this or know of any installation requirements/recommended
practices for these devices, or is this more Urban Legend?
Mark Phillips
(with apologies for posting to multiple lists!)
_____
AOL.com.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Michael T. Ice" <aurbo(at)ak.net> |
| Subject: | Seminar in Anchorage |
Hello,
I just had the pleasure of being involved in one of Bob Nuckolls' seminars. It
was a great event and worth every penny. If you ever have the opportunity to attend
one of these seminars, do it.
Blue Skies,
Mike Ice
Anchorage, Alaska
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | BobsV35B(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Seminar in Anchorage |
In a message dated 8/12/2007 9:35:52 P.M. Central Daylight Time,
aurbo(at)ak.net writes:
Hello,
I just had the pleasure of being involved in one of Bob Nuckolls' seminars.
It was a great event and worth every penny. If you ever have the opportunity
to attend one of these seminars, do it.
Blue Skies,
Mike Ice
Anchorage, Alaska
Been There, Done That!! I agree!!!!
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
AKA
Bob Siegfried
Ancient Aviator
Stearman N3977A
Brookeridge Air Park LL22
Downers Grove, IL 60516
630 985-8503
http://discover.aol.com/memed/aolcom30tour
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Nav/com 'acoustic feedback' |
| From: | "Miskelly, Francis G" <f.miskelly(at)imperial.ac.uk> |
The KX155 nav/com in my Glastar has 2 problems which may be related.
1. Inserting the headphone jack i have near perfect reception. However,
when i insert the microphone jack there is a loud whine suggestive of
'acoustic feedback'. Moving the boom away from my mouth reduces the
whine. With a different headset it appears as lots of static noise which
again changes with position of the boom. I've changed the aerial, power
supply and checked all the earths. It occurs with either mag and when
the generator is disconnected. It only happens when the engine is
running. The radio's been bench tested and passed as good.
2. Radio reception is good with just the headphone jack inserted.
However, insert the microphone jack and reception becomes very poor or
disappears completely. I suspect the 'acoustic feedback' is raising the
automatic squelch which is cutting off the radio station
Can anyone suggest an explanation and a solution!
Many thanks
Frank
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Bill Bradburry" <bbradburry(at)bellsouth.net> |
| Subject: | Headset plug polarity |
I am amazed at the difficulty in finding the polarity on the internet. Can
someone help me here?
What should be the polarity of the sleeve, ring, and tip on a stereo plug?
Which, ring or tip, is probably right and which is probably left on the
stereo plug?
Also what should be the polarity of the sleeve and tip on the mono plug.
How should I wire a stereo receptacle so that it could be used for both
stereo or mono?
Thanks,
Bill B
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | <rvmail(at)thelefflers.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Headset plug polarity |
My first thought was to quickly reply, but my information is off the top of my
head and may not be correct.
My recommendation is to check your headset manufacturer's web site or give them
a call. I'm sure in a couple minutes you would have an answer.
My guess would have be tip-right, ring-left, sleeve-ground.
On a mono plug, the tip has the signal and the sleeve is the ground.
>
> From: "Bill Bradburry" <bbradburry(at)bellsouth.net>
> Date: 2007/08/13 Mon AM 07:57:05 EST
> To:
> Subject: AeroElectric-List: Headset plug polarity
>
>
> I am amazed at the difficulty in finding the polarity on the internet. Can
> someone help me here?
>
> What should be the polarity of the sleeve, ring, and tip on a stereo plug?
> Which, ring or tip, is probably right and which is probably left on the
> stereo plug?
>
> Also what should be the polarity of the sleeve and tip on the mono plug.
>
> How should I wire a stereo receptacle so that it could be used for both
> stereo or mono?
>
> Thanks,
> Bill B
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Ernest Christley <echristley(at)nc.rr.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Nav/com 'acoustic feedback' |
Miskelly, Francis G wrote:
> The KX155 nav/com in my Glastar has 2 problems which may be related.
>
> 1. Inserting the headphone jack i have near perfect reception.
> However, when i insert the microphone jack there is a loud whine
> suggestive of 'acoustic feedback'. Moving the boom away from my mouth
> reduces the whine. With a different headset it appears as lots of
> static noise which again changes with position of the boom. I've
> changed the aerial, power supply and checked all the earths. It occurs
> with either mag and when the generator is disconnected. It only
> happens when the engine is running. The radio's been bench tested and
> passed as good.
>
> 2. Radio reception is good with just the headphone jack inserted.
> However, insert the microphone jack and reception becomes very poor or
> disappears completely. I suspect the 'acoustic feedback' is raising
> the automatic squelch which is cutting off the radio station
>
> Can anyone suggest an explanation and a solution!
> Many thanks
> Frank
Since there is a problem with multiple headset, I would check the jack
first. The symptoms seem to imply some feedback from the mic to the
audio. Look for a short or a broken ground. Beyond that, it would seem
circuitry withing the intercom is fritzed, and it gets much more
complicated.
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Headset plug polarity |
| From: | Ron Quillin <rjquillin(at)gmail.com> |
At 05:57 8/13/2007, you wrote:
>
>
>I am amazed at the difficulty in finding the polarity on the internet. Can
>someone help me here?
>
>What should be the polarity of the sleeve, ring, and tip on a stereo plug?
>Which, ring or tip, is probably right and which is probably left on the
>stereo plug?
"Standards" have evolved and changed over the years, and not every
manufacturer follows them anyway, and draftsmen frequently don't know
or care how a jack is drawn and get it wrong. From the audio world:
Tip Right
Ring Left
Sleeve Common
PS-Engineering, and others, agree.
>Also what should be the polarity of the sleeve and tip on the mono plug.
Tip hot
Sleeve Common
>How should I wire a stereo receptacle so that it could be used for both
>stereo or mono?
There isn't any really good, safe and easy way and the method
selected would properly be dependent on what the signal source is,
and how well it may or may not be fault protected.
With two broken wrists in casts, I'm typing challenged. Perhaps
others can elaborate.
Ron Q.
>Thanks,
>Bill B
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Nav/com 'acoustic feedback' |
| From: | "Miskelly, Francis G" <f.miskelly(at)imperial.ac.uk> |
Thanks for your comments Ernest.
I've double-checked all the grounds i could find. Even took the whole
harness out (which was new) and had it double-checked. Nothing found.
If its the intercom in the radio why does it not cause the same problem
when the engine is off?
It only causes the problem when the engine is running
Kind regards
Frank
________________________________
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com on behalf of Ernest
Christley
Sent: Mon 13/08/2007 15:04
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Nav/com 'acoustic feedback'
Miskelly, Francis G wrote:
> The KX155 nav/com in my Glastar has 2 problems which may be related.
>
> 1. Inserting the headphone jack i have near perfect reception.
> However, when i insert the microphone jack there is a loud whine
> suggestive of 'acoustic feedback'. Moving the boom away from my mouth
> reduces the whine. With a different headset it appears as lots of
> static noise which again changes with position of the boom. I've
> changed the aerial, power supply and checked all the earths. It occurs
> with either mag and when the generator is disconnected. It only
> happens when the engine is running. The radio's been bench tested and
> passed as good.
>
> 2. Radio reception is good with just the headphone jack inserted.
> However, insert the microphone jack and reception becomes very poor or
> disappears completely. I suspect the 'acoustic feedback' is raising
> the automatic squelch which is cutting off the radio station
>
> Can anyone suggest an explanation and a solution!
> Many thanks
> Frank
Since there is a problem with multiple headset, I would check the jack
first. The symptoms seem to imply some feedback from the mic to the
audio. Look for a short or a broken ground. Beyond that, it would seem
circuitry withing the intercom is fritzed, and it gets much more
complicated.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Ernest Christley <echristley(at)nc.rr.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Nav/com 'acoustic feedback' |
Miskelly, Francis G wrote:
> Thanks for your comments Ernest.
> I've double-checked all the grounds i could find. Even took the whole harness
out (which was new) and had it double-checked. Nothing found.
> If its the intercom in the radio why does it not cause the same problem when
the engine is off?
> It only causes the problem when the engine is running
> Kind regards
> Frank
>
>
Where is your squelch set at?
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Nav/com 'acoustic feedback' |
| From: | "Matt Prather" <mprather(at)spro.net> |
Ernest,
Your response kind of points to what I was thinking.. I don't think the
KX155 has any intercom, but the description of the symptoms seem like an
intercom problem. If so, I wonder if turning off the intercom aleviates
the behavior. If there isn't any intercom, then I might suspect the radio
has a problem. Plugging in the mic shouldn't have any effect until the
PTT circuitry is activated, but then you wouldn't get _any_ reception
(because the transmitter would be active)..
If the problem is related to the intercom, consider trying to find a way
to adjust the mic gain on the intercom.
Regards,
Matt-
>
>
> Miskelly, Francis G wrote:
>> The KX155 nav/com in my Glastar has 2 problems which may be related.
>>
>> 1. Inserting the headphone jack i have near perfect reception.
>> However, when i insert the microphone jack there is a loud whine
>> suggestive of 'acoustic feedback'. Moving the boom away from my mouth
>> reduces the whine. With a different headset it appears as lots of
>> static noise which again changes with position of the boom. I've
>> changed the aerial, power supply and checked all the earths. It occurs
>> with either mag and when the generator is disconnected. It only
>> happens when the engine is running. The radio's been bench tested and
>> passed as good.
>>
>> 2. Radio reception is good with just the headphone jack inserted.
>> However, insert the microphone jack and reception becomes very poor or
>> disappears completely. I suspect the 'acoustic feedback' is raising
>> the automatic squelch which is cutting off the radio station
>>
>> Can anyone suggest an explanation and a solution!
>> Many thanks
>> Frank
> Since there is a problem with multiple headset, I would check the jack
> first. The symptoms seem to imply some feedback from the mic to the
> audio. Look for a short or a broken ground. Beyond that, it would seem
> circuitry withing the intercom is fritzed, and it gets much more
> complicated.
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
Rumen,
I would like to have it. Let me know the shipping to ZIP 33190.
Thanks,
Ed. Sadler
http://discover.aol.com/memed/aolcom30tour
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Nav/com 'acoustic feedback' |
| From: | "Matt Prather" <mprather(at)spro.net> |
Does it help if you cover the mic with your hand (both sides - pull the
muff off)?
I suspect that the input stage of your intercom is being overdriven by the
acoustic noise of the engine.
Regards,
Matt-
> Thanks for your comments Ernest.
> I've double-checked all the grounds i could find. Even took the whole
> harness out (which was new) and had it double-checked. Nothing found.
> If its the intercom in the radio why does it not cause the same problem
> when the engine is off?
> It only causes the problem when the engine is running
> Kind regards
> Frank
>
> ________________________________
>
> From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com on behalf of Ernest
> Christley
> Sent: Mon 13/08/2007 15:04
> To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
> Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Nav/com 'acoustic feedback'
>
>
>
>
> Miskelly, Francis G wrote:
>> The KX155 nav/com in my Glastar has 2 problems which may be related.
>>
>> 1. Inserting the headphone jack i have near perfect reception.
>> However, when i insert the microphone jack there is a loud whine
>> suggestive of 'acoustic feedback'. Moving the boom away from my mouth
>> reduces the whine. With a different headset it appears as lots of
>> static noise which again changes with position of the boom. I've
>> changed the aerial, power supply and checked all the earths. It occurs
>> with either mag and when the generator is disconnected. It only
>> happens when the engine is running. The radio's been bench tested and
>> passed as good.
>>
>> 2. Radio reception is good with just the headphone jack inserted.
>> However, insert the microphone jack and reception becomes very poor or
>> disappears completely. I suspect the 'acoustic feedback' is raising
>> the automatic squelch which is cutting off the radio station
>>
>> Can anyone suggest an explanation and a solution!
>> Many thanks
>> Frank
> Since there is a problem with multiple headset, I would check the jack
> first. The symptoms seem to imply some feedback from the mic to the
> audio. Look for a short or a broken ground. Beyond that, it would seem
> circuitry withing the intercom is fritzed, and it gets much more
> complicated.
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
Hi All,
I'm getting ready for the electrical system in my zenith 601XL with a
Jabiru 3300.
I'm trying to keep things simple and am thinking about going with the
Z-20 Small Jabiru System. That diagram switches the main bus thru the
Master switch instead of a battery contactor. Whats the practical cutoff
in terms of current for using a contactor vs routing directly thru the
switch. Any downside to adding a contactor to this plan ? Any upsides ?
Any issues with the Z-20 plan ?
Thanks,
John Davis
Burnsville, NC
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Nav/com 'acoustic feedback' |
| From: | "Miskelly, Francis G" <f.miskelly(at)imperial.ac.uk> |
Matt
1. When i cover the mic with my hand (muff off) the character of the
feedback alters significantly but is not overall reduced. If i move the
boom away from my mouth and around to the back of my head then the
feedback reduces but doesn't disappear. Its worse (louder) the closer
the boom to my mouth. These symptoms occur on both left and right hand
headsets
2. My KX155 has an internal intercom. I haven't tried to disconnect it.
3. Plugging in the mic jack should activate the intercom and the
transmit on the radio (when PTT pressed)
4. Remember the problem only occurs when the engine is running.
5. Does anyone know how to adjust the mic gain (intercom volume control)
on the KX155? Couldn't find this info in the installation manual.
Kind regards
Frank
________________________________
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com on behalf of Matt
Prather
Sent: Mon 13/08/2007 20:12
Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Nav/com 'acoustic feedback'
Does it help if you cover the mic with your hand (both sides - pull the
muff off)?
I suspect that the input stage of your intercom is being overdriven by
the
acoustic noise of the engine.
Regards,
Matt-
> Thanks for your comments Ernest.
> I've double-checked all the grounds i could find. Even took the whole
> harness out (which was new) and had it double-checked. Nothing found.
> If its the intercom in the radio why does it not cause the same
problem
> when the engine is off?
> It only causes the problem when the engine is running
> Kind regards
> Frank
>
> ________________________________
>
> From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com on behalf of Ernest
> Christley
> Sent: Mon 13/08/2007 15:04
> To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
> Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Nav/com 'acoustic feedback'
>
>
>
>
> Miskelly, Francis G wrote:
>> The KX155 nav/com in my Glastar has 2 problems which may be related.
>>
>> 1. Inserting the headphone jack i have near perfect reception.
>> However, when i insert the microphone jack there is a loud whine
>> suggestive of 'acoustic feedback'. Moving the boom away from my mouth
>> reduces the whine. With a different headset it appears as lots of
>> static noise which again changes with position of the boom. I've
>> changed the aerial, power supply and checked all the earths. It
occurs
>> with either mag and when the generator is disconnected. It only
>> happens when the engine is running. The radio's been bench tested and
>> passed as good.
>>
>> 2. Radio reception is good with just the headphone jack inserted.
>> However, insert the microphone jack and reception becomes very poor
or
>> disappears completely. I suspect the 'acoustic feedback' is raising
>> the automatic squelch which is cutting off the radio station
>>
>> Can anyone suggest an explanation and a solution!
>> Many thanks
>> Frank
> Since there is a problem with multiple headset, I would check the jack
> first. The symptoms seem to imply some feedback from the mic to the
> audio. Look for a short or a broken ground. Beyond that, it would
seem
> circuitry withing the intercom is fritzed, and it gets much more
> complicated.
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Nav/com 'acoustic feedback' |
| From: | "Matt Prather" <mprather(at)spro.net> |
Interesting.. I wasn't aware that any KX155 has intercom. Okay. I see
the manual says it has 500ohm aux inputs, but don't see any reference to
intercom. We're talking about a Bendix/King KX-155, right? Do you have a
link to a file which describes the feature?
Does the sound vary depending on where your head/headset is sitting, or by
bending the wires around on the headset, or the wires to the jack?
Is the frequency of the whine/feedback dependent on the engine RPM? Or is
it just a steady tone?
I agree with item 3 (assuming an intercom).
Regards,
Matt-
> Matt
> 1. When i cover the mic with my hand (muff off) the character of the
> feedback alters significantly but is not overall reduced. If i move the
> boom away from my mouth and around to the back of my head then the
> feedback reduces but doesn't disappear. Its worse (louder) the closer the
> boom to my mouth. These symptoms occur on both left and right hand
> headsets
> 2. My KX155 has an internal intercom. I haven't tried to disconnect it.
> 3. Plugging in the mic jack should activate the intercom and the transmit
> on the radio (when PTT pressed)
> 4. Remember the problem only occurs when the engine is running.
> 5. Does anyone know how to adjust the mic gain (intercom volume control)
> on the KX155? Couldn't find this info in the installation manual.
> Kind regards
> Frank
>
>
> ________________________________
>
> From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com on behalf of Matt
> Prather
> Sent: Mon 13/08/2007 20:12
> To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
> Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Nav/com 'acoustic feedback'
>
>
>
>
> Does it help if you cover the mic with your hand (both sides - pull the
> muff off)?
>
> I suspect that the input stage of your intercom is being overdriven by the
> acoustic noise of the engine.
>
>
> Regards,
>
> Matt-
>
>> Thanks for your comments Ernest.
>> I've double-checked all the grounds i could find. Even took the whole
>> harness out (which was new) and had it double-checked. Nothing found.
>> If its the intercom in the radio why does it not cause the same problem
>> when the engine is off?
>> It only causes the problem when the engine is running
>> Kind regards
>> Frank
>>
>> ________________________________
>>
>> From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com on behalf of Ernest
>> Christley
>> Sent: Mon 13/08/2007 15:04
>> To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
>> Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Nav/com 'acoustic feedback'
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Miskelly, Francis G wrote:
>>> The KX155 nav/com in my Glastar has 2 problems which may be related.
>>>
>>> 1. Inserting the headphone jack i have near perfect reception.
>>> However, when i insert the microphone jack there is a loud whine
>>> suggestive of 'acoustic feedback'. Moving the boom away from my mouth
>>> reduces the whine. With a different headset it appears as lots of
>>> static noise which again changes with position of the boom. I've
>>> changed the aerial, power supply and checked all the earths. It occurs
>>> with either mag and when the generator is disconnected. It only
>>> happens when the engine is running. The radio's been bench tested and
>>> passed as good.
>>>
>>> 2. Radio reception is good with just the headphone jack inserted.
>>> However, insert the microphone jack and reception becomes very poor or
>>> disappears completely. I suspect the 'acoustic feedback' is raising
>>> the automatic squelch which is cutting off the radio station
>>>
>>> Can anyone suggest an explanation and a solution!
>>> Many thanks
>>> Frank
>> Since there is a problem with multiple headset, I would check the jack
>> first. The symptoms seem to imply some feedback from the mic to the
>> audio. Look for a short or a broken ground. Beyond that, it would seem
>> circuitry withing the intercom is fritzed, and it gets much more
>> complicated.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Nav/com 'acoustic feedback' |
| From: | Ron Quillin <rjquillin(at)gmail.com> |
At 14:29 8/13/2007, you wrote:
>Interesting.. I wasn't aware that any KX155 has intercom. Okay. I see
>the manual says it has 500ohm aux inputs, but don't see any reference to
>intercom. We're talking about a Bendix/King KX-155, right? Do you have a
>link to a file which describes the feature?
I do find a reference in the IM for a 155A/165A to an intercom level
adjustment.
Is this an A model?
Ron Q
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | emagair recommendation against Nuckoll's wiring schematic? |
| From: | Erich_Weaver(at)URSCorp.com |
Bob et al:
Recent postings on the Vans Airforce site (see posts #44-47 at
www.tiny.cc/bb2oY) indicate that the folks at emagair do not want us to
use
the wiring method suggested for their product in your schematics (I fo
rget
the Z#). The logic for your schematic made sense to me, so I used it a
nd
dont want to re-do now unless there is a good reason. Could I impose o
n
you to talk the fine folks at Emagair and get to the bottom of this? Im
not
sure I understand the issue and Im sure you will have more insights an
d
better questions for them than I can come up with. Thank you - Lookin
g
forward to your response.
Erich Weaver
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Nav/com 'acoustic feedback' |
| From: | "Miskelly, Francis G" <f.miskelly(at)imperial.ac.uk> |
1. The radio is a Bendix/King KX155
2. It is approximately 1 year old. Don't know the model # but could find
out
3. It definately has an internal intercom but i've no links to describe
it
4. I didn't check whether the sound varied depending on where your
head/headset is sitting, or by
bending the wires around on the headset, or the wires to the jack but it
occurred with 3 separate headsets and on both pilot and co-pilot
outputs. Pretty sure its not a headset problem as same headsets work
fine in other planes
5. The noise gets worse with higher engine RPM but is very obvious even
at 1000 RPM. The character doesn't change - just its loudness
Many thanks
Frank
________________________________
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com on behalf of Matt
Prather
Sent: Mon 13/08/2007 22:29
Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Nav/com 'acoustic feedback'
Interesting.. I wasn't aware that any KX155 has intercom. Okay. I see
the manual says it has 500ohm aux inputs, but don't see any reference to
intercom. We're talking about a Bendix/King KX-155, right? Do you have
a
link to a file which describes the feature?
Does the sound vary depending on where your head/headset is sitting, or
by
bending the wires around on the headset, or the wires to the jack?
Is the frequency of the whine/feedback dependent on the engine RPM? Or
is
it just a steady tone?
I agree with item 3 (assuming an intercom).
Regards,
Matt-
> Matt
> 1. When i cover the mic with my hand (muff off) the character of the
> feedback alters significantly but is not overall reduced. If i move
the
> boom away from my mouth and around to the back of my head then the
> feedback reduces but doesn't disappear. Its worse (louder) the closer
the
> boom to my mouth. These symptoms occur on both left and right hand
> headsets
> 2. My KX155 has an internal intercom. I haven't tried to disconnect
it.
> 3. Plugging in the mic jack should activate the intercom and the
transmit
> on the radio (when PTT pressed)
> 4. Remember the problem only occurs when the engine is running.
> 5. Does anyone know how to adjust the mic gain (intercom volume
control)
> on the KX155? Couldn't find this info in the installation manual.
> Kind regards
> Frank
>
>
> ________________________________
>
> From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com on behalf of Matt
> Prather
> Sent: Mon 13/08/2007 20:12
> To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
> Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Nav/com 'acoustic feedback'
>
>
>
>
> Does it help if you cover the mic with your hand (both sides - pull
the
> muff off)?
>
> I suspect that the input stage of your intercom is being overdriven by
the
> acoustic noise of the engine.
>
>
> Regards,
>
> Matt-
>
>> Thanks for your comments Ernest.
>> I've double-checked all the grounds i could find. Even took the whole
>> harness out (which was new) and had it double-checked. Nothing found.
>> If its the intercom in the radio why does it not cause the same
problem
>> when the engine is off?
>> It only causes the problem when the engine is running
>> Kind regards
>> Frank
>>
>> ________________________________
>>
>> From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com on behalf of
Ernest
>> Christley
>> Sent: Mon 13/08/2007 15:04
>> To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
>> Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Nav/com 'acoustic feedback'
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Miskelly, Francis G wrote:
>>> The KX155 nav/com in my Glastar has 2 problems which may be related.
>>>
>>> 1. Inserting the headphone jack i have near perfect reception.
>>> However, when i insert the microphone jack there is a loud whine
>>> suggestive of 'acoustic feedback'. Moving the boom away from my
mouth
>>> reduces the whine. With a different headset it appears as lots of
>>> static noise which again changes with position of the boom. I've
>>> changed the aerial, power supply and checked all the earths. It
occurs
>>> with either mag and when the generator is disconnected. It only
>>> happens when the engine is running. The radio's been bench tested
and
>>> passed as good.
>>>
>>> 2. Radio reception is good with just the headphone jack inserted.
>>> However, insert the microphone jack and reception becomes very poor
or
>>> disappears completely. I suspect the 'acoustic feedback' is raising
>>> the automatic squelch which is cutting off the radio station
>>>
>>> Can anyone suggest an explanation and a solution!
>>> Many thanks
>>> Frank
>> Since there is a problem with multiple headset, I would check the
jack
>> first. The symptoms seem to imply some feedback from the mic to the
>> audio. Look for a short or a broken ground. Beyond that, it would
seem
>> circuitry withing the intercom is fritzed, and it gets much more
>> complicated.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Michael T. Ice" <aurbo(at)ak.net> |
| Subject: | Re: emagair recommendation against Nuckoll's wiring |
schematic?
Erich,
I had the pleasure of attending Bob's seminar this past weekend and I asked him
about this very same issue.
First the caveat. I am not an engineer and don't claim to know a whole lot about
electrical theory or application. What I am is curious and I do have an E and
a P/mag.
After reading everything I can get my hands on and studying the Z figures Z-13
and Z-33 for the Maintenance hand prop option I can detect only subtle differences.
Emag powers the mags directly from the main bus, so when you turn on the master
there is power at the mags. The switches on the panel for the emags are for P-lead
kill switches. To do maintenance (timing) all you have to do is turn on
the master and leave the panel switch off. But to check the alternator part of
the P-Mag you have to put a separate switch in line with the power supply to
the mag. When you do a run up check, you turn this switch off and if all is well
the motor keeps on humming.
Bob's design has the power go to a switch first. The positions on the switch are
down is off, middle is for internal power, up is for ships power. In the Z-33
schematic you then have to add a switch (and possibly a light) to be able to
cut the P-lead so you can do maintenance (Timing). So to do the internal alternator
check all you have to do is flick the switch to the middle position and
if all is well you can't tell the difference.
So what's the big difference. Both systems use 3 switches. Both systems do the
same thing just in slightly different ways.
Personally I can see an advantage in the Emag system where each mag has it's own
P-lead ground kill switch. Starting sequence should be pretty easy. Master on,
both switches in the up position, mash the start button.
But I am a confirmed Nuckoll's advocate and I want to see what he has to say about
this. He is still here in Alaska and touring around visiting the sights. He
has assured me that when he gets back he will dig into this and provide help.
I have sent an email to Emagair asking the same questions. Open dialog on this
question can only help us and Emagair greatly.
I have not personally heard from the guys at Emagair nor have I read anything directly
from them concerning this issue. Until I do I will keep an open mind.
Perhaps this issue is a non-event and some of the problems stem from us folks in
the field still trying to make these new mags act like the old style. For instance
how can you perform a mag drop check if there isn't one. Perhaps the answer
is who cares. I don't know but I am sure interested in how this turns out.
Please comment at will. Any dialog is appreciated.
Mike Ice
----- Original Message -----
From: Erich_Weaver(at)URSCorp.com
To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Monday, August 13, 2007 2:36 PM
Subject: AeroElectric-List: emagair recommendation against Nuckoll's wiring schematic?
Bob et al:
Recent postings on the Vans Airforce site (see posts #44-47 at www.tiny.cc/bb2oY) indicate that the folks at emagair do not want us to use the wiring method suggested for their product in your schematics (I forget the Z#). The logic for your schematic made sense to me, so I used it and dont want to re-do now unless there is a good reason. Could I impose on you to talk the fine folks at Emagair and get to the bottom of this? Im not sure I understand the issue and Im sure you will have more insights and better questions for them than I can come up with. Thank you - Looking forward to your response.
Erich Weaver
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Nav/com 'acoustic feedback' |
| From: | "Miskelly, Francis G" <f.miskelly(at)imperial.ac.uk> |
The squelch is set to off. Pulling out the volume control knob takes off
the squelch. When i leave the squelch on there is virtually no radio
reception at all.
- Frank
________________________________
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com on behalf of Ernest
Christley
Sent: Mon 13/08/2007 17:57
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Nav/com 'acoustic feedback'
Miskelly, Francis G wrote:
> Thanks for your comments Ernest.
> I've double-checked all the grounds i could find. Even took the whole
harness out (which was new) and had it double-checked. Nothing found.
> If its the intercom in the radio why does it not cause the same
problem when the engine is off?
> It only causes the problem when the engine is running
> Kind regards
> Frank
>
>
Where is your squelch set at?
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Darwin N. Barrie" <ktlkrn(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: emagair recommendation against Nuckoll's wiring |
schematic?
WIRE PER THE MANUFACTURERS RECOMMENDATIONS!!! I respect Bob but why
differ from what the manufactureres want. Bob's wiring should be in
consultation with Brad and Tom.
I wired per Emagair's instructions and have not had any wiring issues.
The breakers provide the ability to isolate if necessary. When I had a
mechanical failure of the Pmag (magnet came loose) I used the key switch
to isolate and go to the good mag. I then cut the breaker also to the
bad mag.
During run up I use the keyed switch for the mag check. I don't do an
idle check with the Pmags every flight. I did an initial install check
to deteremine the cutoff RPM for each mag. My idle is set higher than
the cutoff so I see no need to do idle check each run up.
I'm not an electronics person but in talking to Brad I can see where a
power interuption could potentially cause issues.
I'm missing a point I was going to say but the bottomline, wire per the
instructions and you'll be fine.
Darwin N. Barrie
Chandler AZ
RV7 N717EE
2 Pmags 260+ hours
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Speedy11(at)aol.com |
Mike,
Since you invited comment, I will.
I haven't asked them, but I suspect the Emag guys want to limit the
variables as much as possible at this juncture in their progress. They are working
out the bugs in their new system and adding other wiring methods to the mix
doesn't help them resolve problems. If I were in their position, I would
recommend builders use only the company recommended wiring procedure and if the
builder deviates from that recommendation then the builder should not expect
Emag assistance to resolve problems. I believe that would not be unreasonable.
I believe that would be true of any company selling a product - if the
buyer deviates from recommended installation, then the company cannot assist.
I have two Pmags (haven't run the engine yet) and I am wiring them with two
hidden 3A switched circuit breakers to provide power from the bus and two
panel-mounted p-lead switches. I wired it this way because the Emag
installation manual says "You can check the internal alternator operation on the
P model
during run-up (900+ rpm) by switching to the P model ignition and cutting 12
volt power (not the p-lead switch) at the breaker."
I hesitate to deviate from the factory recommended wiring procedure -
despite Bob's depth of knowledge and recommended technique. Even Bob often says
contact the manufacturer and follow their recommendations.
I am wondering (and I need to contact Emagair) if there will be any
indication of one internal Pmag alternator failure when running two Pmags on their
internal alternators. For example, when I'm doing the mag check with 14V power
removed and both Pmags are running on internal alternators, if I turn off
the p-lead switch to one Pmag (that Pmag is now totally inoperative), will
there be an RPM drop or other indication that the chosen Pmag is not working?
Even if there is no indication, I still intend to do the check because if
one internal alternator has failed, then the only way to know may be to switch
each Pmag completely off and check for continued operation on one internal
alternator.
Experimental aviation is challenging. Fortunately, the original OBAM
builders (the Wright brothers) succeeded with each challenge. Surely we can,
too.
Off subject - I assume from your comment re:seminar that you live in Alaska.
My son in moving to AK in spring of next year to fly the F-22 and we are
looking for a Piper Pacer to put on floats. Any leads?
Stan Sutterfield
_www.rv-8a.net_ (http://www.rv-8a.net)
Erich,
I had the pleasure of attending Bob's seminar this past weekend and I asked
him
about this very same issue.
First the caveat. I am not an engineer and don't claim to know a whole lot
about
electrical theory or application. What I am is curious and I do have an E and
a P/mag.
After reading everything I can get my hands on and studying the Z figures
Z-13
and Z-33 for the Maintenance hand prop option I can detect only subtle
differences.
Emag powers the mags directly from the main bus, so when you turn on the
master
there is power at the mags. The switches on the panel for the emags are for
P-lead
kill switches. To do maintenance (timing) all you have to do is turn on
the master and leave the panel switch off. But to check the alternator part
of
the P-Mag you have to put a separate switch in line with the power supply to
the mag. When you do a run up check, you turn this switch off and if all is
well
the motor keeps on humming.
Bob's design has the power go to a switch first. The positions on the switch
are
down is off, middle is for internal power, up is for ships power. In the Z-33
schematic you then have to add a switch (and possibly a light) to be able to
cut the P-lead so you can do maintenance (Timing). So to do the internal
alternator
check all you have to do is flick the switch to the middle position and
if all is well you can't tell the difference.
So what's the big difference. Both systems use 3 switches. Both systems do
the
same thing just in slightly different ways.
Personally I can see an advantage in the Emag system where each mag has it's
own
P-lead ground kill switch. Starting sequence should be pretty easy. Master
on,
both switches in the up position, mash the start button.
But I am a confirmed Nuckoll's advocate and I want to see what he has to say
about
this. He is still here in Alaska and touring around visiting the sights. He
has assured me that when he gets back he will dig into this and provide
help.
I have sent an email to Emagair asking the same questions. Open dialog on
this
question can only help us and Emagair greatly.
I have not personally heard from the guys at Emagair nor have I read
anything directly
from them concerning this issue. Until I do I will keep an open mind.
Perhaps this issue is a non-event and some of the problems stem from us
folks in
the field still trying to make these new mags act like the old style. For
instance
how can you perform a mag drop check if there isn't one. Perhaps the answer
is who cares. I don't know but I am sure interested in how this turns out.
Please comment at will. Any dialog is appreciated.
Mike Ice
http://discover.aol.com/memed/aolcom30tour
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: emagair recommendation against Nuckoll's wiring |
| From: | Erich_Weaver(at)URSCorp.com |
Darwin
Bob shares the Z-figures because he believes there is an advantage to t
hem
over "standard" methods. Im sure the Emagair wiring method works fine,
but
if all we ever did was to do what was done before, there would be no
progress. If there is a real issue with Bob's schematics for emags/pma
gs I
am confident that he will want to know about it and either improve them
or
toss them, and at that point I will re-wire mine. I cant see any harm
in
having Bob get together with the fine folks at Emagair and then see wha
t
both have to say about the issue. I really kind of doubt this is that
big
of a deal. If others are in a hurry and concerned, by all means, go wi
th
the Emagair method.
best regards
erich
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Peter Pengilly" <peter(at)sportingaero.com> |
Stan,
I have been running an E-mag for 3 years and have also swapped in a
P-mag at times. My view is the best way to wire a P-mag is to route the
power via a switched breaker, that minimizes the number of connections.
If ship's power is shut off to a P-mag whose generator is not working,
then the P-mag will act like an E-mag and will not work. If you turn off
the p-lead switch to the other mag, the engine will quit. There is no
magic here, 2 P-mags are completely independent of each other. Checking
both generators is relatively easy, during the run up use the p-lead
switch to stop one P-mag from generating sparks, note the rpm drop
(there will be one); now turn off the switched breaker (thereby shutting
off ship's power to the P-mag), if the engine continues to run at the
same rpm then all is well. If the engine falters or runs roughly all is
not well and the generator is suspect. Turn the switched breaker back on
and repeat on the other P-mag. I've never had a problem with the
generator and would recommend anyone considering an E/P-mag to buy a
P-mag. With 2 P-mags fitted the failure of one generator is no big deal
as the battery will keep the ignition running if the ship's alternator
were to fail.
The P-mag generator does not produce current all of the time (so
E-magair tell me), only when the bus voltage falls below a pre-set
level. The P-mag will use the highest voltage source available. I don't
consider that a warning light showing P-mag generator failure will be
worthwhile when a ground check will provide the same information and it
is not a critical failure that requires immediate attention.
To answer your specific questions,
I am wondering (and I need to contact Emagair) if there will be any
indication of one internal Pmag alternator failure when running two
Pmags on their internal alternators.
No, there is no indication. Each P-mag doesn't know (and doesn't care)
the other is there.
For example, when I'm doing the mag check with 14V power removed and
both Pmags are running on internal alternators, if I turn off the p-lead
switch to one Pmag (that Pmag is now totally inoperative), will there be
an RPM drop or other indication that the chosen Pmag is not working?
Best not to remove ship's power from both P-mags at once, switch off
power in turn when the p-lead switch is turned off. If the P-mag
internal alternator is failed and ship's power is removed the engine
will quit if the other mag's p-lead is switched off.
Even if there is no indication, I still intend to do the check because
if one internal alternator has failed, then the only way to know may be
to switch each Pmag completely off and check for continued operation on
one internal alternator.
There will be, and yes, your right, but you have to do each in turn.
I hope this helps, regards, Peter
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of
Speedy11(at)aol.com
Sent: 14 August 2007 17:05
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Emag Wiring
Mike,
Since you invited comment, I will.
I haven't asked them, but I suspect the Emag guys want to limit the
variables as much as possible at this juncture in their progress. They
are working out the bugs in their new system and adding other wiring
methods to the mix doesn't help them resolve problems. If I were in
their position, I would recommend builders use only the company
recommended wiring procedure and if the builder deviates from that
recommendation then the builder should not expect Emag assistance to
resolve problems. I believe that would not be unreasonable. I believe
that would be true of any company selling a product - if the buyer
deviates from recommended installation, then the company cannot assist.
I have two Pmags (haven't run the engine yet) and I am wiring them with
two hidden 3A switched circuit breakers to provide power from the bus
and two panel-mounted p-lead switches. I wired it this way because the
Emag installation manual says "You can check the internal alternator
operation on the P model during run-up (900+ rpm) by switching to the P
model ignition and cutting 12 volt power (not the p-lead switch) at the
breaker."
I hesitate to deviate from the factory recommended wiring procedure -
despite Bob's depth of knowledge and recommended technique. Even Bob
often says contact the manufacturer and follow their recommendations.
I am wondering (and I need to contact Emagair) if there will be any
indication of one internal Pmag alternator failure when running two
Pmags on their internal alternators. For example, when I'm doing the
mag check with 14V power removed and both Pmags are running on internal
alternators, if I turn off the p-lead switch to one Pmag (that Pmag is
now totally inoperative), will there be an RPM drop or other indication
that the chosen Pmag is not working?
Even if there is no indication, I still intend to do the check because
if one internal alternator has failed, then the only way to know may be
to switch each Pmag completely off and check for continued operation on
one internal alternator.
Experimental aviation is challenging. Fortunately, the original OBAM
builders (the Wright brothers) succeeded with each challenge. Surely we
can, too.
Off subject - I assume from your comment re:seminar that you live in
Alaska. My son in moving to AK in spring of next year to fly the F-22
and we are looking for a Piper Pacer to put on floats. Any leads?
Stan Sutterfield
www.rv-8a.net
Erich,
I had the pleasure of attending Bob's seminar this past weekend and I
asked him
about this very same issue.
First the caveat. I am not an engineer and don't claim to know a whole
lot about
electrical theory or application. What I am is curious and I do have an
E and
a P/mag.
After reading everything I can get my hands on and studying the Z
figures Z-13
and Z-33 for the Maintenance hand prop option I can detect only subtle
differences.
Emag powers the mags directly from the main bus, so when you turn on the
master
there is power at the mags. The switches on the panel for the emags are
for P-lead
kill switches. To do maintenance (timing) all you have to do is turn on
the master and leave the panel switch off. But to check the alternator
part of
the P-Mag you have to put a separate switch in line with the power
supply to
the mag. When you do a run up check, you turn this switch off and if all
is well
the motor keeps on humming.
Bob's design has the power go to a switch first. The positions on the
switch are
down is off, middle is for internal power, up is for ships power. In the
Z-33
schematic you then have to add a switch (and possibly a light) to be
able to
cut the P-lead so you can do maintenance (Timing). So to do the internal
alternator
check all you have to do is flick the switch to the middle position and
if all is well you can't tell the difference.
So what's the big difference. Both systems use 3 switches. Both systems
do the
same thing just in slightly different ways.
Personally I can see an advantage in the Emag system where each mag has
it's own
P-lead ground kill switch. Starting sequence should be pretty easy.
Master on,
both switches in the up position, mash the start button.
But I am a confirmed Nuckoll's advocate and I want to see what he has to
say about
this. He is still here in Alaska and touring around visiting the sights.
He
has assured me that when he gets back he will dig into this and provide
help.
I have sent an email to Emagair asking the same questions. Open dialog
on this
question can only help us and Emagair greatly.
I have not personally heard from the guys at Emagair nor have I read
anything directly
from them concerning this issue. Until I do I will keep an open mind.
Perhaps this issue is a non-event and some of the problems stem from us
folks in
the field still trying to make these new mags act like the old style.
For instance
how can you perform a mag drop check if there isn't one. Perhaps the
answer
is who cares. I don't know but I am sure interested in how this turns
out.
Please comment at will. Any dialog is appreciated.
Mike Ice
_____
<http://discover.aol.com/memed/aolcom30tour/?ncid=AOLAOF00020000000982>
.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Fiveonepw(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | GPS/XM antenna interference |
Just to pass along my learnings- after contacting the techies at Garmin,
Trutrak and GRT, none expressed any concerns or related any experiences where
locating these antennas(ae?) next to each other would create any problems. None
of the replies from the various lists indicated much of a problem either- at
least no one identified any specific technical issues. Proceeding as planned-
>From the Antenna Farm...
Mark
(again, apologies for multi-list posting!)
http://discover.aol.com/memed/aolcom30tour
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Michael T. Ice" <aurbo(at)ak.net> |
| Subject: | Re: emagair recommendation against Nuckoll's wiring |
schematic?
Darwin,
I think I agree with your view point completely. What I am realizing though is
that folks are wiring these mags all sorts of ways. I wonder if the lack of a
common way to wire them has or is causing some of the troubles we read about?
When it comes time to wire my e & p mags I will likely use the Emagair system.
Mike ice
----- Original Message -----
From: Darwin N. Barrie
To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Tuesday, August 14, 2007 7:01 AM
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: emagair recommendation against Nuckoll's wiring
schematic?
WIRE PER THE MANUFACTURERS RECOMMENDATIONS!!! I respect Bob but why differ from
what the manufactureres want. Bob's wiring should be in consultation with Brad
and Tom.
I wired per Emagair's instructions and have not had any wiring issues. The breakers
provide the ability to isolate if necessary. When I had a mechanical failure
of the Pmag (magnet came loose) I used the key switch to isolate and go
to the good mag. I then cut the breaker also to the bad mag.
During run up I use the keyed switch for the mag check. I don't do an idle check
with the Pmags every flight. I did an initial install check to deteremine
the cutoff RPM for each mag. My idle is set higher than the cutoff so I see no
need to do idle check each run up.
I'm not an electronics person but in talking to Brad I can see where a power
interuption could potentially cause issues.
I'm missing a point I was going to say but the bottomline, wire per the instructions
and you'll be fine.
Darwin N. Barrie
Chandler AZ
RV7 N717EE
2 Pmags 260+ hours
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Michael T. Ice" <aurbo(at)ak.net> |
Stan,
I agree with you that the guys at Emag want to keep their mags wired the way they
designed them. It makes sense to me to follow their recommendations. I was
just wondering out loud about the differences in the way Bob Nuckolls suggests
and the Emag system.
One thing I like about the AeroElectric ideas is the concept of reducing "parts
count". More parts equals more possible trouble. But in this instance either
system uses at least 2 switches for each P-mag, so it is a wash.
I understand the need for the switch to shut off the power to the P-mag so you
can check the internal alternator but why hide them? If you hide them will you
need a warning light to tell you they are in one position or another? I have
been thinking I might use a toggle switch with an LED light in the end of it.
I sent you a personal email about float planes in Alaska, yes I do live in Anchorage, when your son gets up here tell him we have a good EAA Chapter www.eaa42.org .
Mike Ice
----- Original Message -----
From: Speedy11(at)aol.com
To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Tuesday, August 14, 2007 8:05 AM
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Emag Wiring
Mike,
Since you invited comment, I will.
I haven't asked them, but I suspect the Emag guys want to limit the variables
as much as possible at this juncture in their progress. They are working out
the bugs in their new system and adding other wiring methods to the mix doesn't
help them resolve problems. If I were in their position, I would recommend
builders use only the company recommended wiring procedure and if the builder
deviates from that recommendation then the builder should not expect Emag assistance
to resolve problems. I believe that would not be unreasonable. I believe
that would be true of any company selling a product - if the buyer deviates
from recommended installation, then the company cannot assist.
I have two Pmags (haven't run the engine yet) and I am wiring them with two hidden
3A switched circuit breakers to provide power from the bus and two panel-mounted
p-lead switches. I wired it this way because the Emag installation manual
says "You can check the internal alternator operation on the P model during
run-up (900+ rpm) by switching to the P model ignition and cutting 12 volt
power (not the p-lead switch) at the breaker."
I hesitate to deviate from the factory recommended wiring procedure - despite
Bob's depth of knowledge and recommended technique. Even Bob often says contact
the manufacturer and follow their recommendations.
I am wondering (and I need to contact Emagair) if there will be any indication
of one internal Pmag alternator failure when running two Pmags on their internal
alternators. For example, when I'm doing the mag check with 14V power removed
and both Pmags are running on internal alternators, if I turn off the p-lead
switch to one Pmag (that Pmag is now totally inoperative), will there be
an RPM drop or other indication that the chosen Pmag is not working?
Even if there is no indication, I still intend to do the check because if one
internal alternator has failed, then the only way to know may be to switch each
Pmag completely off and check for continued operation on one internal alternator.
Experimental aviation is challenging. Fortunately, the original OBAM builders
(the Wright brothers) succeeded with each challenge. Surely we can, too.
Off subject - I assume from your comment re:seminar that you live in Alaska.
My son in moving to AK in spring of next year to fly the F-22 and we are looking
for a Piper Pacer to put on floats. Any leads?
Stan Sutterfield
www.rv-8a.net
Erich,
I had the pleasure of attending Bob's seminar this past weekend and I asked
him
about this very same issue.
First the caveat. I am not an engineer and don't claim to know a whole lot
about
electrical theory or application. What I am is curious and I do have an E and
a P/mag.
After reading everything I can get my hands on and studying the Z figures Z-13
and Z-33 for the Maintenance hand prop option I can detect only subtle differences.
Emag powers the mags directly from the main bus, so when you turn on the master
there is power at the mags. The switches on the panel for the emags are for
P-lead
kill switches. To do maintenance (timing) all you have to do is turn on
the master and leave the panel switch off. But to check the alternator part
of
the P-Mag you have to put a separate switch in line with the power supply to
the mag. When you do a run up check, you turn this switch off and if all is
well
the motor keeps on humming.
Bob's design has the power go to a switch first. The positions on the switch
are
down is off, middle is for internal power, up is for ships power. In the Z-33
schematic you then have to add a switch (and possibly a light) to be able to
cut the P-lead so you can do maintenance (Timing). So to do the internal alternator
check all you have to do is flick the switch to the middle position and
if all is well you can't tell the difference.
So what's the big difference. Both systems use 3 switches. Both systems do
the
same thing just in slightly different ways.
Personally I can see an advantage in the Emag system where each mag has it's
own
P-lead ground kill switch. Starting sequence should be pretty easy. Master
on,
both switches in the up position, mash the start button.
But I am a confirmed Nuckoll's advocate and I want to see what he has to say
about
this. He is still here in Alaska and touring around visiting the sights. He
has assured me that when he gets back he will dig into this and provide help.
I have sent an email to Emagair asking the same questions. Open dialog on this
question can only help us and Emagair greatly.
I have not personally heard from the guys at Emagair nor have I read anything
directly
from them concerning this issue. Until I do I will keep an open mind.
Perhaps this issue is a non-event and some of the problems stem from us folks
in
the field still trying to make these new mags act like the old style. For
instance
how can you perform a mag drop check if there isn't one. Perhaps the answer
is who cares. I don't know but I am sure interested in how this turns out.
Please comment at will. Any dialog is appreciated.
Mike Ice
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Michael T. Ice" <aurbo(at)ak.net> |
| Subject: | Re: emagair recommendation against Nuckoll's wiring |
Erich,
The AeroElectric z-33 figure shows the 2-10 switch being hooked up to P-mags using
wire colors. I think that it would be better if the connector plug was numbered
on those drawings.
I agree, we should hope that Bob and Emag can get together and come up with a one
size fits all, with a reduced parts count, and doesn't cause damage to the
P-mags with and accidental push or flick of a switch.
Mike
----- Original Message -----
From: Erich_Weaver(at)URSCorp.com
To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Tuesday, August 14, 2007 8:15 AM
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Re: emagair recommendation against Nuckoll's wiring
Darwin
Bob shares the Z-figures because he believes there is an advantage to them over
"standard" methods. Im sure the Emagair wiring method works fine, but if all
we ever did was to do what was done before, there would be no progress. If there
is a real issue with Bob's schematics for emags/pmags I am confident that
he will want to know about it and either improve them or toss them, and at that
point I will re-wire mine. I cant see any harm in having Bob get together with
the fine folks at Emagair and then see what both have to say about the issue.
I really kind of doubt this is that big of a deal. If others are in a hurry
and concerned, by all means, go with the Emagair method.
best regards
erich
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Michael T. Ice" <aurbo(at)ak.net> |
Peter,
Forgive me but I am trying to understand your sequence of events for
checking the p-mag. Perhaps it is semantics but let me get this straight
at least to me.
1. turn off the p-lead (so the mag is grounded or ungrounded? Emag says
to use the P leads as kill switches)
2. Then turn off the switched breaker ( so now there is no ground and no
power? I imagine the engine might run rough unless the other P-mag is
doing the duty of both, I suspect it could)
Emag says if the engine starts to quit, don't reapply power to the mag.
They say to let the engine stop and let the ignition fully power down.
Again, I am not doubting you I am just trying to clear up some confusing
(perhaps only to me) issues.
Thanks for your help in this issue.
Mike
----- Original Message -----
From: Peter Pengilly
To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Tuesday, August 14, 2007 10:35 AM
Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Emag Wiring
Stan,
I have been running an E-mag for 3 years and have also swapped in a
P-mag at times. My view is the best way to wire a P-mag is to route the
power via a switched breaker, that minimizes the number of connections.
If ship's power is shut off to a P-mag whose generator is not working,
then the P-mag will act like an E-mag and will not work. If you turn off
the p-lead switch to the other mag, the engine will quit. There is no
magic here, 2 P-mags are completely independent of each other. Checking
both generators is relatively easy, during the run up use the p-lead
switch to stop one P-mag from generating sparks, note the rpm drop
(there will be one); now turn off the switched breaker (thereby shutting
off ship's power to the P-mag), if the engine continues to run at the
same rpm then all is well. If the engine falters or runs roughly all is
not well and the generator is suspect. Turn the switched breaker back on
and repeat on the other P-mag. I've never had a problem with the
generator and would recommend anyone considering an E/P-mag to buy a
P-mag. With 2 P-mags fitted the failure of one generator is no big deal
as the battery will keep the ignition running if the ship's alternator
were to fail.
The P-mag generator does not produce current all of the time (so
E-magair tell me), only when the bus voltage falls below a pre-set
level. The P-mag will use the highest voltage source available. I don't
consider that a warning light showing P-mag generator failure will be
worthwhile when a ground check will provide the same information and it
is not a critical failure that requires immediate attention.
To answer your specific questions,
I am wondering (and I need to contact Emagair) if there will be any
indication of one internal Pmag alternator failure when running two
Pmags on their internal alternators.
No, there is no indication. Each P-mag doesn't know (and doesn't care)
the other is there.
For example, when I'm doing the mag check with 14V power removed and
both Pmags are running on internal alternators, if I turn off the p-lead
switch to one Pmag (that Pmag is now totally inoperative), will there be
an RPM drop or other indication that the chosen Pmag is not working?
Best not to remove ship's power from both P-mags at once, switch off
power in turn when the p-lead switch is turned off. If the P-mag
internal alternator is failed and ship's power is removed the engine
will quit if the other mag's p-lead is switched off.
Even if there is no indication, I still intend to do the check because
if one internal alternator has failed, then the only way to know may be
to switch each Pmag completely off and check for continued operation on
one internal alternator.
There will be, and yes, your right, but you have to do each in turn.
I hope this helps, regards, Peter
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of
Speedy11(at)aol.com
Sent: 14 August 2007 17:05
To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Emag Wiring
Mike,
Since you invited comment, I will.
I haven't asked them, but I suspect the Emag guys want to limit the
variables as much as possible at this juncture in their progress. They
are working out the bugs in their new system and adding other wiring
methods to the mix doesn't help them resolve problems. If I were in
their position, I would recommend builders use only the company
recommended wiring procedure and if the builder deviates from that
recommendation then the builder should not expect Emag assistance to
resolve problems. I believe that would not be unreasonable. I believe
that would be true of any company selling a product - if the buyer
deviates from recommended installation, then the company cannot assist.
I have two Pmags (haven't run the engine yet) and I am wiring them
with two hidden 3A switched circuit breakers to provide power from the
bus and two panel-mounted p-lead switches. I wired it this way because
the Emag installation manual says "You can check the internal alternator
operation on the P model during run-up (900+ rpm) by switching to the P
model ignition and cutting 12 volt power (not the p-lead switch) at the
breaker."
I hesitate to deviate from the factory recommended wiring procedure -
despite Bob's depth of knowledge and recommended technique. Even Bob
often says contact the manufacturer and follow their recommendations.
I am wondering (and I need to contact Emagair) if there will be any
indication of one internal Pmag alternator failure when running two
Pmags on their internal alternators. For example, when I'm doing the
mag check with 14V power removed and both Pmags are running on internal
alternators, if I turn off the p-lead switch to one Pmag (that Pmag is
now totally inoperative), will there be an RPM drop or other indication
that the chosen Pmag is not working?
Even if there is no indication, I still intend to do the check because
if one internal alternator has failed, then the only way to know may be
to switch each Pmag completely off and check for continued operation on
one internal alternator.
Experimental aviation is challenging. Fortunately, the original OBAM
builders (the Wright brothers) succeeded with each challenge. Surely we
can, too.
Off subject - I assume from your comment re:seminar that you live in
Alaska. My son in moving to AK in spring of next year to fly the F-22
and we are looking for a Piper Pacer to put on floats. Any leads?
Stan Sutterfield
www.rv-8a.net
Erich,
I had the pleasure of attending Bob's seminar this past weekend and
I asked him
about this very same issue.
First the caveat. I am not an engineer and don't claim to know a
whole lot about
electrical theory or application. What I am is curious and I do have
an E and
a P/mag.
After reading everything I can get my hands on and studying the Z
figures Z-13
and Z-33 for the Maintenance hand prop option I can detect only
subtle differences.
Emag powers the mags directly from the main bus, so when you turn on
the master
there is power at the mags. The switches on the panel for the emags
are for P-lead
kill switches. To do maintenance (timing) all you have to do is turn
on
the master and leave the panel switch off. But to check the
alternator part of
the P-Mag you have to put a separate switch in line with the power
supply to
the mag. When you do a run up check, you turn this switch off and if
all is well
the motor keeps on humming.
Bob's design has the power go to a switch first. The positions on
the switch are
down is off, middle is for internal power, up is for ships power. In
the Z-33
schematic you then have to add a switch (and possibly a light) to be
able to
cut the P-lead so you can do maintenance (Timing). So to do the
internal alternator
check all you have to do is flick the switch to the middle position
and
if all is well you can't tell the difference.
So what's the big difference. Both systems use 3 switches. Both
systems do the
same thing just in slightly different ways.
Personally I can see an advantage in the Emag system where each mag
has it's own
P-lead ground kill switch. Starting sequence should be pretty easy.
Master on,
both switches in the up position, mash the start button.
But I am a confirmed Nuckoll's advocate and I want to see what he
has to say about
this. He is still here in Alaska and touring around visiting the
sights. He
has assured me that when he gets back he will dig into this and
provide help.
I have sent an email to Emagair asking the same questions. Open
dialog on this
question can only help us and Emagair greatly.
I have not personally heard from the guys at Emagair nor have I read
anything directly
from them concerning this issue. Until I do I will keep an open
mind.
Perhaps this issue is a non-event and some of the problems stem from
us folks in
the field still trying to make these new mags act like the old
style. For instance
how can you perform a mag drop check if there isn't one. Perhaps the
answer
is who cares. I don't know but I am sure interested in how this
turns out.
Please comment at will. Any dialog is appreciated.
Mike Ice
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----
href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List">http://www.
matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List
href="http://forums.matronics.com">http://forums.matronics.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Phil Maley" <phil(at)vk6ad.net> |
| Subject: | Aeroelectric Connection Book |
Hi all
Can anyone confirm if Bob is still active? I ordered his book over a month
ago and received a confirmation email but have still not received the book
in the mail. I've sent Bob a chaser via his web page but got no reply...
73
Phil Maley VK6AD
Tripacer VH-OLD
RV-7A under construction
phil(at)vk6ad.net
Perth Australia
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Bob Leffler" <rvmail(at)thelefflers.com> |
| Subject: | Aeroelectric Connection Book |
His was at Oshkosh, then headed to Alaska for a seminar and vacation. His
father also passed away recently. He's kept the list updated when he's
away, so you can find more details in the archives.
I would suspect that when he gets back in the office, he'll get caught up on
everything.
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Phil
Maley
Sent: Wednesday, August 15, 2007 1:34 AM
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Aeroelectric Connection Book
Hi all
Can anyone confirm if Bob is still active? I ordered his book over a month
ago and received a confirmation email but have still not received the book
in the mail. I've sent Bob a chaser via his web page but got no reply...
73
Phil Maley VK6AD
Tripacer VH-OLD
RV-7A under construction
phil(at)vk6ad.net
Perth Australia
__________ NOD32 2463 (20070815) Information __________
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "David & Elaine Lamphere" <lamphere(at)vabb.com> |
Mike,
Unless I have misunderstood the literature that came with my PMag and
Emag, the "P-Lead" is used as a control signal to the ignition
controller circuitry to shut off spark when it is grounded. It is NOT
the main ground to the unit. The power and main ground are separate
leads.
Dave
----- Original Message -----
From: Michael T. Ice
To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Tuesday, August 14, 2007 11:45 PM
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Emag Wiring
Peter,
Forgive me but I am trying to understand your sequence of events for
checking the p-mag. Perhaps it is semantics but let me get this straight
at least to me.
1. turn off the p-lead (so the mag is grounded or ungrounded? Emag
says to use the P leads as kill switches)
2. Then turn off the switched breaker ( so now there is no ground and
no power? I imagine the engine might run rough unless the other P-mag is
doing the duty of both, I suspect it could)
Emag says if the engine starts to quit, don't reapply power to the
mag. They say to let the engine stop and let the ignition fully power
down.
Again, I am not doubting you I am just trying to clear up some
confusing (perhaps only to me) issues.
Thanks for your help in this issue.
Mike
----- Original Message -----
From: Peter Pengilly
To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Tuesday, August 14, 2007 10:35 AM
Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Emag Wiring
Stan,
I have been running an E-mag for 3 years and have also swapped in a
P-mag at times. My view is the best way to wire a P-mag is to route the
power via a switched breaker, that minimizes the number of connections.
If ship's power is shut off to a P-mag whose generator is not working,
then the P-mag will act like an E-mag and will not work. If you turn off
the p-lead switch to the other mag, the engine will quit. There is no
magic here, 2 P-mags are completely independent of each other. Checking
both generators is relatively easy, during the run up use the p-lead
switch to stop one P-mag from generating sparks, note the rpm drop
(there will be one); now turn off the switched breaker (thereby shutting
off ship's power to the P-mag), if the engine continues to run at the
same rpm then all is well. If the engine falters or runs roughly all is
not well and the generator is suspect. Turn the switched breaker back on
and repeat on the other P-mag. I've never had a problem with the
generator and would recommend anyone considering an E/P-mag to buy a
P-mag. With 2 P-mags fitted the failure of one generator is no big deal
as the battery will keep the ignition running if the ship's alternator
were to fail.
The P-mag generator does not produce current all of the time (so
E-magair tell me), only when the bus voltage falls below a pre-set
level. The P-mag will use the highest voltage source available. I don't
consider that a warning light showing P-mag generator failure will be
worthwhile when a ground check will provide the same information and it
is not a critical failure that requires immediate attention.
To answer your specific questions,
I am wondering (and I need to contact Emagair) if there will be any
indication of one internal Pmag alternator failure when running two
Pmags on their internal alternators.
No, there is no indication. Each P-mag doesn't know (and doesn't
care) the other is there.
For example, when I'm doing the mag check with 14V power removed and
both Pmags are running on internal alternators, if I turn off the p-lead
switch to one Pmag (that Pmag is now totally inoperative), will there be
an RPM drop or other indication that the chosen Pmag is not working?
Best not to remove ship's power from both P-mags at once, switch off
power in turn when the p-lead switch is turned off. If the P-mag
internal alternator is failed and ship's power is removed the engine
will quit if the other mag's p-lead is switched off.
Even if there is no indication, I still intend to do the check
because if one internal alternator has failed, then the only way to know
may be to switch each Pmag completely off and check for continued
operation on one internal alternator.
There will be, and yes, your right, but you have to do each in turn.
I hope this helps, regards, Peter
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of
Speedy11(at)aol.com
Sent: 14 August 2007 17:05
To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Emag Wiring
Mike,
Since you invited comment, I will.
I haven't asked them, but I suspect the Emag guys want to limit the
variables as much as possible at this juncture in their progress. They
are working out the bugs in their new system and adding other wiring
methods to the mix doesn't help them resolve problems. If I were in
their position, I would recommend builders use only the company
recommended wiring procedure and if the builder deviates from that
recommendation then the builder should not expect Emag assistance to
resolve problems. I believe that would not be unreasonable. I believe
that would be true of any company selling a product - if the buyer
deviates from recommended installation, then the company cannot assist.
I have two Pmags (haven't run the engine yet) and I am wiring them
with two hidden 3A switched circuit breakers to provide power from the
bus and two panel-mounted p-lead switches. I wired it this way because
the Emag installation manual says "You can check the internal alternator
operation on the P model during run-up (900+ rpm) by switching to the P
model ignition and cutting 12 volt power (not the p-lead switch) at the
breaker."
I hesitate to deviate from the factory recommended wiring procedure
- despite Bob's depth of knowledge and recommended technique. Even Bob
often says contact the manufacturer and follow their recommendations.
I am wondering (and I need to contact Emagair) if there will be any
indication of one internal Pmag alternator failure when running two
Pmags on their internal alternators. For example, when I'm doing the
mag check with 14V power removed and both Pmags are running on internal
alternators, if I turn off the p-lead switch to one Pmag (that Pmag is
now totally inoperative), will there be an RPM drop or other indication
that the chosen Pmag is not working?
Even if there is no indication, I still intend to do the check
because if one internal alternator has failed, then the only way to know
may be to switch each Pmag completely off and check for continued
operation on one internal alternator.
Experimental aviation is challenging. Fortunately, the original
OBAM builders (the Wright brothers) succeeded with each challenge.
Surely we can, too.
Off subject - I assume from your comment re:seminar that you live in
Alaska. My son in moving to AK in spring of next year to fly the F-22
and we are looking for a Piper Pacer to put on floats. Any leads?
Stan Sutterfield
www.rv-8a.net
Erich,
I had the pleasure of attending Bob's seminar this past weekend
and I asked him
about this very same issue.
First the caveat. I am not an engineer and don't claim to know a
whole lot about
electrical theory or application. What I am is curious and I do
have an E and
a P/mag.
After reading everything I can get my hands on and studying the Z
figures Z-13
and Z-33 for the Maintenance hand prop option I can detect only
subtle differences.
Emag powers the mags directly from the main bus, so when you turn
on the master
there is power at the mags. The switches on the panel for the
emags are for P-lead
kill switches. To do maintenance (timing) all you have to do is
turn on
the master and leave the panel switch off. But to check the
alternator part of
the P-Mag you have to put a separate switch in line with the power
supply to
the mag. When you do a run up check, you turn this switch off and
if all is well
the motor keeps on humming.
Bob's design has the power go to a switch first. The positions on
the switch are
down is off, middle is for internal power, up is for ships power.
In the Z-33
schematic you then have to add a switch (and possibly a light) to
be able to
cut the P-lead so you can do maintenance (Timing). So to do the
internal alternator
check all you have to do is flick the switch to the middle
position and
if all is well you can't tell the difference.
So what's the big difference. Both systems use 3 switches. Both
systems do the
same thing just in slightly different ways.
Personally I can see an advantage in the Emag system where each
mag has it's own
P-lead ground kill switch. Starting sequence should be pretty
easy. Master on,
both switches in the up position, mash the start button.
But I am a confirmed Nuckoll's advocate and I want to see what he
has to say about
this. He is still here in Alaska and touring around visiting the
sights. He
has assured me that when he gets back he will dig into this and
provide help.
I have sent an email to Emagair asking the same questions. Open
dialog on this
question can only help us and Emagair greatly.
I have not personally heard from the guys at Emagair nor have I
read anything directly
from them concerning this issue. Until I do I will keep an open
mind.
Perhaps this issue is a non-event and some of the problems stem
from us folks in
the field still trying to make these new mags act like the old
style. For instance
how can you perform a mag drop check if there isn't one. Perhaps
the answer
is who cares. I don't know but I am sure interested in how this
turns out.
Please comment at will. Any dialog is appreciated.
Mike Ice
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
---
href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List">http://www.
matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List
href="http://forums.matronics.com">http://forums.matronics.com
href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List">http://www.
matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List
href="http://forums.matronics.com">http://forums.matronics.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Phil Maley" <phil(at)vk6ad.net> |
| Subject: | Aeroelectric Connection Book |
Hi all
Thanks to those who have replied. I haven't dealt with Bob before so was not
familiar with his operation and not sure what to expect. Glad all is OK and
very sorry to hear about his father.
Best wishes to you all
Phil Maley
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Bob
Leffler
Sent: Wednesday, 15 August 2007 18:44
Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Aeroelectric Connection Book
-->
His was at Oshkosh, then headed to Alaska for a seminar and vacation. His
father also passed away recently. He's kept the list updated when he's
away, so you can find more details in the archives.
I would suspect that when he gets back in the office, he'll get caught up on
everything.
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Phil
Maley
Sent: Wednesday, August 15, 2007 1:34 AM
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Aeroelectric Connection Book
Hi all
Can anyone confirm if Bob is still active? I ordered his book over a month
ago and received a confirmation email but have still not received the book
in the mail. I've sent Bob a chaser via his web page but got no reply...
73
Phil Maley VK6AD
Tripacer VH-OLD
RV-7A under construction
phil(at)vk6ad.net
Perth Australia
__________ NOD32 2463 (20070815) Information __________
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Speedy11(at)aol.com |
Indeed, it does help. Thanks for your experienced advice.
Stan
I hope this helps, regards, Peter
http://discover.aol.com/memed/aolcom30tour
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Harley <harley(at)AgelessWings.com> |
| Subject: | B&C SD 8 Alternator |
Morning, Everyone...
Now that I'm dumping all my remaining vacuum instruments (the one I have
left!) and the associated pump and gauge, and settling for an all
electric panel (except for the static gauges), I am starting to look at
alternator options.
I've kept up on the past discussions here, and Bob's Connection info,
and have a pretty good
idea of what's involved.
But, I just noticed the B&C model SD-8 alternator that fits on the
vacuum pump pad! What a great replacement for a gasket and a cover!
I also see that Bob does mention it's use in one of his articles, but as
a backup alternator.
Seeing that the original Long Ez plans call out an alternator only as an
option if you plan on IFR or night flying, or if you use a starter, and
strongly recommend just the VariEZE solar panel to keep the battery
charged, has anyone here installed the SD-8 and used it as the main
unit. It only has a maximum 10 amp output, and a nominal 8 amp, but I
would think that would be enough to keep the battery charged and operate
the newer low current instruments quite well.
I have yet to calculate my panel's consumption (don't have all the
instruments yet), let alone the plane's, so it's still in the planning
stage. Open to all suggestions. Redundancy is always best, but if one
can save some weight and still do the job (I also have two P-mags with
their own generators so the engine should keep running on the electronic
ignition even if the battery and alternator go down) then I'm all for it.
Harley Dixon
Long EZ N28EZ
Airport Hangar 29
Canandaigua, NY
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Dean Van Winkle" <dvanwinkle(at)royell.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Aeroelectric Connection Book |
Phil
Bob is still active. He did a weekend seminar in Alaska and is taking some
vacation time while there.
Dean Van Winkle
RV-9A Fuselage/FWF/Finish
----- Original Message -----
From: "Phil Maley" <phil(at)vk6ad.net>
Sent: Wednesday, August 15, 2007 12:33 AM
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Aeroelectric Connection Book
>
> Hi all
>
> Can anyone confirm if Bob is still active? I ordered his book over a month
> ago and received a confirmation email but have still not received the book
> in the mail. I've sent Bob a chaser via his web page but got no reply...
>
> 73
> Phil Maley VK6AD
> Tripacer VH-OLD
> RV-7A under construction
> phil(at)vk6ad.net
> Perth Australia
>
>
>
--
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | BobsV35B(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: B&C SD 8 Alternator |
Good Morning Harley,
The B&C 20 ampere unit fits on the same pad. It is a bit heavier but it is
also a more robust looking device. I am very electronically challenged, but I
did install one of the twenty amp units on my airplane about ten years ago.
Very happy with the result.
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
AKA
Bob Siegfried
Ancient Aviator
Stearman N3977A
Brookeridge Air Park LL22
Downers Grove, IL 60516
630 985-8503
In a message dated 8/15/2007 7:41:01 A.M. Central Daylight Time,
harley(at)AgelessWings.com writes:
But, I just noticed the B&C model SD-8 alternator that fits on the
vacuum pump pad! What a great replacement for a gasket and a cover!
http://discover.aol.com/memed/aolcom30tour
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Michael T. Ice" <aurbo(at)ak.net> |
Dave,
Thanks for the post. On the diagram I have there is no lead labeled Main
ground, there is one labeled to ground on engine case. Is this one your
calling the main ground? If so then I agree with you that the power and
main ground are separate leads.
In the instructions that I have for the e/p mags there is a diagram that
shows the wiring sequence. On that diagram it shows a wire from the
connector plug #4 that is labeled P-lead (Kill Switch). The other end of
this wire shows that it is a ground with the same symbol used with the
wire that goes to connector plug #1.
Perhaps yours is different?
Once again I am not putting down e/p mags. I just think (maybe wrongly)
that there is some come confusion as to how to wire these mags. And
perhaps I am the only one that is confused, wouldn't be the first time.
Mike
----- Original Message -----
From: David & Elaine Lamphere
To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Wednesday, August 15, 2007 3:05 AM
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Emag Wiring
Mike,
Unless I have misunderstood the literature that came with my PMag and
Emag, the "P-Lead" is used as a control signal to the ignition
controller circuitry to shut off spark when it is grounded. It is NOT
the main ground to the unit. The power and main ground are separate
leads.
Dave
----- Original Message -----
From: Michael T. Ice
To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Tuesday, August 14, 2007 11:45 PM
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Emag Wiring
Peter,
Forgive me but I am trying to understand your sequence of events for
checking the p-mag. Perhaps it is semantics but let me get this straight
at least to me.
1. turn off the p-lead (so the mag is grounded or ungrounded? Emag
says to use the P leads as kill switches)
2. Then turn off the switched breaker ( so now there is no ground
and no power? I imagine the engine might run rough unless the other
P-mag is doing the duty of both, I suspect it could)
Emag says if the engine starts to quit, don't reapply power to the
mag. They say to let the engine stop and let the ignition fully power
down.
Again, I am not doubting you I am just trying to clear up some
confusing (perhaps only to me) issues.
Thanks for your help in this issue.
Mike
----- Original Message -----
From: Peter Pengilly
To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Tuesday, August 14, 2007 10:35 AM
Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Emag Wiring
Stan,
I have been running an E-mag for 3 years and have also swapped in
a P-mag at times. My view is the best way to wire a P-mag is to route
the power via a switched breaker, that minimizes the number of
connections. If ship's power is shut off to a P-mag whose generator is
not working, then the P-mag will act like an E-mag and will not work. If
you turn off the p-lead switch to the other mag, the engine will quit.
There is no magic here, 2 P-mags are completely independent of each
other. Checking both generators is relatively easy, during the run up
use the p-lead switch to stop one P-mag from generating sparks, note the
rpm drop (there will be one); now turn off the switched breaker (thereby
shutting off ship's power to the P-mag), if the engine continues to run
at the same rpm then all is well. If the engine falters or runs roughly
all is not well and the generator is suspect. Turn the switched breaker
back on and repeat on the other P-mag. I've never had a problem with the
generator and would recommend anyone considering an E/P-mag to buy a
P-mag. With 2 P-mags fitted the failure of one generator is no big deal
as the battery will keep the ignition running if the ship's alternator
were to fail.
The P-mag generator does not produce current all of the time (so
E-magair tell me), only when the bus voltage falls below a pre-set
level. The P-mag will use the highest voltage source available. I don't
consider that a warning light showing P-mag generator failure will be
worthwhile when a ground check will provide the same information and it
is not a critical failure that requires immediate attention.
To answer your specific questions,
I am wondering (and I need to contact Emagair) if there will be
any indication of one internal Pmag alternator failure when running two
Pmags on their internal alternators.
No, there is no indication. Each P-mag doesn't know (and doesn't
care) the other is there.
For example, when I'm doing the mag check with 14V power removed
and both Pmags are running on internal alternators, if I turn off the
p-lead switch to one Pmag (that Pmag is now totally inoperative), will
there be an RPM drop or other indication that the chosen Pmag is not
working?
Best not to remove ship's power from both P-mags at once, switch
off power in turn when the p-lead switch is turned off. If the P-mag
internal alternator is failed and ship's power is removed the engine
will quit if the other mag's p-lead is switched off.
Even if there is no indication, I still intend to do the check
because if one internal alternator has failed, then the only way to know
may be to switch each Pmag completely off and check for continued
operation on one internal alternator.
There will be, and yes, your right, but you have to do each in
turn.
I hope this helps, regards, Peter
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of
Speedy11(at)aol.com
Sent: 14 August 2007 17:05
To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Emag Wiring
Mike,
Since you invited comment, I will.
I haven't asked them, but I suspect the Emag guys want to limit
the variables as much as possible at this juncture in their progress.
They are working out the bugs in their new system and adding other
wiring methods to the mix doesn't help them resolve problems. If I were
in their position, I would recommend builders use only the company
recommended wiring procedure and if the builder deviates from that
recommendation then the builder should not expect Emag assistance to
resolve problems. I believe that would not be unreasonable. I believe
that would be true of any company selling a product - if the buyer
deviates from recommended installation, then the company cannot assist.
I have two Pmags (haven't run the engine yet) and I am wiring them
with two hidden 3A switched circuit breakers to provide power from the
bus and two panel-mounted p-lead switches. I wired it this way because
the Emag installation manual says "You can check the internal alternator
operation on the P model during run-up (900+ rpm) by switching to the P
model ignition and cutting 12 volt power (not the p-lead switch) at the
breaker."
I hesitate to deviate from the factory recommended wiring
procedure - despite Bob's depth of knowledge and recommended technique.
Even Bob often says contact the manufacturer and follow their
recommendations.
I am wondering (and I need to contact Emagair) if there will be
any indication of one internal Pmag alternator failure when running two
Pmags on their internal alternators. For example, when I'm doing the
mag check with 14V power removed and both Pmags are running on internal
alternators, if I turn off the p-lead switch to one Pmag (that Pmag is
now totally inoperative), will there be an RPM drop or other indication
that the chosen Pmag is not working?
Even if there is no indication, I still intend to do the check
because if one internal alternator has failed, then the only way to know
may be to switch each Pmag completely off and check for continued
operation on one internal alternator.
Experimental aviation is challenging. Fortunately, the original
OBAM builders (the Wright brothers) succeeded with each challenge.
Surely we can, too.
Off subject - I assume from your comment re:seminar that you live
in Alaska. My son in moving to AK in spring of next year to fly the
F-22 and we are looking for a Piper Pacer to put on floats. Any leads?
Stan Sutterfield
www.rv-8a.net
Erich,
I had the pleasure of attending Bob's seminar this past weekend
and I asked him
about this very same issue.
First the caveat. I am not an engineer and don't claim to know a
whole lot about
electrical theory or application. What I am is curious and I do
have an E and
a P/mag.
After reading everything I can get my hands on and studying the
Z figures Z-13
and Z-33 for the Maintenance hand prop option I can detect only
subtle differences.
Emag powers the mags directly from the main bus, so when you
turn on the master
there is power at the mags. The switches on the panel for the
emags are for P-lead
kill switches. To do maintenance (timing) all you have to do is
turn on
the master and leave the panel switch off. But to check the
alternator part of
the P-Mag you have to put a separate switch in line with the
power supply to
the mag. When you do a run up check, you turn this switch off
and if all is well
the motor keeps on humming.
Bob's design has the power go to a switch first. The positions
on the switch are
down is off, middle is for internal power, up is for ships
power. In the Z-33
schematic you then have to add a switch (and possibly a light)
to be able to
cut the P-lead so you can do maintenance (Timing). So to do the
internal alternator
check all you have to do is flick the switch to the middle
position and
if all is well you can't tell the difference.
So what's the big difference. Both systems use 3 switches. Both
systems do the
same thing just in slightly different ways.
Personally I can see an advantage in the Emag system where each
mag has it's own
P-lead ground kill switch. Starting sequence should be pretty
easy. Master on,
both switches in the up position, mash the start button.
But I am a confirmed Nuckoll's advocate and I want to see what
he has to say about
this. He is still here in Alaska and touring around visiting the
sights. He
has assured me that when he gets back he will dig into this and
provide help.
I have sent an email to Emagair asking the same questions. Open
dialog on this
question can only help us and Emagair greatly.
I have not personally heard from the guys at Emagair nor have I
read anything directly
from them concerning this issue. Until I do I will keep an open
mind.
Perhaps this issue is a non-event and some of the problems stem
from us folks in
the field still trying to make these new mags act like the old
style. For instance
how can you perform a mag drop check if there isn't one. Perhaps
the answer
is who cares. I don't know but I am sure interested in how this
turns out.
Please comment at will. Any dialog is appreciated.
Mike Ice
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
-
href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List">http://www.
matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List
href="http://forums.matronics.com">http://forums.matronics.com
href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List">http://www.
matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List
href="http://forums.matronics.com">http://forums.matronics.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Harley <harley(at)AgelessWings.com> |
| Subject: | Re: B&C SD 8 Alternator |
Mornin', Bob...
I guess I didn't look far enough! Didn't see the 20 amp version!
Now that looks like a winner...guess it pays to ask, doesn't it!
Have to see if I have room for it on the Long between the firewall and
the case, but at 6", it should fit. Otherwise, I like it.
I see they have a couple of others as well...should have browsed B&Cs
site before I started asking questions, I guess!
Thanks for the heads up...
Now, back to sealing my driveway today......
Harley Dixon
Long EZ N28EZ
Airport Hangar 29
Canandaigua, NY
------------------------------------------------------------------------
BobsV35B(at)aol.com wrote:
> Good Morning Harley,
>
> The B&C 20 ampere unit fits on the same pad. It is a bit heavier but
> it is also a more robust looking device. I am very electronically
> challenged, but I did install one of the twenty amp units on my
> airplane about ten years ago. Very happy with the result.
>
> Happy Skies,
>
> Old Bob
> AKA
> Bob Siegfried
> Ancient Aviator
> Stearman N3977A
> Brookeridge Air Park LL22
> Downers Grove, IL 60516
> 630 985-8503
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "David & Elaine Lamphere" <lamphere(at)vabb.com> |
Ok, here we go... page 20 in my documentation has pin 1 connected to
engine case. Since the case is connected to the ground bus via a nice
4-8 gage flexible braided wire, it sure seems to me it's a main ground.
Yes, pin 4 is the P-lead (kill switch) - this is to be connected to the
ignition switch pin (L or R) where you would normally connect a mag.
Notice that pin 5 is connected to +13.8vdc. This is what I would call
main DC power.
It really is very simple...
Dave
----- Original Message -----
From: Michael T. Ice
To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Wednesday, August 15, 2007 10:02 AM
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Emag Wiring
Dave,
Thanks for the post. On the diagram I have there is no lead labeled
Main ground, there is one labeled to ground on engine case. Is this one
your calling the main ground? If so then I agree with you that the power
and main ground are separate leads.
In the instructions that I have for the e/p mags there is a diagram
that shows the wiring sequence. On that diagram it shows a wire from the
connector plug #4 that is labeled P-lead (Kill Switch). The other end of
this wire shows that it is a ground with the same symbol used with the
wire that goes to connector plug #1.
Perhaps yours is different?
Once again I am not putting down e/p mags. I just think (maybe
wrongly) that there is some come confusion as to how to wire these mags.
And perhaps I am the only one that is confused, wouldn't be the first
time.
Mike
----- Original Message -----
From: David & Elaine Lamphere
To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Wednesday, August 15, 2007 3:05 AM
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Emag Wiring
Mike,
Unless I have misunderstood the literature that came with my PMag
and Emag, the "P-Lead" is used as a control signal to the ignition
controller circuitry to shut off spark when it is grounded. It is NOT
the main ground to the unit. The power and main ground are separate
leads.
Dave
----- Original Message -----
From: Michael T. Ice
To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Tuesday, August 14, 2007 11:45 PM
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Emag Wiring
Peter,
Forgive me but I am trying to understand your sequence of events
for checking the p-mag. Perhaps it is semantics but let me get this
straight at least to me.
1. turn off the p-lead (so the mag is grounded or ungrounded? Emag
says to use the P leads as kill switches)
2. Then turn off the switched breaker ( so now there is no ground
and no power? I imagine the engine might run rough unless the other
P-mag is doing the duty of both, I suspect it could)
Emag says if the engine starts to quit, don't reapply power to the
mag. They say to let the engine stop and let the ignition fully power
down.
Again, I am not doubting you I am just trying to clear up some
confusing (perhaps only to me) issues.
Thanks for your help in this issue.
Mike
----- Original Message -----
From: Peter Pengilly
To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Tuesday, August 14, 2007 10:35 AM
Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Emag Wiring
Stan,
I have been running an E-mag for 3 years and have also swapped
in a P-mag at times. My view is the best way to wire a P-mag is to route
the power via a switched breaker, that minimizes the number of
connections. If ship's power is shut off to a P-mag whose generator is
not working, then the P-mag will act like an E-mag and will not work. If
you turn off the p-lead switch to the other mag, the engine will quit.
There is no magic here, 2 P-mags are completely independent of each
other. Checking both generators is relatively easy, during the run up
use the p-lead switch to stop one P-mag from generating sparks, note the
rpm drop (there will be one); now turn off the switched breaker (thereby
shutting off ship's power to the P-mag), if the engine continues to run
at the same rpm then all is well. If the engine falters or runs roughly
all is not well and the generator is suspect. Turn the switched breaker
back on and repeat on the other P-mag. I've never had a problem with the
generator and would recommend anyone considering an E/P-mag to buy a
P-mag. With 2 P-mags fitted the failure of one generator is no big deal
as the battery will keep the ignition running if the ship's alternator
were to fail.
The P-mag generator does not produce current all of the time (so
E-magair tell me), only when the bus voltage falls below a pre-set
level. The P-mag will use the highest voltage source available. I don't
consider that a warning light showing P-mag generator failure will be
worthwhile when a ground check will provide the same information and it
is not a critical failure that requires immediate attention.
To answer your specific questions,
I am wondering (and I need to contact Emagair) if there will be
any indication of one internal Pmag alternator failure when running two
Pmags on their internal alternators.
No, there is no indication. Each P-mag doesn't know (and doesn't
care) the other is there.
For example, when I'm doing the mag check with 14V power removed
and both Pmags are running on internal alternators, if I turn off the
p-lead switch to one Pmag (that Pmag is now totally inoperative), will
there be an RPM drop or other indication that the chosen Pmag is not
working?
Best not to remove ship's power from both P-mags at once, switch
off power in turn when the p-lead switch is turned off. If the P-mag
internal alternator is failed and ship's power is removed the engine
will quit if the other mag's p-lead is switched off.
Even if there is no indication, I still intend to do the check
because if one internal alternator has failed, then the only way to know
may be to switch each Pmag completely off and check for continued
operation on one internal alternator.
There will be, and yes, your right, but you have to do each in
turn.
I hope this helps, regards, Peter
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of
Speedy11(at)aol.com
Sent: 14 August 2007 17:05
To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Emag Wiring
Mike,
Since you invited comment, I will.
I haven't asked them, but I suspect the Emag guys want to limit
the variables as much as possible at this juncture in their progress.
They are working out the bugs in their new system and adding other
wiring methods to the mix doesn't help them resolve problems. If I were
in their position, I would recommend builders use only the company
recommended wiring procedure and if the builder deviates from that
recommendation then the builder should not expect Emag assistance to
resolve problems. I believe that would not be unreasonable. I believe
that would be true of any company selling a product - if the buyer
deviates from recommended installation, then the company cannot assist.
I have two Pmags (haven't run the engine yet) and I am wiring
them with two hidden 3A switched circuit breakers to provide power from
the bus and two panel-mounted p-lead switches. I wired it this way
because the Emag installation manual says "You can check the internal
alternator operation on the P model during run-up (900+ rpm) by
switching to the P model ignition and cutting 12 volt power (not the
p-lead switch) at the breaker."
I hesitate to deviate from the factory recommended wiring
procedure - despite Bob's depth of knowledge and recommended technique.
Even Bob often says contact the manufacturer and follow their
recommendations.
I am wondering (and I need to contact Emagair) if there will be
any indication of one internal Pmag alternator failure when running two
Pmags on their internal alternators. For example, when I'm doing the
mag check with 14V power removed and both Pmags are running on internal
alternators, if I turn off the p-lead switch to one Pmag (that Pmag is
now totally inoperative), will there be an RPM drop or other indication
that the chosen Pmag is not working?
Even if there is no indication, I still intend to do the check
because if one internal alternator has failed, then the only way to know
may be to switch each Pmag completely off and check for continued
operation on one internal alternator.
Experimental aviation is challenging. Fortunately, the original
OBAM builders (the Wright brothers) succeeded with each challenge.
Surely we can, too.
Off subject - I assume from your comment re:seminar that you
live in Alaska. My son in moving to AK in spring of next year to fly
the F-22 and we are looking for a Piper Pacer to put on floats. Any
leads?
Stan Sutterfield
www.rv-8a.net
Erich,
I had the pleasure of attending Bob's seminar this past
weekend and I asked him
about this very same issue.
First the caveat. I am not an engineer and don't claim to know
a whole lot about
electrical theory or application. What I am is curious and I
do have an E and
a P/mag.
After reading everything I can get my hands on and studying
the Z figures Z-13
and Z-33 for the Maintenance hand prop option I can detect
only subtle differences.
Emag powers the mags directly from the main bus, so when you
turn on the master
there is power at the mags. The switches on the panel for the
emags are for P-lead
kill switches. To do maintenance (timing) all you have to do
is turn on
the master and leave the panel switch off. But to check the
alternator part of
the P-Mag you have to put a separate switch in line with the
power supply to
the mag. When you do a run up check, you turn this switch off
and if all is well
the motor keeps on humming.
Bob's design has the power go to a switch first. The positions
on the switch are
down is off, middle is for internal power, up is for ships
power. In the Z-33
schematic you then have to add a switch (and possibly a light)
to be able to
cut the P-lead so you can do maintenance (Timing). So to do
the internal alternator
check all you have to do is flick the switch to the middle
position and
if all is well you can't tell the difference.
So what's the big difference. Both systems use 3 switches.
Both systems do the
same thing just in slightly different ways.
Personally I can see an advantage in the Emag system where
each mag has it's own
P-lead ground kill switch. Starting sequence should be pretty
easy. Master on,
both switches in the up position, mash the start button.
But I am a confirmed Nuckoll's advocate and I want to see what
he has to say about
this. He is still here in Alaska and touring around visiting
the sights. He
has assured me that when he gets back he will dig into this
and provide help.
I have sent an email to Emagair asking the same questions.
Open dialog on this
question can only help us and Emagair greatly.
I have not personally heard from the guys at Emagair nor have
I read anything directly
from them concerning this issue. Until I do I will keep an
open mind.
Perhaps this issue is a non-event and some of the problems
stem from us folks in
the field still trying to make these new mags act like the
old style. For instance
how can you perform a mag drop check if there isn't one.
Perhaps the answer
is who cares. I don't know but I am sure interested in how
this turns out.
Please comment at will. Any dialog is appreciated.
Mike Ice
------------------------------------------------------------------------
href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List">http://www.
matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List
href="http://forums.matronics.com">http://forums.matronics.com
href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List">http://www.
matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List
href="http://forums.matronics.com">http://forums.matronics.com
href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List">http://www.
matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List
href="http://forums.matronics.com">http://forums.matronics.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Peter Pengilly" <peter(at)sportingaero.com> |
Mike,
I could probably have written a little more clearly. The object is to
get one P-mag running on its internal generator (by removing busbar
power), then cycle the other mag/P-mag to find out if the engine still
runs (I wrote it the other way around). If the engine runs, the
generator is good, if it does not generator is bad.
So, probably the best sequence is
1. Carry out normal mag drop check to deduce "normal" mag drop.
Bear in mind there will always be an rpm drop when only a P/E-mag is
running, but that drop won't be as large as when only a magneto is
running.
2. Shut off busbar power to one P-mag
3. Switch off/ground other mag/P-mag (so it is not producing
sparks)
4. Observe engine behaviour. Rpm drop as in 1 above = everything
working fine, other results require investigation.
5. Restore switches to normal positions if generator is working
fine
6. Repeat procedure from 2 above for other P-mag, if fitted.
I don't check the P-mag generator every flight.
Hope this is a little more clear.
Peter
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of
Michael T. Ice
Sent: 15 August 2007 04:45
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Emag Wiring
Peter,
Forgive me but I am trying to understand your sequence of events for
checking the p-mag. Perhaps it is semantics but let me get this straight
at least to me.
1. turn off the p-lead (so the mag is grounded or ungrounded? Emag says
to use the P leads as kill switches)
2. Then turn off the switched breaker ( so now there is no ground and no
power? I imagine the engine might run rough unless the other P-mag is
doing the duty of both, I suspect it could)
Emag says if the engine starts to quit, don't reapply power to the mag.
They say to let the engine stop and let the ignition fully power down.
Again, I am not doubting you I am just trying to clear up some confusing
(perhaps only to me) issues.
Thanks for your help in this issue.
Mike
----- Original Message -----
From: Peter Pengilly <mailto:peter(at)sportingaero.com>
Sent: Tuesday, August 14, 2007 10:35 AM
Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Emag Wiring
Stan,
I have been running an E-mag for 3 years and have also swapped in a
P-mag at times. My view is the best way to wire a P-mag is to route the
power via a switched breaker, that minimizes the number of connections.
If ship's power is shut off to a P-mag whose generator is not working,
then the P-mag will act like an E-mag and will not work. If you turn off
the p-lead switch to the other mag, the engine will quit. There is no
magic here, 2 P-mags are completely independent of each other. Checking
both generators is relatively easy, during the run up use the p-lead
switch to stop one P-mag from generating sparks, note the rpm drop
(there will be one); now turn off the switched breaker (thereby shutting
off ship's power to the P-mag), if the engine continues to run at the
same rpm then all is well. If the engine falters or runs roughly all is
not well and the generator is suspect. Turn the switched breaker back on
and repeat on the other P-mag. I've never had a problem with the
generator and would recommend anyone considering an E/P-mag to buy a
P-mag. With 2 P-mags fitted the failure of one generator is no big deal
as the battery will keep the ignition running if the ship's alternator
were to fail.
The P-mag generator does not produce current all of the time (so
E-magair tell me), only when the bus voltage falls below a pre-set
level. The P-mag will use the highest voltage source available. I don't
consider that a warning light showing P-mag generator failure will be
worthwhile when a ground check will provide the same information and it
is not a critical failure that requires immediate attention.
To answer your specific questions,
I am wondering (and I need to contact Emagair) if there will be any
indication of one internal Pmag alternator failure when running two
Pmags on their internal alternators.
No, there is no indication. Each P-mag doesn't know (and doesn't care)
the other is there.
For example, when I'm doing the mag check with 14V power removed and
both Pmags are running on internal alternators, if I turn off the p-lead
switch to one Pmag (that Pmag is now totally inoperative), will there be
an RPM drop or other indication that the chosen Pmag is not working?
Best not to remove ship's power from both P-mags at once, switch off
power in turn when the p-lead switch is turned off. If the P-mag
internal alternator is failed and ship's power is removed the engine
will quit if the other mag's p-lead is switched off.
Even if there is no indication, I still intend to do the check because
if one internal alternator has failed, then the only way to know may be
to switch each Pmag completely off and check for continued operation on
one internal alternator.
There will be, and yes, your right, but you have to do each in turn.
I hope this helps, regards, Peter
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of
Speedy11(at)aol.com
Sent: 14 August 2007 17:05
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Emag Wiring
Mike,
Since you invited comment, I will.
I haven't asked them, but I suspect the Emag guys want to limit the
variables as much as possible at this juncture in their progress. They
are working out the bugs in their new system and adding other wiring
methods to the mix doesn't help them resolve problems. If I were in
their position, I would recommend builders use only the company
recommended wiring procedure and if the builder deviates from that
recommendation then the builder should not expect Emag assistance to
resolve problems. I believe that would not be unreasonable. I believe
that would be true of any company selling a product - if the buyer
deviates from recommended installation, then the company cannot assist.
I have two Pmags (haven't run the engine yet) and I am wiring them with
two hidden 3A switched circuit breakers to provide power from the bus
and two panel-mounted p-lead switches. I wired it this way because the
Emag installation manual says "You can check the internal alternator
operation on the P model during run-up (900+ rpm) by switching to the P
model ignition and cutting 12 volt power (not the p-lead switch) at the
breaker."
I hesitate to deviate from the factory recommended wiring procedure -
despite Bob's depth of knowledge and recommended technique. Even Bob
often says contact the manufacturer and follow their recommendations.
I am wondering (and I need to contact Emagair) if there will be any
indication of one internal Pmag alternator failure when running two
Pmags on their internal alternators. For example, when I'm doing the
mag check with 14V power removed and both Pmags are running on internal
alternators, if I turn off the p-lead switch to one Pmag (that Pmag is
now totally inoperative), will there be an RPM drop or other indication
that the chosen Pmag is not working?
Even if there is no indication, I still intend to do the check because
if one internal alternator has failed, then the only way to know may be
to switch each Pmag completely off and check for continued operation on
one internal alternator.
Experimental aviation is challenging. Fortunately, the original OBAM
builders (the Wright brothers) succeeded with each challenge. Surely we
can, too.
Off subject - I assume from your comment re:seminar that you live in
Alaska. My son in moving to AK in spring of next year to fly the F-22
and we are looking for a Piper Pacer to put on floats. Any leads?
Stan Sutterfield
www.rv-8a.net
Erich,
I had the pleasure of attending Bob's seminar this past weekend and I
asked him
about this very same issue.
First the caveat. I am not an engineer and don't claim to know a whole
lot about
electrical theory or application. What I am is curious and I do have an
E and
a P/mag.
After reading everything I can get my hands on and studying the Z
figures Z-13
and Z-33 for the Maintenance hand prop option I can detect only subtle
differences.
Emag powers the mags directly from the main bus, so when you turn on the
master
there is power at the mags. The switches on the panel for the emags are
for P-lead
kill switches. To do maintenance (timing) all you have to do is turn on
the master and leave the panel switch off. But to check the alternator
part of
the P-Mag you have to put a separate switch in line with the power
supply to
the mag. When you do a run up check, you turn this switch off and if all
is well
the motor keeps on humming.
Bob's design has the power go to a switch first. The positions on the
switch are
down is off, middle is for internal power, up is for ships power. In the
Z-33
schematic you then have to add a switch (and possibly a light) to be
able to
cut the P-lead so you can do maintenance (Timing). So to do the internal
alternator
check all you have to do is flick the switch to the middle position and
if all is well you can't tell the difference.
So what's the big difference. Both systems use 3 switches. Both systems
do the
same thing just in slightly different ways.
Personally I can see an advantage in the Emag system where each mag has
it's own
P-lead ground kill switch. Starting sequence should be pretty easy.
Master on,
both switches in the up position, mash the start button.
But I am a confirmed Nuckoll's advocate and I want to see what he has to
say about
this. He is still here in Alaska and touring around visiting the sights.
He
has assured me that when he gets back he will dig into this and provide
help.
I have sent an email to Emagair asking the same questions. Open dialog
on this
question can only help us and Emagair greatly.
I have not personally heard from the guys at Emagair nor have I read
anything directly
from them concerning this issue. Until I do I will keep an open mind.
Perhaps this issue is a non-event and some of the problems stem from us
folks in
the field still trying to make these new mags act like the old style.
For instance
how can you perform a mag drop check if there isn't one. Perhaps the
answer
is who cares. I don't know but I am sure interested in how this turns
out.
Please comment at will. Any dialog is appreciated.
Mike Ice
_____
<http://discover.aol.com/memed/aolcom30tour/?ncid=AOLAOF00020000000982>
.
href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List">http://www.m
atronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List
href="http://forums.matronics.com">http://forums.matronics.com
href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List">http://www.m
atronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List
href="http://forums.matronics.com">http://forums.matronics.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Hinde, Frank George (Corvallis)" <frank.hinde(at)hp.com> |
Yes the confusion is....The P lead is NOT the ground but when you do
ground the Plead it kills the engine. You UN-Ground the P lead to allow
the engine to run.
The E/Pmag still needs a power supply and any power supply consists of a
+12V feed and a ground.
Thats why there are two grounds shown...terminal 1 is the power ground
that has to be permanently connected to provide power to the unit.
Frank
RV 7a Pmag/Emag
________________________________
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of David
& Elaine Lamphere
Sent: Wednesday, August 15, 2007 9:43 AM
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Emag Wiring
Ok, here we go... page 20 in my documentation has pin 1 connected to
engine case. Since the case is connected to the ground bus via a nice
4-8 gage flexible braided wire, it sure seems to me it's a main ground.
Yes, pin 4 is the P-lead (kill switch) - this is to be connected to the
ignition switch pin (L or R) where you would normally connect a mag.
Notice that pin 5 is connected to +13.8vdc. This is what I would call
main DC power.
It really is very simple...
Dave
----- Original Message -----
From: Michael T. Ice <mailto:aurbo(at)ak.net>
To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Wednesday, August 15, 2007 10:02 AM
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Emag Wiring
Dave,
Thanks for the post. On the diagram I have there is no lead
labeled Main ground, there is one labeled to ground on engine case. Is
this one your calling the main ground? If so then I agree with you that
the power and main ground are separate leads.
In the instructions that I have for the e/p mags there is a
diagram that shows the wiring sequence. On that diagram it shows a wire
from the connector plug #4 that is labeled P-lead (Kill Switch). The
other end of this wire shows that it is a ground with the same symbol
used with the wire that goes to connector plug #1.
Perhaps yours is different?
Once again I am not putting down e/p mags. I just think (maybe
wrongly) that there is some come confusion as to how to wire these mags.
And perhaps I am the only one that is confused, wouldn't be the first
time.
Mike
----- Original Message -----
From: David & Elaine Lamphere <mailto:lamphere(at)vabb.com>
To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Wednesday, August 15, 2007 3:05 AM
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Emag Wiring
Mike,
Unless I have misunderstood the literature that came
with my PMag and Emag, the "P-Lead" is used as a control signal to the
ignition controller circuitry to shut off spark when it is grounded. It
is NOT the main ground to the unit. The power and main ground are
separate leads.
Dave
----- Original Message -----
From: Michael T. Ice <mailto:aurbo(at)ak.net>
To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Tuesday, August 14, 2007 11:45 PM
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Emag Wiring
Peter,
Forgive me but I am trying to understand your
sequence of events for checking the p-mag. Perhaps it is semantics but
let me get this straight at least to me.
1. turn off the p-lead (so the mag is grounded
or ungrounded? Emag says to use the P leads as kill switches)
2. Then turn off the switched breaker ( so now
there is no ground and no power? I imagine the engine might run rough
unless the other P-mag is doing the duty of both, I suspect it could)
Emag says if the engine starts to quit, don't
reapply power to the mag. They say to let the engine stop and let the
ignition fully power down.
Again, I am not doubting you I am just trying to
clear up some confusing (perhaps only to me) issues.
Thanks for your help in this issue.
Mike
----- Original Message -----
From: Peter Pengilly
To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Tuesday, August 14, 2007 10:35 AM
Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Emag
Wiring
Stan,
I have been running an E-mag for 3 years
and have also swapped in a P-mag at times. My view is the best way to
wire a P-mag is to route the power via a switched breaker, that
minimizes the number of connections. If ship's power is shut off to a
P-mag whose generator is not working, then the P-mag will act like an
E-mag and will not work. If you turn off the p-lead switch to the other
mag, the engine will quit. There is no magic here, 2 P-mags are
completely independent of each other. Checking both generators is
relatively easy, during the run up use the p-lead switch to stop one
P-mag from generating sparks, note the rpm drop (there will be one); now
turn off the switched breaker (thereby shutting off ship's power to the
P-mag), if the engine continues to run at the same rpm then all is well.
If the engine falters or runs roughly all is not well and the generator
is suspect. Turn the switched breaker back on and repeat on the other
P-mag. I've never had a problem with the generator and would recommend
anyone considering an E/P-mag to buy a P-mag. With 2 P-mags fitted the
failure of one generator is no big deal as the battery will keep the
ignition running if the ship's alternator were to fail.
The P-mag generator does not produce
current all of the time (so E-magair tell me), only when the bus voltage
falls below a pre-set level. The P-mag will use the highest voltage
source available. I don't consider that a warning light showing P-mag
generator failure will be worthwhile when a ground check will provide
the same information and it is not a critical failure that requires
immediate attention.
To answer your specific questions,
I am wondering (and I need to contact
Emagair) if there will be any indication of one internal Pmag alternator
failure when running two Pmags on their internal alternators.
No, there is no indication. Each P-mag
doesn't know (and doesn't care) the other is there.
For example, when I'm doing the mag
check with 14V power removed and both Pmags are running on internal
alternators, if I turn off the p-lead switch to one Pmag (that Pmag is
now totally inoperative), will there be an RPM drop or other indication
that the chosen Pmag is not working?
Best not to remove ship's power from
both P-mags at once, switch off power in turn when the p-lead switch is
turned off. If the P-mag internal alternator is failed and ship's power
is removed the engine will quit if the other mag's p-lead is switched
off.
Even if there is no indication, I still
intend to do the check because if one internal alternator has failed,
then the only way to know may be to switch each Pmag completely off and
check for continued operation on one internal alternator.
There will be, and yes, your right, but
you have to do each in turn.
I hope this helps, regards, Peter
-----Original Message-----
From:
owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of
Speedy11(at)aol.com
Sent: 14 August 2007 17:05
To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Emag Wiring
Mike,
Since you invited comment, I will.
I haven't asked them, but I suspect the
Emag guys want to limit the variables as much as possible at this
juncture in their progress. They are working out the bugs in their new
system and adding other wiring methods to the mix doesn't help them
resolve problems. If I were in their position, I would recommend
builders use only the company recommended wiring procedure and if the
builder deviates from that recommendation then the builder should not
expect Emag assistance to resolve problems. I believe that would not be
unreasonable. I believe that would be true of any company selling a
product - if the buyer deviates from recommended installation, then the
company cannot assist.
I have two Pmags (haven't run the engine
yet) and I am wiring them with two hidden 3A switched circuit breakers
to provide power from the bus and two panel-mounted p-lead switches. I
wired it this way because the Emag installation manual says "You can
check the internal alternator operation on the P model during run-up
(900+ rpm) by switching to the P model ignition and cutting 12 volt
power (not the p-lead switch) at the breaker."
I hesitate to deviate from the factory
recommended wiring procedure - despite Bob's depth of knowledge and
recommended technique. Even Bob often says contact the manufacturer and
follow their recommendations.
I am wondering (and I need to contact
Emagair) if there will be any indication of one internal Pmag alternator
failure when running two Pmags on their internal alternators. For
example, when I'm doing the mag check with 14V power removed and both
Pmags are running on internal alternators, if I turn off the p-lead
switch to one Pmag (that Pmag is now totally inoperative), will there be
an RPM drop or other indication that the chosen Pmag is not working?
Even if there is no indication, I still
intend to do the check because if one internal alternator has failed,
then the only way to know may be to switch each Pmag completely off and
check for continued operation on one internal alternator.
Experimental aviation is challenging.
Fortunately, the original OBAM builders (the Wright brothers) succeeded
with each challenge. Surely we can, too.
Off subject - I assume from your comment
re:seminar that you live in Alaska. My son in moving to AK in spring of
next year to fly the F-22 and we are looking for a Piper Pacer to put on
floats. Any leads?
Stan Sutterfield
www.rv-8a.net
Erich,
I had the pleasure of attending Bob's
seminar this past weekend and I asked him
about this very same issue.
First the caveat. I am not an engineer
and don't claim to know a whole lot about
electrical theory or application. What I
am is curious and I do have an E and
a P/mag.
After reading everything I can get my
hands on and studying the Z figures Z-13
and Z-33 for the Maintenance hand prop
option I can detect only subtle differences.
Emag powers the mags directly from the
main bus, so when you turn on the master
there is power at the mags. The switches
on the panel for the emags are for P-lead
kill switches. To do maintenance
(timing) all you have to do is turn on
the master and leave the panel switch
off. But to check the alternator part of
the P-Mag you have to put a separate
switch in line with the power supply to
the mag. When you do a run up check, you
turn this switch off and if all is well
the motor keeps on humming.
Bob's design has the power go to a
switch first. The positions on the switch are
down is off, middle is for internal
power, up is for ships power. In the Z-33
schematic you then have to add a switch
(and possibly a light) to be able to
cut the P-lead so you can do maintenance
(Timing). So to do the internal alternator
check all you have to do is flick the
switch to the middle position and
if all is well you can't tell the
difference.
So what's the big difference. Both
systems use 3 switches. Both systems do the
same thing just in slightly different
ways.
Personally I can see an advantage in the
Emag system where each mag has it's own
P-lead ground kill switch. Starting
sequence should be pretty easy. Master on,
both switches in the up position, mash
the start button.
But I am a confirmed Nuckoll's advocate
and I want to see what he has to say about
this. He is still here in Alaska and
touring around visiting the sights. He
has assured me that when he gets back he
will dig into this and provide help.
I have sent an email to Emagair asking
the same questions. Open dialog on this
question can only help us and Emagair
greatly.
I have not personally heard from the
guys at Emagair nor have I read anything directly
from them concerning this issue. Until I
do I will keep an open mind.
Perhaps this issue is a non-event and
some of the problems stem from us folks in
the field still trying to make these new
mags act like the old style. For instance
how can you perform a mag drop check if
there isn't one. Perhaps the answer
is who cares. I don't know but I am sure
interested in how this turns out.
Please comment at will. Any dialog is
appreciated.
Mike Ice
________________________________
<http://discover.aol.com/memed/aolcom30tour/?ncid=AOLAOF00020000000982>
.
href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List">http://www.
m
atronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List
href="http://forums.matronics.com">http://forums.matronics.com
href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List">http://www.
m
atronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List
href="http://forums.matronics.com">http://forums.matronics.com
href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List">http://www.
m
atronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List
href="http://forums.matronics.com">http://forums.matronics.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Michael Ice <aurbo(at)ak.net> |
Frank,
Yes, I think that is part of the problem for me. I keep trying to relate these
mags to the old style and it just doesn't work. But trying to erase many years
of old and replacing it with new. Maybe it is age related.
Thanks for your comments.
Mike
----- Original Message -----
From: "Hinde, Frank George (Corvallis)" <frank.hinde(at)hp.com>
Date: Wednesday, August 15, 2007 9:42 am
Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Emag Wiring
> Yes the confusion is....The P lead is NOT the ground but when you do
> ground the Plead it kills the engine. You UN-Ground the P lead to
> allowthe engine to run.
>
> The E/Pmag still needs a power supply and any power supply
> consists of a
> +12V feed and a ground.
>
> Thats why there are two grounds shown...terminal 1 is the power ground
> that has to be permanently connected to provide power to the unit.
>
> Frank
>
> RV 7a Pmag/Emag
>
> ________________________________
>
> From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of
> David& Elaine Lamphere
> Sent: Wednesday, August 15, 2007 9:43 AM
> To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
> Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Emag Wiring
>
>
> Ok, here we go... page 20 in my documentation has pin 1 connected to
> engine case. Since the case is connected to the ground bus via a nice
> 4-8 gage flexible braided wire, it sure seems to me it's a main
> ground.
> Yes, pin 4 is the P-lead (kill switch) - this is to be connected
> to the
> ignition switch pin (L or R) where you would normally connect a
> mag.
>
> Notice that pin 5 is connected to +13.8vdc. This is what I would call
> main DC power.
>
> It really is very simple...
>
> Dave
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Michael T. Ice <mailto:aurbo(at)ak.net>
> To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
> Sent: Wednesday, August 15, 2007 10:02 AM
> Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Emag Wiring
>
> Dave,
>
> Thanks for the post. On the diagram I have there is no lead
> labeled Main ground, there is one labeled to ground on engine
> case. Is
> this one your calling the main ground? If so then I agree with you
> thatthe power and main ground are separate leads.
>
> In the instructions that I have for the e/p mags there is a
> diagram that shows the wiring sequence. On that diagram it shows a
> wirefrom the connector plug #4 that is labeled P-lead (Kill
> Switch). The
> other end of this wire shows that it is a ground with the same symbol
> used with the wire that goes to connector plug #1.
>
> Perhaps yours is different?
>
> Once again I am not putting down e/p mags. I just think (maybe
> wrongly) that there is some come confusion as to how to wire these
> mags.And perhaps I am the only one that is confused, wouldn't be
> the first
> time.
>
> Mike
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: David & Elaine Lamphere <mailto:lamphere(at)vabb.com>
>
> To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
> Sent: Wednesday, August 15, 2007 3:05 AM
> Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Emag Wiring
>
> Mike,
>
> Unless I have misunderstood the literature that came
> with my PMag and Emag, the "P-Lead" is used as a control signal to the
> ignition controller circuitry to shut off spark when it is
> grounded. It
> is NOT the main ground to the unit. The power and main ground are
> separate leads.
>
> Dave
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Michael T. Ice <mailto:aurbo(at)ak.net>
> To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
> Sent: Tuesday, August 14, 2007 11:45 PM
> Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Emag Wiring
>
> Peter,
>
> Forgive me but I am trying to understand your
> sequence of events for checking the p-mag. Perhaps it is semantics but
> let me get this straight at least to me.
>
> 1. turn off the p-lead (so the mag is grounded
> or ungrounded? Emag says to use the P leads as kill switches)
>
> 2. Then turn off the switched breaker ( so now
> there is no ground and no power? I imagine the engine might run rough
> unless the other P-mag is doing the duty of both, I suspect it could)
>
> Emag says if the engine starts to quit, don't
> reapply power to the mag. They say to let the engine stop and let the
> ignition fully power down.
>
> Again, I am not doubting you I am just trying to
> clear up some confusing (perhaps only to me) issues.
>
> Thanks for your help in this issue.
>
> Mike
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Peter Pengilly
>
> To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
> Sent: Tuesday, August 14, 2007 10:35 AM
> Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Emag
> Wiring
>
> Stan,
>
> I have been running an E-mag for 3 years
> and have also swapped in a P-mag at times. My view is the best way to
> wire a P-mag is to route the power via a switched breaker, that
> minimizes the number of connections. If ship's power is shut off
> to a
> P-mag whose generator is not working, then the P-mag will act like an
> E-mag and will not work. If you turn off the p-lead switch to the
> othermag, the engine will quit. There is no magic here, 2 P-mags are
> completely independent of each other. Checking both generators is
> relatively easy, during the run up use the p-lead switch to stop one
> P-mag from generating sparks, note the rpm drop (there will be
> one); now
> turn off the switched breaker (thereby shutting off ship's power
> to the
> P-mag), if the engine continues to run at the same rpm then all is
> well.If the engine falters or runs roughly all is not well and the
> generatoris suspect. Turn the switched breaker back on and repeat
> on the other
> P-mag. I've never had a problem with the generator and would recommend
> anyone considering an E/P-mag to buy a P-mag. With 2 P-mags fitted the
> failure of one generator is no big deal as the battery will keep the
> ignition running if the ship's alternator were to fail.
>
> The P-mag generator does not produce
> current all of the time (so E-magair tell me), only when the bus
> voltagefalls below a pre-set level. The P-mag will use the highest
> voltagesource available. I don't consider that a warning light
> showing P-mag
> generator failure will be worthwhile when a ground check will provide
> the same information and it is not a critical failure that requires
> immediate attention.
>
> To answer your specific questions,
>
> I am wondering (and I need to contact
> Emagair) if there will be any indication of one internal Pmag
> alternatorfailure when running two Pmags on their internal
> alternators.
>
> No, there is no indication. Each P-mag
> doesn't know (and doesn't care) the other is there.
>
> For example, when I'm doing the mag
> check with 14V power removed and both Pmags are running on internal
> alternators, if I turn off the p-lead switch to one Pmag (that
> Pmag is
> now totally inoperative), will there be an RPM drop or other
> indicationthat the chosen Pmag is not working?
>
> Best not to remove ship's power from
> both P-mags at once, switch off power in turn when the p-lead
> switch is
> turned off. If the P-mag internal alternator is failed and ship's
> poweris removed the engine will quit if the other mag's p-lead is
> switchedoff.
>
> Even if there is no indication, I still
> intend to do the check because if one internal alternator has failed,
> then the only way to know may be to switch each Pmag completely
> off and
> check for continued operation on one internal alternator.
>
> There will be, and yes, your right, but
> you have to do each in turn.
>
> I hope this helps, regards, Peter
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From:
> owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of
> Speedy11(at)aol.com
> Sent: 14 August 2007 17:05
> To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
> Subject: AeroElectric-List: Emag Wiring
>
> Mike,
> Since you invited comment, I will.
>
> I haven't asked them, but I suspect the
> Emag guys want to limit the variables as much as possible at this
> juncture in their progress. They are working out the bugs in
> their new
> system and adding other wiring methods to the mix doesn't help them
> resolve problems. If I were in their position, I would recommend
> builders use only the company recommended wiring procedure and if the
> builder deviates from that recommendation then the builder should not
> expect Emag assistance to resolve problems. I believe that would
> not be
> unreasonable. I believe that would be true of any company selling a
> product - if the buyer deviates from recommended installation,
> then the
> company cannot assist.
>
> I have two Pmags (haven't run the engine
> yet) and I am wiring them with two hidden 3A switched circuit breakers
> to provide power from the bus and two panel-mounted p-lead
> switches. I
> wired it this way because the Emag installation manual says "You can
> check the internal alternator operation on the P model during run-up
> (900+ rpm) by switching to the P model ignition and cutting 12 volt
> power (not the p-lead switch) at the breaker."
>
> I hesitate to deviate from the factory
> recommended wiring procedure - despite Bob's depth of knowledge and
> recommended technique. Even Bob often says contact the
> manufacturer and
> follow their recommendations.
>
> I am wondering (and I need to contact
> Emagair) if there will be any indication of one internal Pmag
> alternatorfailure when running two Pmags on their internal
> alternators. For
> example, when I'm doing the mag check with 14V power removed and both
> Pmags are running on internal alternators, if I turn off the p-lead
> switch to one Pmag (that Pmag is now totally inoperative), will
> there be
> an RPM drop or other indication that the chosen Pmag is not working?
> Even if there is no indication, I still
> intend to do the check because if one internal alternator has failed,
> then the only way to know may be to switch each Pmag completely
> off and
> check for continued operation on one internal alternator.
>
> Experimental aviation is challenging.
> Fortunately, the original OBAM builders (the Wright brothers)
> succeededwith each challenge. Surely we can, too.
>
> Off subject - I assume from your comment
> re:seminar that you live in Alaska. My son in moving to AK in
> spring of
> next year to fly the F-22 and we are looking for a Piper Pacer to
> put on
> floats. Any leads?
>
> Stan Sutterfield
> www.rv-8a.net
>
> Erich,
>
> I had the pleasure of attending Bob's
> seminar this past weekend and I asked him
> about this very same issue.
>
> First the caveat. I am not an engineer
> and don't claim to know a whole lot about
> electrical theory or application. What I
> am is curious and I do have an E and
> a P/mag.
>
> After reading everything I can get my
> hands on and studying the Z figures Z-13
> and Z-33 for the Maintenance hand prop
> option I can detect only subtle differences.
>
> Emag powers the mags directly from the
> main bus, so when you turn on the master
> there is power at the mags. The switches
> on the panel for the emags are for P-lead
> kill switches. To do maintenance
> (timing) all you have to do is turn on
> the master and leave the panel switch
> off. But to check the alternator part of
> the P-Mag you have to put a separate
> switch in line with the power supply to
> the mag. When you do a run up check, you
> turn this switch off and if all is well
> the motor keeps on humming.
>
> Bob's design has the power go to a
> switch first. The positions on the switch are
> down is off, middle is for internal
> power, up is for ships power. In the Z-33
> schematic you then have to add a switch
> (and possibly a light) to be able to
> cut the P-lead so you can do maintenance
> (Timing). So to do the internal alternator
> check all you have to do is flick the
> switch to the middle position and
> if all is well you can't tell the
> difference.
>
> So what's the big difference. Both
> systems use 3 switches. Both systems do the
> same thing just in slightly different
> ways.
>
> Personally I can see an advantage in the
> Emag system where each mag has it's own
> P-lead ground kill switch. Starting
> sequence should be pretty easy. Master on,
> both switches in the up position, mash
> the start button.
>
> But I am a confirmed Nuckoll's advocate
> and I want to see what he has to say about
> this. He is still here in Alaska and
> touring around visiting the sights. He
> has assured me that when he gets back he
> will dig into this and provide help.
>
> I have sent an email to Emagair asking
> the same questions. Open dialog on this
> question can only help us and Emagair
> greatly.
>
> I have not personally heard from the
> guys at Emagair nor have I read anything directly
> from them concerning this issue. Until I
> do I will keep an open mind.
>
>
> Perhaps this issue is a non-event and
> some of the problems stem from us folks in
> the field still trying to make these new
> mags act like the old style. For instance
> how can you perform a mag drop check if
> there isn't one. Perhaps the answer
> is who cares. I don't know but I am sure
> interested in how this turns out.
>
> Please comment at will. Any dialog is
> appreciated.
>
> Mike Ice
>
>
>
>
>
> ________________________________
>
> <http://discover.aol.com/memed/aolcom30tour/?ncid=AOLAOF00020000000982>
> .
>
>
>
> href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-
> List">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List
>
> href="http://forums.matronics.com">http://forums.matronics.com
>
>
>
>
>
> href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-
> List">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List
>
> href="http://forums.matronics.com">http://forums.matronics.com
>
>
>
>
>
> href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-
> List">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List
>
> href="http://forums.matronics.com">http://forums.matronics.com
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Michael Ice <aurbo(at)ak.net> |
Dave,
Thanks for the clarification. Words often times confuse the issue. Now we are on
the same page. I agree with your statements. Thank you.
My troubles stem from trying to mix two wiring systems together and they don't
mix well. So I believe it is best (for me) to follow the Emag wizards and their
reccomendations to the letter.
One again thanks for helping to clear the fog.
Mike
----- Original Message -----
From: David & Elaine Lamphere <lamphere(at)vabb.com>
Date: Wednesday, August 15, 2007 8:46 am
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Emag Wiring
> Ok, here we go... page 20 in my documentation has pin 1 connected
> to engine case. Since the case is connected to the ground bus via
> a nice 4-8 gage flexible braided wire, it sure seems to me it's a
> main ground.
>
> Yes, pin 4 is the P-lead (kill switch) - this is to be connected
> to the ignition switch pin (L or R) where you would normally
> connect a mag.
>
> Notice that pin 5 is connected to +13.8vdc. This is what I would
> call main DC power.
>
> It really is very simple...
>
> Dave
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Michael T. Ice
> To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
> Sent: Wednesday, August 15, 2007 10:02 AM
> Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Emag Wiring
>
>
> Dave,
>
> Thanks for the post. On the diagram I have there is no lead
> labeled Main ground, there is one labeled to ground on engine
> case. Is this one your calling the main ground? If so then I agree
> with you that the power and main ground are separate leads.
>
> In the instructions that I have for the e/p mags there is a
> diagram that shows the wiring sequence. On that diagram it shows a
> wire from the connector plug #4 that is labeled P-lead (Kill
> Switch). The other end of this wire shows that it is a ground with
> the same symbol used with the wire that goes to connector plug #1.
>
> Perhaps yours is different?
>
> Once again I am not putting down e/p mags. I just think (maybe
> wrongly) that there is some come confusion as to how to wire these
> mags. And perhaps I am the only one that is confused, wouldn't be
> the first time.
>
> Mike
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: David & Elaine Lamphere
> To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
> Sent: Wednesday, August 15, 2007 3:05 AM
> Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Emag Wiring
>
>
> Mike,
>
> Unless I have misunderstood the literature that came with my
> PMag and Emag, the "P-Lead" is used as a control signal to the
> ignition controller circuitry to shut off spark when it is
> grounded. It is NOT the main ground to the unit. The power and
> main ground are separate leads.
>
> Dave
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Michael T. Ice
> To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
> Sent: Tuesday, August 14, 2007 11:45 PM
> Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Emag Wiring
>
>
> Peter,
>
> Forgive me but I am trying to understand your sequence of
> events for checking the p-mag. Perhaps it is semantics but let me
> get this straight at least to me.
>
> 1. turn off the p-lead (so the mag is grounded or
> ungrounded? Emag says to use the P leads as kill switches)
>
> 2. Then turn off the switched breaker ( so now there is no
> ground and no power? I imagine the engine might run rough unless
> the other P-mag is doing the duty of both, I suspect it could)
>
> Emag says if the engine starts to quit, don't reapply power
> to the mag. They say to let the engine stop and let the ignition
> fully power down.
>
> Again, I am not doubting you I am just trying to clear up
> some confusing (perhaps only to me) issues.
>
> Thanks for your help in this issue.
>
> Mike
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Peter Pengilly
> To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
> Sent: Tuesday, August 14, 2007 10:35 AM
> Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Emag Wiring
>
>
> Stan,
>
>
>
> I have been running an E-mag for 3 years and have also
> swapped in a P-mag at times. My view is the best way to wire a P-
> mag is to route the power via a switched breaker, that minimizes
> the number of connections. If ship's power is shut off to a P-mag
> whose generator is not working, then the P-mag will act like an E-
> mag and will not work. If you turn off the p-lead switch to the
> other mag, the engine will quit. There is no magic here, 2 P-mags
> are completely independent of each other. Checking both generators
> is relatively easy, during the run up use the p-lead switch to
> stop one P-mag from generating sparks, note the rpm drop (there
> will be one); now turn off the switched breaker (thereby shutting
> off ship's power to the P-mag), if the engine continues to run at
> the same rpm then all is well. If the engine falters or runs
> roughly all is not well and the generator is suspect. Turn the
> switched breaker back on and repeat on the other P-mag. I've never
> had a problem with the generator and would recommend anyone
> considering an E/P-mag to buy a P-mag. With 2 P-mags fitted the
> failure of one generator is no big deal as the battery will keep
> the ignition running if the ship's alternator were to fail.
>
>
>
> The P-mag generator does not produce current all of the
> time (so E-magair tell me), only when the bus voltage falls below
> a pre-set level. The P-mag will use the highest voltage source
> available. I don't consider that a warning light showing P-mag
> generator failure will be worthwhile when a ground check will
> provide the same information and it is not a critical failure that
> requires immediate attention.
>
>
>
> To answer your specific questions,
>
>
>
> I am wondering (and I need to contact Emagair) if there
> will be any indication of one internal Pmag alternator failure
> when running two Pmags on their internal alternators.
>
>
>
> No, there is no indication. Each P-mag doesn't know (and
> doesn't care) the other is there.
>
>
>
> For example, when I'm doing the mag check with 14V power
> removed and both Pmags are running on internal alternators, if I
> turn off the p-lead switch to one Pmag (that Pmag is now totally
> inoperative), will there be an RPM drop or other indication that
> the chosen Pmag is not working?
>
>
>
> Best not to remove ship's power from both P-mags at once,
> switch off power in turn when the p-lead switch is turned off. If
> the P-mag internal alternator is failed and ship's power is
> removed the engine will quit if the other mag's p-lead is switched
> off.
>
>
> Even if there is no indication, I still intend to do the
> check because if one internal alternator has failed, then the only
> way to know may be to switch each Pmag completely off and check
> for continued operation on one internal alternator.
>
>
>
> There will be, and yes, your right, but you have to do
> each in turn.
>
>
>
> I hope this helps, regards, Peter
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of
> Speedy11(at)aol.com Sent: 14 August 2007 17:05
> To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
> Subject: AeroElectric-List: Emag Wiring
>
>
>
> Mike,
>
> Since you invited comment, I will.
>
>
>
> I haven't asked them, but I suspect the Emag guys want to
> limit the variables as much as possible at this juncture in their
> progress. They are working out the bugs in their new system and
> adding other wiring methods to the mix doesn't help them resolve
> problems. If I were in their position, I would recommend builders
> use only the company recommended wiring procedure and if the
> builder deviates from that recommendation then the builder should
> not expect Emag assistance to resolve problems. I believe that
> would not be unreasonable. I believe that would be true of any
> company selling a product - if the buyer deviates from recommended
> installation, then the company cannot assist.
>
>
>
> I have two Pmags (haven't run the engine yet) and I am
> wiring them with two hidden 3A switched circuit breakers to
> provide power from the bus and two panel-mounted p-lead switches.
> I wired it this way because the Emag installation manual says "You
> can check the internal alternator operation on the P model during
> run-up (900+ rpm) by switching to the P model ignition and cutting
> 12 volt power (not the p-lead switch) at the breaker."
>
>
>
> I hesitate to deviate from the factory recommended wiring
> procedure - despite Bob's depth of knowledge and recommended
> technique. Even Bob often says contact the manufacturer and
> follow their recommendations.
>
>
>
> I am wondering (and I need to contact Emagair) if there
> will be any indication of one internal Pmag alternator failure
> when running two Pmags on their internal alternators. For
> example, when I'm doing the mag check with 14V power removed and
> both Pmags are running on internal alternators, if I turn off the
> p-lead switch to one Pmag (that Pmag is now totally inoperative),
> will there be an RPM drop or other indication that the chosen Pmag
> is not working?
>
> Even if there is no indication, I still intend to do the
> check because if one internal alternator has failed, then the only
> way to know may be to switch each Pmag completely off and check
> for continued operation on one internal alternator.
>
>
>
> Experimental aviation is challenging. Fortunately, the
> original OBAM builders (the Wright brothers) succeeded with each
> challenge. Surely we can, too.
>
>
>
> Off subject - I assume from your comment re:seminar that
> you live in Alaska. My son in moving to AK in spring of next year
> to fly the F-22 and we are looking for a Piper Pacer to put on
> floats. Any leads?
>
>
>
> Stan Sutterfield
>
> www.rv-8a.net
>
>
>
> Erich,
>
> I had the pleasure of attending Bob's seminar this past
> weekend and I asked him
> about this very same issue.
>
> First the caveat. I am not an engineer and don't claim
> to know a whole lot about
> electrical theory or application. What I am is curious
> and I do have an E and
> a P/mag.
>
> After reading everything I can get my hands on and
> studying the Z figures Z-13
> and Z-33 for the Maintenance hand prop option I can
> detect only subtle differences.
>
> Emag powers the mags directly from the main bus, so when
> you turn on the master
> there is power at the mags. The switches on the panel
> for the emags are for P-lead
> kill switches. To do maintenance (timing) all you have
> to do is turn on
> the master and leave the panel switch off. But to check
> the alternator part of
> the P-Mag you have to put a separate switch in line with
> the power supply to
> the mag. When you do a run up check, you turn this
> switch off and if all is well
> the motor keeps on humming.
>
> Bob's design has the power go to a switch first. The
> positions on the switch are
> down is off, middle is for internal power, up is for
> ships power. In the Z-33
> schematic you then have to add a switch (and possibly a
> light) to be able to
> cut the P-lead so you can do maintenance (Timing). So to
> do the internal alternator
> check all you have to do is flick the switch to the
> middle position and
> if all is well you can't tell the difference.
>
> So what's the big difference. Both systems use 3
> switches. Both systems do the
> same thing just in slightly different ways.
>
> Personally I can see an advantage in the Emag system
> where each mag has it's own
> P-lead ground kill switch. Starting sequence should be
> pretty easy. Master on,
> both switches in the up position, mash the start button.
>
> But I am a confirmed Nuckoll's advocate and I want to
> see what he has to say about
> this. He is still here in Alaska and touring around
> visiting the sights. He
> has assured me that when he gets back he will dig into
> this and provide help.
>
> I have sent an email to Emagair asking the same
> questions. Open dialog on this
> question can only help us and Emagair greatly.
>
> I have not personally heard from the guys at Emagair nor
> have I read anything directly
> from them concerning this issue. Until I do I will keep
> an open mind.
>
>
> Perhaps this issue is a non-event and some of the
> problems stem from us folks in
> the field still trying to make these new mags act like
> the old style. For instance
> how can you perform a mag drop check if there isn't one.
> Perhaps the answer
> is who cares. I don't know but I am sure interested in
> how this turns out.
>
> Please comment at will. Any dialog is appreciated.
>
> Mike Ice
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> -------------------------------------------------------------------
> -----
>
>
>
>
> href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-
> List">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List
> href="http://forums.matronics.com">http://forums.matronics.com
>
>
>
> href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-
> List">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List
> href="http://forums.matronics.com">http://forums.matronics.com
>
>
>
> href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-
> List">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List
> href="http://forums.matronics.com">http://forums.matronics.com
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Michael Ice <aurbo(at)ak.net> |
Peter,
Thanks for the list. Clear as a bell now.
I think I would do as you suggest and not check the P-mag internal alternator every
flight either.
How many hours do you have on your P-mags? Any troubles?
Mike
----- Original Message -----
From: Peter Pengilly <peter(at)sportingaero.com>
Date: Wednesday, August 15, 2007 9:25 am
Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Emag Wiring
> Mike,
>
> I could probably have written a little more clearly. The object is to
> get one P-mag running on its internal generator (by removing busbar
> power), then cycle the other mag/P-mag to find out if the engine still
> runs (I wrote it the other way around). If the engine runs, the
> generator is good, if it does not generator is bad.
>
> So, probably the best sequence is
>
> 1. Carry out normal mag drop check to deduce "normal" mag drop.
> Bear in mind there will always be an rpm drop when only a P/E-mag is
> running, but that drop won't be as large as when only a magneto is
> running.
> 2. Shut off busbar power to one P-mag
> 3. Switch off/ground other mag/P-mag (so it is not producing
> sparks)
> 4. Observe engine behaviour. Rpm drop as in 1 above = everything
> working fine, other results require investigation.
> 5. Restore switches to normal positions if generator is working
> fine
> 6. Repeat procedure from 2 above for other P-mag, if fitted.
>
> I don't check the P-mag generator every flight.
>
> Hope this is a little more clear.
>
> Peter
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of
> Michael T. Ice
> Sent: 15 August 2007 04:45
> To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
> Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Emag Wiring
>
> Peter,
>
> Forgive me but I am trying to understand your sequence of events for
> checking the p-mag. Perhaps it is semantics but let me get this
> straightat least to me.
>
> 1. turn off the p-lead (so the mag is grounded or ungrounded? Emag
> saysto use the P leads as kill switches)
>
> 2. Then turn off the switched breaker ( so now there is no ground
> and no
> power? I imagine the engine might run rough unless the other P-mag is
> doing the duty of both, I suspect it could)
>
> Emag says if the engine starts to quit, don't reapply power to the
> mag.They say to let the engine stop and let the ignition fully
> power down.
>
> Again, I am not doubting you I am just trying to clear up some
> confusing(perhaps only to me) issues.
>
> Thanks for your help in this issue.
>
> Mike
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Peter Pengilly <mailto:peter(at)sportingaero.com>
> To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
> Sent: Tuesday, August 14, 2007 10:35 AM
> Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Emag Wiring
>
> Stan,
>
> I have been running an E-mag for 3 years and have also swapped in a
> P-mag at times. My view is the best way to wire a P-mag is to
> route the
> power via a switched breaker, that minimizes the number of
> connections.If ship's power is shut off to a P-mag whose generator
> is not working,
> then the P-mag will act like an E-mag and will not work. If you
> turn off
> the p-lead switch to the other mag, the engine will quit. There is no
> magic here, 2 P-mags are completely independent of each other.
> Checkingboth generators is relatively easy, during the run up use
> the p-lead
> switch to stop one P-mag from generating sparks, note the rpm drop
> (there will be one); now turn off the switched breaker (thereby
> shuttingoff ship's power to the P-mag), if the engine continues to
> run at the
> same rpm then all is well. If the engine falters or runs roughly
> all is
> not well and the generator is suspect. Turn the switched breaker
> back on
> and repeat on the other P-mag. I've never had a problem with the
> generator and would recommend anyone considering an E/P-mag to buy a
> P-mag. With 2 P-mags fitted the failure of one generator is no big
> dealas the battery will keep the ignition running if the ship's
> alternatorwere to fail.
>
> The P-mag generator does not produce current all of the time (so
> E-magair tell me), only when the bus voltage falls below a pre-set
> level. The P-mag will use the highest voltage source available. I
> don'tconsider that a warning light showing P-mag generator failure
> will be
> worthwhile when a ground check will provide the same information
> and it
> is not a critical failure that requires immediate attention.
>
> To answer your specific questions,
>
> I am wondering (and I need to contact Emagair) if there will be any
> indication of one internal Pmag alternator failure when running two
> Pmags on their internal alternators.
>
> No, there is no indication. Each P-mag doesn't know (and doesn't care)
> the other is there.
>
> For example, when I'm doing the mag check with 14V power removed and
> both Pmags are running on internal alternators, if I turn off the
> p-lead
> switch to one Pmag (that Pmag is now totally inoperative), will
> there be
> an RPM drop or other indication that the chosen Pmag is not working?
>
> Best not to remove ship's power from both P-mags at once, switch off
> power in turn when the p-lead switch is turned off. If the P-mag
> internal alternator is failed and ship's power is removed the engine
> will quit if the other mag's p-lead is switched off.
>
> Even if there is no indication, I still intend to do the check because
> if one internal alternator has failed, then the only way to know
> may be
> to switch each Pmag completely off and check for continued
> operation on
> one internal alternator.
>
> There will be, and yes, your right, but you have to do each in turn.
>
> I hope this helps, regards, Peter
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of
> Speedy11(at)aol.com
> Sent: 14 August 2007 17:05
> To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
> Subject: AeroElectric-List: Emag Wiring
>
> Mike,
> Since you invited comment, I will.
>
> I haven't asked them, but I suspect the Emag guys want to limit the
> variables as much as possible at this juncture in their progress.
> Theyare working out the bugs in their new system and adding other
> wiringmethods to the mix doesn't help them resolve problems. If I
> were in
> their position, I would recommend builders use only the company
> recommended wiring procedure and if the builder deviates from that
> recommendation then the builder should not expect Emag assistance to
> resolve problems. I believe that would not be unreasonable. I
> believethat would be true of any company selling a product - if
> the buyer
> deviates from recommended installation, then the company cannot
> assist.
> I have two Pmags (haven't run the engine yet) and I am wiring them
> withtwo hidden 3A switched circuit breakers to provide power from
> the bus
> and two panel-mounted p-lead switches. I wired it this way
> because the
> Emag installation manual says "You can check the internal alternator
> operation on the P model during run-up (900+ rpm) by switching to
> the P
> model ignition and cutting 12 volt power (not the p-lead switch)
> at the
> breaker."
>
> I hesitate to deviate from the factory recommended wiring
> procedure -
> despite Bob's depth of knowledge and recommended technique. Even Bob
> often says contact the manufacturer and follow their recommendations.
>
> I am wondering (and I need to contact Emagair) if there will be any
> indication of one internal Pmag alternator failure when running two
> Pmags on their internal alternators. For example, when I'm doing the
> mag check with 14V power removed and both Pmags are running on
> internalalternators, if I turn off the p-lead switch to one Pmag
> (that Pmag is
> now totally inoperative), will there be an RPM drop or other
> indicationthat the chosen Pmag is not working?
> Even if there is no indication, I still intend to do the check because
> if one internal alternator has failed, then the only way to know
> may be
> to switch each Pmag completely off and check for continued
> operation on
> one internal alternator.
>
> Experimental aviation is challenging. Fortunately, the original OBAM
> builders (the Wright brothers) succeeded with each challenge.
> Surely we
> can, too.
>
> Off subject - I assume from your comment re:seminar that you live in
> Alaska. My son in moving to AK in spring of next year to fly the
> F-22
> and we are looking for a Piper Pacer to put on floats. Any leads?
>
> Stan Sutterfield
> www.rv-8a.net
>
> Erich,
>
> I had the pleasure of attending Bob's seminar this past weekend
> and I
> asked him
> about this very same issue.
>
> First the caveat. I am not an engineer and don't claim to know a whole
> lot about
> electrical theory or application. What I am is curious and I do
> have an
> E and
> a P/mag.
>
> After reading everything I can get my hands on and studying the Z
> figures Z-13
> and Z-33 for the Maintenance hand prop option I can detect only subtle
> differences.
>
> Emag powers the mags directly from the main bus, so when you turn
> on the
> master
> there is power at the mags. The switches on the panel for the
> emags are
> for P-lead
> kill switches. To do maintenance (timing) all you have to do is
> turn on
> the master and leave the panel switch off. But to check the alternator
> part of
> the P-Mag you have to put a separate switch in line with the power
> supply to
> the mag. When you do a run up check, you turn this switch off and
> if all
> is well
> the motor keeps on humming.
>
> Bob's design has the power go to a switch first. The positions on the
> switch are
> down is off, middle is for internal power, up is for ships power.
> In the
> Z-33
> schematic you then have to add a switch (and possibly a light) to be
> able to
> cut the P-lead so you can do maintenance (Timing). So to do the
> internalalternator
> check all you have to do is flick the switch to the middle
> position and
> if all is well you can't tell the difference.
>
> So what's the big difference. Both systems use 3 switches. Both
> systemsdo the
> same thing just in slightly different ways.
>
> Personally I can see an advantage in the Emag system where each
> mag has
> it's own
> P-lead ground kill switch. Starting sequence should be pretty easy.
> Master on,
> both switches in the up position, mash the start button.
>
> But I am a confirmed Nuckoll's advocate and I want to see what he
> has to
> say about
> this. He is still here in Alaska and touring around visiting the
> sights.He
> has assured me that when he gets back he will dig into this and
> providehelp.
>
> I have sent an email to Emagair asking the same questions. Open dialog
> on this
> question can only help us and Emagair greatly.
>
> I have not personally heard from the guys at Emagair nor have I read
> anything directly
> from them concerning this issue. Until I do I will keep an open mind.
>
>
> Perhaps this issue is a non-event and some of the problems stem
> from us
> folks in
> the field still trying to make these new mags act like the old style.
> For instance
> how can you perform a mag drop check if there isn't one. Perhaps the
> answer
> is who cares. I don't know but I am sure interested in how this turns
> out.
>
> Please comment at will. Any dialog is appreciated.
>
> Mike Ice
>
>
>
>
>
> _____
>
> <http://discover.aol.com/memed/aolcom30tour/?ncid=AOLAOF00020000000982>
> .
>
>
> href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-
> List">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List
> href="http://forums.matronics.com">http://forums.matronics.com
>
>
>
> href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-
> List">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List
> href="http://forums.matronics.com">http://forums.matronics.com
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Nav/com 'acoustic feedback' |
| From: | "Matt Prather" <mprather(at)spro.net> |
I'm still not sure whether it's electrical noise or acoustic noise - since
covering the mic has some effect on the behavior. If it were just
acoustic, covering the mic should stop the noise. More questions:
- Is the acoustic squelch on the intercom adjustable? Can you set the
threshold higher? Maybe pulling out the volume knob and turning it
adjusts that? Or is it dynamic/smart adjusting?
- What kind of engine is it?
- Does it have separate ignition systems? Can you turn one off at a time
(to help isolate electrical noise)?
- Can you turn the alternator off with the engine running?
- You probably answered this before, but with the engine off, does the
intercom appear to work properly? Speaking in the mic on one headset
yields sound coming from the other headset - using the radio sidetone?
- Are you able to transmit/receiver properly when the engine is off?
- Are the mic leads made with shielded wire?
- Do other aspects of the electrical system all appear to function
normally - bus voltage, nav signals, etc?
Bob often recommends powering from a separate battery the piece(s) of
equipment that are involved in the problem. A couple of lantern batteries
could be used to power the radio while the engine is running.. If that
has any effect on the noise, it indicates that the problem is conducted to
the radio via the power bus.
What would be slick for this kind of online debug process would be to have
an online spreadsheet or form which could be used to document the problem,
behaviors, and the things that have been tried in order to fix it.. Have
to ponder that a bit.
Regards,
Matt-
> 1. The radio is a Bendix/King KX155
> 2. It is approximately 1 year old. Don't know the model # but could find
> out
> 3. It definately has an internal intercom but i've no links to describe it
> 4. I didn't check whether the sound varied depending on where your
> head/headset is sitting, or by
> bending the wires around on the headset, or the wires to the jack but it
> occurred with 3 separate headsets and on both pilot and co-pilot outputs.
> Pretty sure its not a headset problem as same headsets work fine in other
> planes
> 5. The noise gets worse with higher engine RPM but is very obvious even at
> 1000 RPM. The character doesn't change - just its loudness
> Many thanks
> Frank
>
> ________________________________
>
> From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com on behalf of Matt
> Prather
> Sent: Mon 13/08/2007 22:29
> To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
> Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Nav/com 'acoustic feedback'
>
>
>
>
> Interesting.. I wasn't aware that any KX155 has intercom. Okay. I see
> the manual says it has 500ohm aux inputs, but don't see any reference to
> intercom. We're talking about a Bendix/King KX-155, right? Do you have a
> link to a file which describes the feature?
>
> Does the sound vary depending on where your head/headset is sitting, or by
> bending the wires around on the headset, or the wires to the jack?
>
> Is the frequency of the whine/feedback dependent on the engine RPM? Or is
> it just a steady tone?
>
> I agree with item 3 (assuming an intercom).
>
>
> Regards,
>
> Matt-
>
>
>> Matt
>> 1. When i cover the mic with my hand (muff off) the character of the
>> feedback alters significantly but is not overall reduced. If i move the
>> boom away from my mouth and around to the back of my head then the
>> feedback reduces but doesn't disappear. Its worse (louder) the closer
>> the
>> boom to my mouth. These symptoms occur on both left and right hand
>> headsets
>> 2. My KX155 has an internal intercom. I haven't tried to disconnect it.
>> 3. Plugging in the mic jack should activate the intercom and the
>> transmit
>> on the radio (when PTT pressed)
>> 4. Remember the problem only occurs when the engine is running.
>> 5. Does anyone know how to adjust the mic gain (intercom volume control)
>> on the KX155? Couldn't find this info in the installation manual.
>> Kind regards
>> Frank
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ________________________________
>>
>> From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com on behalf of Matt
>> Prather
>> Sent: Mon 13/08/2007 20:12
>> To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
>> Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Nav/com 'acoustic feedback'
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Does it help if you cover the mic with your hand (both sides - pull the
>> muff off)?
>>
>> I suspect that the input stage of your intercom is being overdriven by
>> the
>> acoustic noise of the engine.
>>
>>
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> Matt-
>>
>>> Thanks for your comments Ernest.
>>> I've double-checked all the grounds i could find. Even took the whole
>>> harness out (which was new) and had it double-checked. Nothing found.
>>> If its the intercom in the radio why does it not cause the same problem
>>> when the engine is off?
>>> It only causes the problem when the engine is running
>>> Kind regards
>>> Frank
>>>
>>> ________________________________
>>>
>>> From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com on behalf of Ernest
August 01, 2007 - August 15, 2007
AeroElectric-Archive.digest.vol-hc